PDA

View Full Version : So, what should 5e do with the Wizard, anyway?



Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-19, 09:02 AM
A sister thread to the other discussions in the DDN threads.

As for me, I don't have a specific outline of what I want, but here are a few salient points:

- Vancian magic can go die in a fire. Yes, I know they're not getting rid of it now, but still, one can only hope. I guess my real suggestion if Vancian magic must stick around is that wizards have 10 + INT mod spell slots, regardless of their level. Wizard level just raises maximum spell level that can be prepared, rather than increasing spell slots.

- Unified spell mechanics. Seriously, we don't need both spell attack rolls and saving throws. Pick one. Personally, I prefer 4e's attacker-always-rolls approach.

- Solve spell bloat by printing fewer, more general spells. Offer an equivalent to metamagic or augmentation instead of printing variant spells.

- The target for wizards should be T3, never T4. A wizard uses their magic to solve a wide variety of problems. If they're a one-trick pony, regardless of how useful that trick is, they're not a wizard.

- In keeping with that, I'd like to see the generalist wizard stick around. You sometimes see suggestions to the effect of "Wizards should pick one school, then only ever be allowed to cast from that one school." This could work, but the schools would need to be broadened a great deal. Divination would need to get offensive spells, for instance. However, I think just letting wizards have access to more than one school is the more elegant solution here.

Ashdate
2012-07-19, 09:28 AM
I agree with most of your points, although if there is some sort of plan to have "at-will" attack powers (and I mean ones that are actually balanced to be used "at-will", meaning a magic missile that doesn't scale, and nothing as powerful as Ray of Frost) then I'm okay with an "expanding" spell list, as long as the spells drop in power over their 2e/3.5e counterparts drastically (by at least 50%).

I also think if they really want "ability saving throws" (ugh) that spells can target them. Follow 4e's example and make the target DC always 10. Spells attacking a monster's AC is just plain weird.

If you wanted to do "specialist wizard" model over a "generalist" one, I would suggest redefining the spells so that they had more than one school. That way you could have less spells overall, but allow (for example) both Transmutation and Enchantment wizards access to a spell like Haste.

7RED7
2012-07-19, 09:40 AM
So, what should 5e do with the Wizard, anyway?
Yes.

I really want to see them make something functional out of the module concept, and design it to accommodate individual use of modules. Instead of just swapping out the vancian magic rules for a module of 4e style rules I would love to see a party that has two wizards where one plays something very much like the 3.5 wizard (or even just the standard wizard in the playtest, which I liked), and the other plays a more 4e style wizard with at-will, encounter, and daily abilities (One of my players has become a die-hard 4e fan, and hated the vancian nature of the spells).

I want the DM to say I'm using the basic rules and these modules for the environments and NPCs I control, and the players say "Okay, I'm using these modules for my character", and they interlock no matter what combination is used.
I see it as another optional level of design choice. You can build the basic rules for the world, or character creation, in much the same way you would build a character.

That's all I really want to see out of it. If they just remake any of the previous editions by itself, then it was a waste of time and resources.

Some people like vancian, and some people don't. Some people like other methods, and even more people don't like those. It isn't going to kill you if another player is using magic in a different way for their character.

I think unified mechanics are going to be the key to making everything work. You have to be able to do the same thing in different ways, but still speak the same language at the end of the day. I would liken it to trying to build a game engine that can support some players using physics based fps-style play with others using rpg-style play in the same setting. At some point everything just has to do it's own thing and then relate back to a central ruleset.

For spells, both can be done. A player could choose different spell modules with more general or more specialized spells.

The target with wizards should be whatever makes them believable in various iconic images of the wizard. The system should be able to handle multiple variations of that. Tiers are a horrible way of making a fun class. If someone wants to play a wizard who is a one-trick pony then they are a one-trick pony wizard. Saying they are not a wizard is opinion, and opinions are not something to build a system on.

There can be multiple options for how wizard schools work.

Kholai
2012-07-19, 09:41 AM
1: Casting times.

Having a casting time that increases for bigger spells is an inherent balance to their having bigger, flashier abilities.

2: Remove higher level spells.

8th and 9th level spellcasting. It's such a big deal in 3.5 that it literally trumps every single other class ability in the game. Level 7 worked for divine casters in AD&D, it could work again for everyone.

4e's rituals had a lot of potential, moving over big spells into rituals (whilst leaving the wizard with utility spells for outside of combat, 4e's big failure on that front) would allow level 9 staples to stay in existence, possibly stopping such game changers from being "Wizard Only" by making rituals ingredient/lore/event dependent.

3: Flexible Spells per day.

Spell slots equal to twice class level + stat bonus. Each spell takes up a number of slots equal to half its level (rounding up). Level 20? You can have ten level 7 spells before Int bonus, or forty level 2 spells, or anywhere in between.

4: Stop spellcasting being a special little snowflake.

Not quite a wizard only aspect, but an advantage that mages always have is that they can pick and choose which defence they target, whilst melee always has to contend with AC (another aspect I think 4e actually managed to improve on).
Key to keeping the wizard under control is that even if she does have that ability to drop spells that make muggles weak in the knees, it's still possible for muggles to viably target those saves as well through mundane means. If the wizard gets automatically hitting, no save force bolts, then a mundane class should have similar (if not identical) sorts of utility through skill tricks/manoeuvres vein.

The wizard needs to be built with this in mind as a strict limiter - if fighters can't have nice things, then wizards' things can't be as nice either.

Seerow
2012-07-19, 10:00 AM
Personally, I'd go with a variant of vancian casting where spells per day doesn't scale so much, by having lower level slots traded out for higher level slots. Then allowing you to place low level spells in higher level slots to be able to use them more frequently. (So a level 20 wizard might have 11 spells instead of 50. He might have 3/4/5 7th/6th/5th level spells [DDN has said they're doing 7 spell levels right?] but could prep say a 3rd or 4th level spell into the 5th slot as an encounter spell rather than daily.

The other thing I'd do is, given the design direction currently being used, I'd give wizards (and other spellcasters) a very limited core spell list, containing just essential stuff to do their job. In the case of wizards, you'd have some divination, you'd have some control style stuff (single target/aoe debuffs, status effect infliction, wall of ___, etc), and a couple of low level damage spells (probably like Fire Ball and Magic Missile, as the two most iconic blasty spells). Other spells would be accessed via themes. If you want a shapechanging wizard, there's a theme for that. You want a necromancer with an undead army, there's a theme for that. You want a summoner, there's a theme for that (Alternatively make each of those a separate class. Each concept has enough flexibility/power to be a tier3 class on their own. But I doubt there's room for that many classes in core, so a theme fits the bill for core release better).

For mobility/defensive options I'm still not sold on. While the Wizard has traditionally had them, the end result has always been the Wizard being a more defensive class than the classes who are supposed to be defensive. If the Wizard gets a whole bunch of options for boosting his defense and mobility, then other classes need to match and probably exceed whatever the Wizard gets in turn, which can get pretty messy pretty quickly.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-19, 10:12 AM
The other thing I'd do is, given the design direction currently being used, I'd give wizards (and other spellcasters) a very limited core spell list, containing just essential stuff to do their job. In the case of wizards, you'd have some divination, you'd have some control style stuff (single target/aoe debuffs, status effect infliction, wall of ___, etc), and a couple of low level damage spells (probably like Fire Ball and Magic Missile, as the two most iconic blasty spells). Other spells would be accessed via themes. If you want a shapechanging wizard, there's a theme for that. You want a necromancer with an undead army, there's a theme for that. You want a summoner, there's a theme for that (Alternatively make each of those a separate class. Each concept has enough flexibility/power to be a tier3 class on their own. But I doubt there's room for that many classes in core, so a theme fits the bill for core release better).

My problem with using themes for this is that theme and class are supposed to be separate dimensions of the character. What would happen if, say, the Fighter took the summoner theme? Note I do think this could work if your answer is "The fighter is just as good at summoning as the wizard, granted he takes the same theme for it."


For mobility/defensive options I'm still not sold on. While the Wizard has traditionally had them, the end result has always been the Wizard being a more defensive class than the classes who are supposed to be defensive. If the Wizard gets a whole bunch of options for boosting his defense and mobility, then other classes need to match and probably exceed whatever the Wizard gets in turn, which can get pretty messy pretty quickly.

Well, my first thought to this is "Well, let's just get rid of all the classes that are supposed to be defensive and make that the wizard's thing" but that's probably just my spellcaster favoritism shining through.

Seerow
2012-07-19, 10:16 AM
My problem with using themes for this is that theme and class are supposed to be separate dimensions of the character. What would happen if, say, the Fighter took the summoner theme? Note I do think this could work if your answer is "The fighter is just as good at summoning as the wizard, granted he takes the same theme for it."

Mearls said in one of the interivews that there will be themes that are class specific. So they could do it that way.

Alternatively I am also fine with "The Fighter is just as good at summoning if he takes the theme for it". (Similarly a while back I made a sample theme for Necromancy, just as a proof of concept you could have a necromancer theme that works just as well for a non-caster as a caster.)




Well, my first thought to this is "Well, let's just get rid of all the classes that are supposed to be defensive and make that the wizard's thing" but that's probably just my spellcaster favoritism shining through.

Sure if the game is going to be balanced on that assumption. However most people don't associate wizard with "indestructible superhero", most tend to think of wizards as frail and weak, and consider this their downside for having power. Making Wizards the official defensive class and acknowledging Fighters and Barbarians are squishy glass cannons might let you preserve more of older editions of D&D, but I doubt would really resonate well even with the people who prefer that.

Synovia
2012-07-19, 10:33 AM
- The target for wizards should be T3, never T4. A wizard uses their magic to solve a wide variety of problems. If they're a one-trick pony, regardless of how useful that trick is, they're not a wizard..

T4 dosen't really mean 'one trick pony.' Most of the T3 classes are one-trick-ponies (like the Dread Necromancer).


I think any character that can solve a wide variety of problems with one class ability is a problem. The wizard NEEDS to be less of a generalist, because until that happens, hes always going to be invalidating other classes.


Alternatively I am also fine with "The Fighter is just as good at summoning if he takes the theme for it". (Similarly a while back I made a sample theme for Necromancy, just as a proof of concept you could have a necromancer theme that works just as well for a non-caster as a caster.)


This is ideally what I'd like to see. I want to see class restrictions die a horrific death. If someone wants to play a necromancer with an animal companion, they should be able to do that without being terrible at both. If they want to play a sneak who can cast divinations, they should be able to do that. If they want to play a man-of-the-woods who uses skeletons to tend his trees, that should be possible.


We should have a system that allows us to say "I want this character to be able to do x,y,z", not a system that says "this class can do X,Y,Z, but I want to do X and Q, and there's no way to do that"

Seerow
2012-07-19, 10:38 AM
T4 dosen't really mean 'one trick pony.' Most of the T3 classes are one-trick-ponies (like the Dread Necromancer).


I think any character that can solve a wide variety of problems with one class ability is a problem. The wizard NEEDS to be less of a generalist, because until that happens, hes always going to be invalidating other classes.

The Dread Necromancer may be one theme, but he's by no means a one trick pony. I mean just the undead he controls is a potent/versatile enough effect to practically make tier3 on its own.

Synovia
2012-07-19, 10:46 AM
The Dread Necromancer may be one theme, but he's by no means a one trick pony. I mean just the undead he controls is a potent/versatile enough effect to practically make tier3 on its own.

Of course it is. But the dread necromancer (3.5) has a ton of weaknesses (which is a good thing). He's got almost no spells that break SR. He has all sorts of mobility isues (can't fly, can't teleport, etc).

He has one thing hes very good at, but hes got issues in a lot of situations.

lesser_minion
2012-07-19, 10:53 AM
I think that if the designers thought more about how magic works in the setting -- the in-universe mechanics -- then they would find it easier to balance things.

If you decide, for example, that a long-lasting spell draws its sustenance from the magical power of whoever or whatever it affects, that gives you a tonne of obvious, natural limits on spells. For example:

There's a limit to how far a character can be buffed or debuffed.
A character who applies too many buffs to herself will find her spellcasting suffering.
It implies that even non-casters might be able to deny a spell through force of will, giving them a way to dispel hostile effects like this.


Those limitations would help a lot with destroying the all-powerful wizard of 3rd edition -- even if there was a combination of buffs that made you immune to the fighter, you'd probably find that it left you with no more magic to use attacking the fighter or defending against the fighter's allies.

Magic needs to have rules, and it needs to actually follow them. If someone is resistant to magic, then there must not be a spell to undo that. If someone is immune to magic, then there must not be a spell to undo that either.

Seerow
2012-07-19, 10:57 AM
Of course it is. But the dread necromancer (3.5) has a ton of weaknesses (which is a good thing). He's got almost no spells that break SR. He has all sorts of mobility isues (can't fly, can't teleport, etc).

He has one thing hes very good at, but hes got issues in a lot of situations.

What types of undead he brings along with him can solve a lot of the problems you list. Seriously the whole undead army thing alone grants enough flexibility to be a tier 3 class, because it does allow him to contribute in the vast majority of situations.

Compare the Tier3 Dread Necromancer with the Tier 4 Barbarian, just as an example. They're both one trick ponies by your definition, but the Barbarian's one trick is so much less flexible it knocks him down a tier. The Dread Necro's one trick is strong enough to make him tier 3, you can almost even ignore his spellcasting and still place him there.

When you take into account his spellcasting as well, he also has debuffing, summoning, defensive buffs, control, information gathering, and SoDs. He may not have everything a good wizard/sorcerer has, but he has a good enough variety to handle the majority of situations. You say he lacks mobility, I say for the most part he doesn't need it (he's not a melee character, he can stand back and use his ranged spells and summons for the most part)

Frankly, I consider Dread Necro and Beguiler borderline tier 2. They're definitely on the much higher end of tier 3 when compared with the Factotum or ToB classes.

Ziegander
2012-07-19, 11:00 AM
Personally, I'd go with a variant of vancian casting where spells per day doesn't scale so much, by having lower level slots traded out for higher level slots. Then allowing you to place low level spells in higher level slots to be able to use them more frequently. (So a level 20 wizard might have 11 spells instead of 50. He might have 3/4/5 7th/6th/5th level spells [DDN has said they're doing 7 spell levels right?] but could prep say a 3rd or 4th level spell into the 5th slot as an encounter spell rather than daily.

This is a cool idea.


The other thing I'd do is, given the design direction currently being used, I'd give wizards (and other spellcasters) a very limited core spell list, containing just essential stuff to do their job. In the case of wizards, you'd have some divination, you'd have some control style stuff (single target/aoe debuffs, status effect infliction, wall of ___, etc), and a couple of low level damage spells (probably like Fire Ball and Magic Missile, as the two most iconic blasty spells). Other spells would be accessed via themes. If you want a shapechanging wizard, there's a theme for that. You want a necromancer with an undead army, there's a theme for that. You want a summoner, there's a theme for that (Alternatively make each of those a separate class. Each concept has enough flexibility/power to be a tier3 class on their own. But I doubt there's room for that many classes in core, so a theme fits the bill for core release better).

And this is a great idea.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-19, 11:03 AM
T4 dosen't really mean 'one trick pony.' Most of the T3 classes are one-trick-ponies (like the Dread Necromancer).

T3 - Capable of doing one thing really well, but still useful when that one thing isn't appropriate, or, capable of doing everything acceptably, but outclassed by specialists.

T4 - Capable of doing one thing really well, but useless when that one thing isn't appropriate.

I think T4 is pretty much the definition of one-trick-pony.

Synovia
2012-07-19, 11:05 AM
What types of undead he brings along with him can solve a lot of the problems you list. Seriously the whole undead army thing alone grants enough flexibility to be a tier 3 class, because it does allow him to contribute in the vast majority of situations.

Compare the Tier3 Dread Necromancer with the Tier 4 Barbarian, just as an example. They're both one trick ponies by your definition, but the Barbarian's one trick is so much less flexible it knocks him down a tier. The Dread Necro's one trick is strong enough to make him tier 3, you can almost even ignore his spellcasting and still place him there.

When you take into account his spellcasting as well, he also has debuffing, summoning, defensive buffs, control, information gathering, and SoDs. He may not have everything a good wizard/sorcerer has, but he has a good enough variety to handle the majority of situations. You say he lacks mobility, I say for the most part he doesn't need it (he's not a melee character, he can stand back and use his ranged spells and summons for the most part)

Frankly, I consider Dread Necro and Beguiler borderline tier 2. They're definitely on the much higher end of tier 3 when compared with the Factotum or ToB classes.

By Mobility I was talking more along the lines of common situations like "You're on a cliff. Where you want to be is on the bottom of the cliff. " Can also be replaced with "passage has collapsed. you want to be on other side"

Wizard: I fly down.
Cleric: Wind Walk.
Fighter: I have 300 hp. I jump.
DN: Um, hey, guys. Can someone help me out here?


As to bringing undead to solve problems, what undead you have is completly dependant on what the DM wants to give you. If you haven't had a chance to get any flying/burrowing zombies, the above is an unsolvable situation.

Seerow
2012-07-19, 11:07 AM
By Mobility I was talking more along the lines of common situations like "You're on a cliff. Where you want to be is on the bottom of the cliff. " Can also be replaced with "passage has collapsed. you want to be on other side"

Wizard: I fly down.
Cleric: Wind Walk.
Fighter: I have 300 hp. I jump.
DN: Um, hey, guys. Can someone help me out here?

DN: I hop on my undead griffin and fly down.

Or for the "get to the other side of the passage"
DN: I set my strong undead minions to digging through the tunnel.

Or
DN: I have the _____ that I used Planar Binding on a while ago to teleport us across.




Edit: Also a dread necro will only have 2hp less per level than a Fighter, has DR, and can heal himself an infinite amount. If the Fighter can jump down the cliff, the Dread Necromancer can do the same, and without wasting the Cleric's resources to do it.

Ashdate
2012-07-19, 10:43 PM
So we've agreed then: no Dread Necromancers in 5e.

One thing to keep in mind is how they've switched the Cleric to being a "spontaneous" caster. Since it's best to think of classes compared as a whole to each other (rather than separate from one another).

Therefore, perhaps it's best to think of more than just the Wizard; if they're going to have some form of Vancian magic that requires them to pick spells beforehand, whereas the Cleric does not, how else should the two differ? Should particular effects (such as buffs, battlefield control, and damage spells) be more represented in one class than another?

Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-19, 11:10 PM
So we've agreed then: no Dread Necromancers in 5e.

One thing to keep in mind is how they've switched the Cleric to being a "spontaneous" caster. Since it's best to think of classes compared as a whole to each other (rather than separate from one another).

Therefore, perhaps it's best to think of more than just the Wizard; if they're going to have some form of Vancian magic that requires them to pick spells beforehand, whereas the Cleric does not, how else should the two differ? Should particular effects (such as buffs, battlefield control, and damage spells) be more represented in one class than another?

Attack spells, buffs, and debuffs should be available to both cleric and wizard more or less equally.

Personally, I'd like to see the design assumption of healing as a role removed entirely. In-combat healing is too situational (at least not without some major changes in system assumptions) to be useful, and out-of-combat healing too necessary to be restricted to just one class. "Healing" here also refers to stuff like Remove Disease, Regeneration, and Resurrection. In my homebrew stuff I just merge the cleric and wizard together, at least in terms of what effects they have available: I do however occasionally experiment with clerics and wizards having different casting mechanics.

If the Cleric's shtick isn't "healing plus some other stuff" then they need to be defined some other way. As a temporary proposal, I might suggest that everything that 3.5 cleric has that they share with the wizard, the wizard loses and the cleric keeps (with the exception of buffs, debuffs, and attack spells). That is, undead creation, summon monster, divinations, teleportation.

navar100
2012-07-19, 11:38 PM
Use 3E Psionic Power points formula. Putting extra points into a spell "augments" it, such as what was 3E metamagic or more powerful versions (more damage, affect more powerful creatures, etc.) of the same spell. Burning Hands can be augmented to Fireball. Charm Person is augmented to Charm Monster and eventually Dominate, etc. Naturally have a maximum limit of points you can put into one spell.

Alternatively, use an Erudite variation of spell slots. A spellcaster can only cast a particular number of unique spells per day for each level.

Particular spells can be changed. Some spells could be raised in level, such as Fly. Spell effects can be altered, similar to what Pathfinder did. Give Ray of Enfeeblement a saving throw for half. Spells that gave immunities are now bonuses to saving throw. Polymorph spells only give specific buffs.

Things NOT to do: Generally speaking, don't punish the wizard for casting a spell. Specifically: no insanity risk, no damage, no fatigue, no can't cast another spell for some given time, no penalty minus number to anything, no negative consequence of any kind for doing what they're supposed to be doing: casting a spell.

Using 3E spellcasting as a base, there are limitations that I do find acceptable as not punishing the wizard for casting a spell:

1) Bring back 2E casting times of a sort. Spells have a casting time equal to their level. For example, wizard on his initiative count of 15 starts casting a 3rd level spell. At start of initiative count 12, before anyone else on 12 would go, spell goes off. Wizard's initiative next round remains 15. If a wizard is damaged during the casting, Concentration check needed to keep casting. Gives a reason for wizards wanting warriors to protect them and opportune to give warriors class abilities to enable this. When a wizard is taking 6 initiative counts to cast a 6th level spell, the party needs him to be able to do it.

2) Wizards cannot know every spell. "Wizard" is just the general name of the class. Particular characters have a specialty where they can know every spell of two schools, a good number of spells from other schools, and perhaps can only cast spells of particular schools using higher spell slots. There would be opposition schools where they can't cast any spell.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-20, 10:45 AM
Things NOT to do: Generally speaking, don't punish the wizard for casting a spell. Specifically: no insanity risk, no damage, no fatigue, no can't cast another spell for some given time, no penalty minus number to anything, no negative consequence of any kind for doing what they're supposed to be doing: casting a spell.

This is something I'm going to have to disagree with. Adding risk to an thing is a fantastic way to make that thing interesting.

Now, certain types of methods of adding "risk" are just dumb, like "Every time you cast a spell, you take 1d6 points of damage for each level of the spell." It doesn't really add risk because you don't really have any choices as to how you go about trying to mitigate it, you just either sit around and do nothing, or you cast the spells and suck down the damage.

Lord Tyger
2012-07-20, 10:50 AM
I always liked the idea of longer spell casting times. Sure, you might be able to get a few low-level spells off in a jiffy, but for the big stuff, you need time. Of course, the danger there is every encounter becomes "Hold the goblins off until the wizard can finish drawing the magic symbols to call up fire and kill them all," which would be okay sometimes, but not always...

Seerow
2012-07-20, 10:53 AM
This is something I'm going to have to disagree with. Adding risk to an thing is a fantastic way to make that thing interesting.

Now, certain types of methods of adding "risk" are just dumb, like "Every time you cast a spell, you take 1d6 points of damage for each level of the spell." It doesn't really add risk because you don't really have any choices as to how you go about trying to mitigate it, you just either sit around and do nothing, or you cast the spells and suck down the damage.

Personally I've been thinking along the lines of encounter based spells that can be cast more than once an encounter with those types of risks.

So within normal limits, they're fine, no risk at all. If they want to push themselves, they could end up taking ability damage, or go insane, or knock themselves unconscious, or whatever.

Dienekes
2012-07-20, 11:32 AM
Hmm, was just going to pop in and say that they should force stricter specialization so the wizard cannot do everything like they can in 3.5 without giving ideas how to do it. But reading it Seerow's idea is very interesting.

Now as far as spellcasting penalties. I think we've discussed this in the 5e thread a few times before. I'm ok with them. Now that said I don't think some of the ones that get tossed around are generally speaking good ideas: insanity being the big one. While it may work for other games, having control of your character systematically taken from you seems counter to the style D&D tries to go for. I'm much more comfortable with a fatigue system or just dealing subdual damage. Because it does place a reasonable limit on spellcasting that only effects the short term encounter without ruining the character, and if the mechanics are put right really emphasizes the necessity of good tactics and emphasizes varying combat roles. Assuming the frontliners get decent mechanics to do their job, they need to make sure the magic users are safe or their ability to cast spells becomes in jeopardy.

That said, a wizard should not have all their spells have a penalty, the at-wills should definitely not, and as they level up the weaker spells stop as well.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-20, 11:54 AM
Personally I've been thinking along the lines of encounter based spells that can be cast more than once an encounter with those types of risks.

So within normal limits, they're fine, no risk at all. If they want to push themselves, they could end up taking ability damage, or go insane, or knock themselves unconscious, or whatever.

I've been experimenting with a similar idea, actually. A spellcaster has "Magical Overheat." You can cast as many spells as you want, but each spell adds to this overheat depending on its power. Each time you cast a spell, you make a saving throw (probably with a special stat just for this) with a DC equal to your current overheat level. Fail, and you suffer miscast results according to the measure of failure. (e.g., rolling 25 when you have 30 overheat might just cause your spell to fizzle, but rolling 25 when you have 60 overheat could mean instant death.)

The overheat fades a little each round, and at-will spells are effectively those that add less to your overheat than you cool down each turn. You can also take a full-round action to vent out the steam and bring your overheat down by a lot.

navar100
2012-07-20, 06:48 PM
This is something I'm going to have to disagree with. Adding risk to an thing is a fantastic way to make that thing interesting.

Now, certain types of methods of adding "risk" are just dumb, like "Every time you cast a spell, you take 1d6 points of damage for each level of the spell." It doesn't really add risk because you don't really have any choices as to how you go about trying to mitigate it, you just either sit around and do nothing, or you cast the spells and suck down the damage.

The risk is the bad guy makes the saving throw/you fail to get past the spell resistance, i.e. the spell didn't work. "May you live in interesting times" is a curse, not a blessing. You don't punish the player for the audacity of doing what his character is supposed to be doing.

navar100
2012-07-20, 06:56 PM
Personally I've been thinking along the lines of encounter based spells that can be cast more than once an encounter with those types of risks.

So within normal limits, they're fine, no risk at all. If they want to push themselves, they could end up taking ability damage, or go insane, or knock themselves unconscious, or whatever.

Details to be worked out, but I can agree with the concept. If the player voluntarily chooses to make an extra effort that has a negative effect risk, I'd be ok with that. It's the "bad wizard, suffer for casting a spell" as a matter of course and whole being of playing a spellcaster that I object. In truth I'd probably prefer there was no option of extra effort with negative risk in the first place, yet given the spellcaster would do just fine without the extra effort in all ways, I hold my tongue.

Rejnhard
2012-07-20, 09:14 PM
I've been experimenting with a similar idea, actually. A spellcaster has "Magical Overheat." You can cast as many spells as you want, but each spell adds to this overheat depending on its power. Each time you cast a spell, you make a saving throw (probably with a special stat just for this) with a DC equal to your current overheat level. Fail, and you suffer miscast results according to the measure of failure. (e.g., rolling 25 when you have 30 overheat might just cause your spell to fizzle, but rolling 25 when you have 60 overheat could mean instant death.)

The overheat fades a little each round, and at-will spells are effectively those that add less to your overheat than you cool down each turn. You can also take a full-round action to vent out the steam and bring your overheat down by a lot.

That seems to be a very elegant risk managment system. Did you try to run it in practice?

Funnily enough I think it could be used for some non-casters as well. Specifically I think about Barbarian/Berserker. Instead of magic overheat you have rage. You can fight conservatively using weak "at-wills" that don't bump up you rage, or powerful bloodthirsty attacks that do. Each time you use them you roll if you don't succumb to your Rage and go out of control. The result could also be tied to total rage gathered and level of failure, with small failure resulting with a player losing control over his barbarian for a round but the character still doing what he is suppoused to do (attacking enemies) and very big failure resulting in character entering mindless fury, killing everything around (allies included) until he is dead, unconcious, or the last one standing.

Dienekes
2012-07-20, 09:16 PM
The risk is the bad guy makes the saving throw/you fail to get past the spell resistance, i.e. the spell didn't work. "May you live in interesting times" is a curse, not a blessing. You don't punish the player for the audacity of doing what his character is supposed to be doing.

That's not a downside that's just missing. A melee fighter can miss an attack. But a melee fighter is also, in melee. The downside to being in melee is that they are in melee and will be attacked. Or are we not supposed to have the monster attack the player in reach so that they too do not have a downside attached to their ability set?

The downside to casting a spell is. There is no downside. Personally, I'm ok with the idea of making a consistent, non-random downside that the wizard can plan around even exploit if they're smart enough.

Admittedly this is an extrapolation of sorts but it is there. Assuming that the fighters can do their job of holding the line within reason then all the risk of the combat is placed upon them and none of it is on the wizards. I'm perfectly fine with increasing that risk on wizards.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-20, 09:33 PM
That seems to be a very elegant risk managment system. Did you try to run it in practice?

This particular variant no, but I have run an almost identical system to make it work out quite well. Instead of magical overheat, you have spell points that decrease when you cast a spell. Instead of a bonus to a saving throw, you get a number of spell points to start the combat with. Instead of cooling off, you regenerate mana each turn.

The way the math worked out was that you were perfectly safe until you started spending into the negatives, where then the risk of failure appeared: You add your current spell point total to a die roll to meet a DC 1 saving throw. I want to change it to the mathematically-equivalent overheat system mostly for fluff/presentation reasons.

Seerow
2012-07-20, 09:50 PM
This particular variant no, but I have run an almost identical system to make it work out quite well. Instead of magical overheat, you have spell points that decrease when you cast a spell. Instead of a bonus to a saving throw, you get a number of spell points to start the combat with. Instead of cooling off, you regenerate mana each turn.

The way the math worked out was that you were perfectly safe until you started spending into the negatives, where then the risk of failure appeared: You add your current spell point total to a die roll to meet a DC 1 saving throw. I want to change it to the mathematically-equivalent overheat system mostly for fluff/presentation reasons.

Probably a good call. You could even use both systems. Give Magical Overheat to casters, and let non-casters have the push into negatives. Where Magical Classes push upwards and get burned for it, non-casters push themselves to their limits and beyond, and can exhaust/hurt themselves doing so.

While they're mathematically the same (good), they superficially look different, which is probably enough to pacify most people on having casters and non-casters using a similar mechanic.

navar100
2012-07-20, 10:14 PM
That's not a downside that's just missing. A melee fighter can miss an attack. But a melee fighter is also, in melee. The downside to being in melee is that they are in melee and will be attacked. Or are we not supposed to have the monster attack the player in reach so that they too do not have a downside attached to their ability set?

The downside to casting a spell is. There is no downside. Personally, I'm ok with the idea of making a consistent, non-random downside that the wizard can plan around even exploit if they're smart enough.

Admittedly this is an extrapolation of sorts but it is there. Assuming that the fighters can do their job of holding the line within reason then all the risk of the combat is placed upon them and none of it is on the wizards. I'm perfectly fine with increasing that risk on wizards.

And spellcasters can be attacked. I would certainly agree to a wizard would be in a bit of trouble if a bad guy is right in his face whacking at him. "Warrior, help!" Spellcasters also get attacked by spells. That's what happens in combat.

The so called problems of spellcasting have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that a spellcaster is casting spells. If you really hate a spellcaster doing that, play some other game. Don't punish him for it. I will not budge on this issue for anything.

Rejnhard
2012-07-20, 10:23 PM
The so called problems of spellcasting have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that a spellcaster is casting spells. If you really hate a spellcaster doing that, play some other game. Don't punish him for it. I will not budge on this issue for anything.

Oh but he is punished. The punishment for casting spells in DnD is losing them. And I think it's pretty damn severe. You cast 3 spells at lvl1 and now you're a commoner till you sleep, have fun.

Dienekes
2012-07-20, 10:35 PM
And spellcasters can be attacked. I would certainly agree to a wizard would be in a bit of trouble if a bad guy is right in his face whacking at him. "Warrior, help!" Spellcasters also get attacked by spells. That's what happens in combat.

Warriors also get attacked by spells. So again wizards are taking less of a risk.


The so called problems of spellcasting have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that a spellcaster is casting spells. If you really hate a spellcaster doing that, play some other game. Don't punish him for it. I will not budge on this issue for anything.

Who hates spellcasters having spells or casting them? No one has ever said that. Costing a price has nothing to do with emotional responses either for or against the idea of casting a spell, and bringing emotion into the argument adds absolutely nothing.

Having a creature attack the closest target: ie the warrior, is not punishing the player who decided to play in melee it is a simple outcome of the choices the warrior made. Having the wizard pay a price for their spells is no different. Hell, in some ways it's better. Paying a specific price for a spell can be calculated and planned out, but how successful that enemies damage is will be random and if they crit can be debilitating.

Since I also will not budge on this issue unless some other argument is brought up besides I don't like it, I suggest we drop the issue. Again. I will enjoy discussing it with you again when it comes up in another month or two.


Oh but he is punished. The punishment for casting spells in DnD is losing them. And I think it's pretty damn severe. You cast 3 spells at lvl1 and now you're a commoner till you sleep, have fun.

Not in 5e, they have at-wills now. They are never a commoner, and honestly I like this change. While I am for wizards being nerfed a bit, they should never be brought down to commoner level.

Rejnhard
2012-07-20, 10:44 PM
I've been experimenting with a similar idea, actually. A spellcaster has "Magical Overheat." You can cast as many spells as you want, but each spell adds to this overheat depending on its power. Each time you cast a spell, you make a saving throw (probably with a special stat just for this) with a DC equal to your current overheat level. Fail, and you suffer miscast results according to the measure of failure. (e.g., rolling 25 when you have 30 overheat might just cause your spell to fizzle, but rolling 25 when you have 60 overheat could mean instant death.)

The overheat fades a little each round, and at-will spells are effectively those that add less to your overheat than you cool down each turn. You can also take a full-round action to vent out the steam and bring your overheat down by a lot.

Do you think it could be designed in such a way that overheat ****er never goes over 20 (possibly auto-overheating when hitting limit)? It would make an extra d20 a natural and instinctive counter to measure your current overheat. I hate writing things down during combat.

Seerow
2012-07-20, 10:48 PM
On the subject of "Wizards stay in the back lines so they don't get hit, so they should take damage from casting spells", I don't really agree with that. Because if you make that the balance point, then once you have a caster intended to be on the front lines (such as a Swordmage or whatever) then they're still shackled to that same mechanic and suffer for it. Sort of like the ASF on armor, but worse. Similarly, a mundane archer sitting on the back lines will be similarly protected against attacks.

The differentiation here isn't whether you're a caster or non-caster, but whether you're melee or ranged. In my opinion, classes designed for ranged combat should be squishier and less mobile than classes designed for melee combat. This means lower HP, fewer passive resistances and defenses, and less general mobility. Ranged characters should in general represent artillery, potent and capable of cherry picking their own targets, but not very mobile and can potentially go down quickly.

This makes it so that ranged characters need melee characters for support. If you have an all ranged group, then that group simply won't be able to keep the pressure on a well balanced opposing group who has the more mobile and durable melee on their side. On the other hand, a group without ranged combatants is at a disadvantage because now you actually do need to get adjacent to all enemies to be able to hurt them. Any enemy's who start further away, or enemies who are spread out, will pose a much greater problem to an all melee group than a more mixed group.


Either way, the point is the delineation being discussed should be between Melee and Range, not between Magic and Not Magic. If you want Wizards to suffer penalties because they are a ranged class, make that based on the fact that they are ranged, not based on their spellcasting ability.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-20, 10:59 PM
Oh! I had forgotten all about this 'cause I always houserule it out, but armor causing spell failure can go die in a fire. It's a rule that's really there for no reason except to enforce a stereotype (the worst kind of rule) and it's one of the many reasons being a decent gish is all but impossible without extensive splatbook options.

Rejnhard
2012-07-20, 10:59 PM
Another idea. If it would be possible to design overheat in 1-20 bracket then you could streamline the whole process a bit. Instead of needing another roll you could tie overheat check to your attack roll. If you roll below your current overheat level you suffer consequences (the magnitude dependent on the difference).

The problem would be with spells that require failedsave instead of tohit. Another disadvantage of removing NADs in 5e.

Dienekes
2012-07-20, 10:59 PM
On the subject of "Wizards stay in the back lines so they don't get hit, so they should take damage from casting spells", I don't really agree with that. Because if you make that the balance point, then once you have a caster intended to be on the front lines (such as a Swordmage or whatever) then they're still shackled to that same mechanic and suffer for it. Sort of like the ASF on armor, but worse. Similarly, a mundane archer sitting on the back lines will be similarly protected against attacks.

The differentiation here isn't whether you're a caster or non-caster, but whether you're melee or ranged. In my opinion, classes designed for ranged combat should be squishier and less mobile than classes designed for melee combat. This means lower HP, fewer passive resistances and defenses, and less general mobility. Ranged characters should in general represent artillery, potent and capable of cherry picking their own targets, but not very mobile and can potentially go down quickly.

This makes it so that ranged characters need melee characters for support. If you have an all ranged group, then that group simply won't be able to keep the pressure on a well balanced opposing group who has the more mobile and durable melee on their side. On the other hand, a group without ranged combatants is at a disadvantage because now you actually do need to get adjacent to all enemies to be able to hurt them. Any enemy's who start further away, or enemies who are spread out, will pose a much greater problem to an all melee group than a more mixed group.


Either way, the point is the delineation being discussed should be between Melee and Range, not between Magic and Not Magic. If you want Wizards to suffer penalties because they are a ranged class, make that based on the fact that they are ranged, not based on their spellcasting ability.

Now that is a good counterargument. The only rebuttal I can currently think up is that spells tend to be much more powerful than archery. Also, while it is fair for the archer concept to have limited mobility, most mages have excellent mobility. Spells actually provide the highest mobility and ability to get out of sticky situations in the game. I think with appropriate mathematics the cost to ability of the spells can be made to balance out.

As for the melee wizard archetypes, that is a puzzler. And my solution will admittedly not work with that archetype at all. So the solution can go that the melee wizard is in a different class with their own different balancing mechanic, which could work. Or we strip the cost system and instead place much severer limits on spells themselves.

Personally I liked the idea that strong spells have costs to balance them out so we can get the fun powerful spells and still have a modicum of balance. But a general weakening of spells, or sever limiting of versatility could also work. Makes the generalist utility wizard a bit harder to do though.

Seerow
2012-07-20, 11:24 PM
Now that is a good counterargument. The only rebuttal I can currently think up is that spells tend to be much more powerful than archery. Also, while it is fair for the archer concept to have limited mobility, most mages have excellent mobility. Spells actually provide the highest mobility and ability to get out of sticky situations in the game. I think with appropriate mathematics the cost to ability of the spells can be made to balance out.

Well Wizards having the highest mobility is one of the things I specifically want to die in a fire. I don't care if they have access to the best long distance mobility (ie the Wizard can teleport us across the world given a few minutes, okay awesome), but for in combat mobility ranged characters should always be at a disadvantage to melee characters.

When a ranged character has better mobility than a melee character, the way things normally play out is the ranged character just keeps running away smacking the melee guy while the melee guy never manages to catch up. This is a scenario that should basically never actually play out in a game.

Occasional escapes are fine. Like I'm okay with Wizards having something like 1/encounter abrupt Jaunt (teleport away just as he tries to hit me, hah!), but he should not be able to consistently stay outside of melee range for too long.

[Edit: As an aside, I will say that while spells tend to be more powerful than archery, this does not need to be true by definition. It just means taking a closer look at what a ranged mundane character can do and what a ranged magical character can do and bringing their capabilities closer together. They can both be good at different things, as long as they are both good at something and neither is good at everything]



As for the melee wizard archetypes, that is a puzzler. And my solution will admittedly not work with that archetype at all. So the solution can go that the melee wizard is in a different class with their own different balancing mechanic, which could work. Or we strip the cost system and instead place much severer limits on spells themselves.

We agree there. My whole point was to take any balancing mechanics you have in mind and stick them with the class, not the casting system. If you want Wizards to take some damage with every spell cast because they're staying far out of harms way, I may not agree with you but okay fine. But that should be a part of the Wizard, not a part of Arcane Spellcasting.


Personally I liked the idea that strong spells have costs to balance them out so we can get the fun powerful spells and still have a modicum of balance. But a general weakening of spells, or sever limiting of versatility could also work. Makes the generalist utility wizard a bit harder to do though.

The generalist utility wizard is another thing that needs to, if not die in a fire, get toned back drastically. I mentioned either upthread or in another similar thread recently that I don't think Wizards should have Polymorph, Summoning, or Animate Dead as default options. Because any one of these options is potent enough to be a full class on their own. Similarly, if the generalist wizard's schtick is "Do everything the rogue does but better, faster, and less chance of failure" then that's bad. On the other hand I have no problem with it if the Rogue basically is the Mundane Wizard. Basically the Rogue would be batman instead of the Wizard. But this requires either a great broadening of the rogue toolkit, or a great reduction of the Wizard's, or most likely some of both.

The generalist wizard as he has existed in previous editions however where he can do anything a specialized caster can do, just not as many times per day, is inherently an imbalanced concept and should not exist within the context of the game.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-21, 01:13 AM
When a ranged character has better mobility than a melee character, the way things normally play out is the ranged character just keeps running away smacking the melee guy while the melee guy never manages to catch up. This is a scenario that should basically never actually play out in a game.

One way to kill that dead is to make it so ranged attacks can never exceed the minimum movement length. Fire Emblem does this: Most classes can move 5 squares each turn, but archers/mages can fire at most 2 squares away (3 if you're a high-level archer). Ballistae can break this limit, but ballistae are features of the map. Only certain spells can break this limit without a movement cost, but they're extremely powerful endgame spells (and much weaker in terms of damage output than the other endgame spells that operate at a normal range).

Unfortunately D&D's staunch commitment to the semblance of realism (when it comes to mundane characters, that is) means this can't be adopted: The rage would be intense if the longbow couldn't shoot more than 25 feet away.


Occasional escapes are fine. Like I'm okay with Wizards having something like 1/encounter abrupt Jaunt (teleport away just as he tries to hit me, hah!), but he should not be able to consistently stay outside of melee range for too long.

I hate to keep talking about my own homebrew, but I'm experimenting with dealing with this problem with a mechanic I call the desperation meter. Desperation is available to all characters (mundane or magical), starts the encounter empty, and fills up as they take damage.

You can spend desperation to get effects that get you out of trouble, like "one spell or attack that targets you automatically fails" or "rid yourself of a single status effect or condition" or "teleport up to your movement speed to a square to which you have line of effect."

The numbers are balanced so that you can normally only get 2-3 desperation-spending effects in each combat encounter. The thing is you can also spend desperation offensively, with effects like "choose the result of a single dice roll" (damage AND d20 rolls, so you can either get perfect accuracy or a maximized damage roll) or "take an extra standard action this turn." Importantly, offensive uses of desperation are always countered by its defensive uses.


Another idea. If it would be possible to design overheat in 1-20 bracket then you could streamline the whole process a bit. Instead of needing another roll you could tie overheat check to your attack roll. If you roll below your current overheat level you suffer consequences (the magnitude dependent on the difference).

The problem would be with spells that require failedsave instead of tohit. Another disadvantage of removing NADs in 5e.

That's actually a pretty elegant idea, though I'm not sure if designing overheat as maxing out at 20 is so feasible: My current conception of "Spell Levels" is that any caster can attempt to cast any spell, but a spell that's too powerful for them to handle is represented by causing enough overheat that they're guaranteed to fail the roll. That way, the caster just has two variables: Saving throw bonus and Cooldown rate, without having to add the third variable of Maximum Spell Level.

The downside is these variables have to scale really quickly for it to work out in a sane way, and it's not very long until you get to cast previously-uncastable spells at-will, but that's perfectly fine as long as the spells are designed with that in mind (it wouldn't work if we just did a straight up conversion of 3.5's spell list).


The generalist wizard as he has existed in previous editions however where he can do anything a specialized caster can do, just not as many times per day, is inherently an imbalanced concept and should not exist within the context of the game.

I once had the idea that wizards are required to specialize, but instead of more spells per day wizards get spell levels outside of their specialty later than normal. So by the time the Transmuter is getting access to Polymorph, he's also finally getting to cast Ghoul Touch, at the same time the Necromancer is getting Enervation. Never got the chance to test this though.

kyoryu
2012-07-21, 01:18 AM
Unfortunately D&D's staunch commitment to the semblance of realism (when it comes to mundane characters, that is) means this can't be adopted: The rage would be intense if the longbow couldn't shoot more than 25 feet away.


That's awesomely hilarious.

It is in no way realistic that you can run away from someone while accurately firing a bow every six seconds and manage to maintain distance when they're just running at you full stop.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-21, 01:27 AM
That's awesomely hilarious.

It is in no way realistic that you can run away from someone while accurately firing a bow every six seconds and manage to maintain distance when they're just running at you full stop.

THAT abstraction's been there since the beginning, so it's sacred and untouchable. Fighters only being allowed to trip someone once per day? Heresy!

Straybow
2012-07-21, 01:31 AM
Oh! I had forgotten all about this 'cause I always houserule it out, but armor causing spell failure can go die in a fire. It's a rule that's really there for no reason except to enforce a stereotype (the worst kind of rule) and it's one of the many reasons being a decent gish is all but impossible without extensive splatbook options.
Spellcasting should have a skill test. Armor, clothing restriction or similar stuff has some penalty, but maybe half or a bit less than given in d20. Environment, movement, and many other external conditions could penalize casting.

Combat is bad. Getting hit isn't the only thing to interfere with casting, being forced to defend and dodge attacks will also interfere. Doing a drop and cover for a save? Yeah, that makes spellcasting a breeze. (Here's a test: You try singing the Star Spangled Banner with proper tempo while doing a math problem in your head, and I'll chase you swinging a big stick at your head and see if you're distracted.)

Slipperychicken
2012-07-21, 01:37 AM
Magic needs to have rules, and it needs to actually follow them. If someone is resistant to magic, then there must not be a spell to undo that. If someone is immune to magic, then there must not be a spell to undo that either.

This. A lot of This. If a creature is Immune to something (say, Fire), make the wizard use a Cold or Electric spell instead. Don't let him burn it with fire anyway if he takes a feat, or casts a Swift-action spell immediately before, because that really cheapens the immunity. The Wizard should need to switch tactics or roll Caster Level to deal with defenses (i.e. use summons against magic-immune creatures, switch elements, roll against SR), rather than have a spell/feat/PrC that invalidates the defense.


Let the Wizard ditch the spellbook, in the core ruleset, available from level 1. No class should be this dependent on a single item, ever. The threat of instant, total, and permanent crippling is not a balancing factor to the Wizard's power.

Make spell-learning times shorter. Why does it take 48 continuous hours to examine, translate, and copy 9 pages of text? And why, from a gameplay perspective, should the Wizard blow two in-game days for every spell he learns? All this does is force regular multi-week in-character breaks, which just forces a very specific pacing, which many play-styles don't support. One hour for the whole process should work out just fine.

Don't make magic "instant-success", or invalidate entire skills. Instead of automatically curing all disease without fail, let Cure Disease grant an immediate Heal check with a sizable bonus (around +10) so there's still a possibility of failure, however remote. Instead of having Knock instantly and perfectly defeat all locks without fail (and thus invalidating both locks and the Open Lock skill), let it make an Open Lock check with a bonus, or grant that bonus to a character trying to open a lock.

Don't make me buy a "Greater" version, let me scale the same spell by putting it in a higher slot. Teleport (5th level) becomes Greater Teleport when cast from a 7th level slot. Rope Trick (2nd level) becomes Magnificent Mansion when cast from a 7th level slot. Cure Minor (1st level) becomes Cure moderate (with a 2nd level slot) and Cure Serious (with a 3rd level slot). I imagine this playing out like 3.5s psionic Augmentation mechanic.

Don't require beauty sleep. A Wizard should be able to stay up all night and not be totally boned the next day. Just let him prepare new spells in an hour, like the Cleric does. Maybe he needs to make Concentration checks to cast while he's Exhausted to represent being tired, but mandating the Wizard to sleep 8 hours a night forces a very specific pacing on the game, which isn't ideal for every campaign.

Ninjadeadbeard
2012-07-21, 02:21 AM
So...I had an idea a while ago about how Magic should work in a game. I'm really interested in what you guys think about the idea.

Basically, Wizards are now Barbarians. Wait! Come back! Barbarians get their Rages, a sudden and concentrated explosion of "KILL". The Wizard/Mage can enter a Trance a certain number of times per day (similar in number to Barbarian Rage, maybe a few more). While outside the Trance, a spellcaster can only cast spells up to a certain level (like 4th lvl at 20th max), and even then that is limited either by spell slots or mana points.

While in a Trance, a spellcaster has full command of his/her magical abilities and can cast any of their higher spells, but loses a lot of defense and cannot move, necessitating party backup. This lasts for a certain number of rounds, with a rising Will Save or something to determine when the spellcaster falls out of the Trance. When a Trance ends, the Spellcaster is fatigued for the remainder of the encounter and cannot cast regular spells until the encounter ends.

Outside of the Trance a spellcaster would need to practice using at least basic weapons and armor, possibly also using low-level Alchemic potions and flasks to stay in the game. But when the party really needs him/her to step up the spellcaster can lay down some major destruction...at least once a day.

Thoughts? It's rough, but how does the basic idea hold up?

Slipperychicken
2012-07-21, 02:45 AM
Thoughts? It's rough, but how does the basic idea hold up?

Wizards already have hard daily restrictions on casting..

Maybe a specialized "Blaster" or "Nuker" archetype would receive +4 to save DCs and caster level during the Trance, but can only cast damaging spells and has a penalty to AC (unless she ends the Trance prematurely, which leaves her Fatigued).

Grac
2012-07-21, 06:18 AM
I'm very fond of vancian, and don't want to ever see it disappear, at least as far as the wizard and cleric go. Other classes are free to have their own systems for supernatural powers.

For limiting the power of the wizards, I think this could help: 1 spell slot at 1st level, and another spell per day at every following even level. Spell slots in this system would have no levels, rather, the max spell level of the caster is determined by the caster level. Any spell level the caster can know, the caster can memorise in a slot. But that only limits how much the wizard has active at any one time. The problem with wizards being tier 1 in 3e/3.5 is not the spell slots per day, but the spells known. How to fix it?

Make it so that a wizard learns one spell per level, and that spell must be a spell that they have in the form of a scroll or stolen/inherited spell book. The wizard may also swap out one spell they already know for another spell they have access to in the form of a scroll or stolen/inherited spell book. Make the only cantrips be Detect Magic, Prestidigitation, and Read Magic, which may be be cast once per minute with no numerical limit on the number of castings per day.

Going back to the old-school 6 level spell list for wizards, and 5 level spell list for clerics would also help things by getting rid of the most powerful spells.

What would be the result of this?

Each wizard would have their own limited spell list which would make them unique, and would bring more content to the notion of signature spells: The wizards are simply incapable of knowing more than a few, even though the few they know can cover a wide range of abilities. This has the upshot of making things easier on the DM, since they would have less abilities to keep track of when designing an adventure.

To take care of the 15-minute-adventuring-day, longer preparation times on the order of an hour per spell level would decrease the in-story incentive to stop an adventure, while also providing a mechanical incentive to keep a few lower level spells at high levels. However, along with the stick there should be a carrot: Allow wizards to cast spells directly from their spell book at an increased casting time, say, 2 rounds (not modified by spell level). This provides an incentive to rest and memorise spells, but provides a way out if that isn't an option.

I think this deals with a lot of the problems people have raised, except for Sliperychicken. >.>

Slipperychicken
2012-07-21, 11:09 AM
Stuff

Didn't half of this stuff specifically make it into the D&D: Worst thread? :smalltongue:

navar100
2012-07-21, 12:05 PM
This. A lot of This. If a creature is Immune to something (say, Fire), make the wizard use a Cold or Electric spell instead. Don't let him burn it with fire anyway if he takes a feat, or casts a Swift-action spell immediately before, because that really cheapens the immunity. The Wizard should need to switch tactics or roll Caster Level to deal with defenses (i.e. use summons against magic-immune creatures, switch elements, roll against SR), rather than have a spell/feat/PrC that invalidates the defense.

Good idea, but there could be a problem if we go the all wizards must specialize route. If someone or something is immune to the specialty, the wizard could be in trouble. Maybe that's not necessarily a bad thing since in theory other classes would be in the same boat in other situations, but as is pointed out about the fighter and large four legged flying creatures with DR, not being able to do anything in a combat sucks. A solution is not to be too specialized. You would have a blaster mage, not a fire mage. Enchanter is not just about mind affecting. Perhaps 3E Transmutation could be split up so that Enchanting also gets buffing spells like Haste and debuffs like Slow because you're "enchanting" people and object in general, not just minds.


Let the Wizard ditch the spellbook, in the core ruleset, available from level 1. No class should be this dependent on a single item, ever. The threat of instant, total, and permanent crippling is not a balancing factor to the Wizard's power.

Perhaps. It's not like the Sorcerer "pwns" the game because of this. It would be hard pressed to divorce the cleric from his holy symbol, though. True, even in 3E not every cleric spell needed the holy symbol, but it's an iconic aesthetic. Worth considering and ok to do but not an absolute must must.


Make spell-learning times shorter. Why does it take 48 continuous hours to examine, translate, and copy 9 pages of text? And why, from a gameplay perspective, should the Wizard blow two in-game days for every spell he learns? All this does is force regular multi-week in-character breaks, which just forces a very specific pacing, which many play-styles don't support. One hour for the whole process should work out just fine.

See below.


Don't make magic "instant-success", or invalidate entire skills. Instead of automatically curing all disease without fail, let Cure Disease grant an immediate Heal check with a sizable bonus (around +10) so there's still a possibility of failure, however remote. Instead of having Knock instantly and perfectly defeat all locks without fail (and thus invalidating both locks and the Open Lock skill), let it make an Open Lock check with a bonus, or grant that bonus to a character trying to open a lock.

That's fine. I'm ok with curtailing the power of particular spells even if I have to get used to it if I disagree with changes to a spell, as I did with Pathfinder. More specifically with divine affliction removing spells (Remove Disease, Neutralize Poison), I'd still want high level versions to cure all (like Heal) to represent their miraculous nature. If that means bumping up Neutralize Poison a level or two, fine. In compensation, I would like skills to do more. Have a healing skill check actually be able to cure poison and disease. Let there be medicines developed from plants and animals that work. If we're not to default on relying magic to do everything then let mundane stuff work.


Don't make me buy a "Greater" version, let me scale the same spell by putting it in a higher slot. Teleport (5th level) becomes Greater Teleport when cast from a 7th level slot. Rope Trick (2nd level) becomes Magnificent Mansion when cast from a 7th level slot. Cure Minor (1st level) becomes Cure moderate (with a 2nd level slot) and Cure Serious (with a 3rd level slot). I imagine this playing out like 3.5s psionic Augmentation mechanic.

Agreed. Helps with specialization themes. It's a fun concept.


Don't require beauty sleep. A Wizard should be able to stay up all night and not be totally boned the next day. Just let him prepare new spells in an hour, like the Cleric does. Maybe he needs to make Concentration checks to cast while he's Exhausted to represent being tired, but mandating the Wizard to sleep 8 hours a night forces a very specific pacing on the game, which isn't ideal for every campaign.

This and shorter spell learning time help stop the 15 minute work day. Some people would still be offended, though, if the spellcaster uses all his spells in the morning combat, he regains them during lunch, then uses those spells again in the evening combat, regains them during dinner, then uses them again in the late night combat. We're back to an encounter resources mechanic for spellcasting, which is not a bad idea, details to be worked out.

lesser_minion
2012-07-21, 01:22 PM
In theory, a tired wizard should be prone to accidentally conjuring a basket of kittens rather than fireballing the big bad, but I have no problem with the idea of a per-encounter Vancian magic system.

As for the question of what mobility means for melee characters, we've already argued that to death, and I have no desire to repeat myself.


but as is pointed out about the fighter and large four legged flying creatures with DR, not being able to do anything in a combat sucks.

For reference, the MiC basically stealth-errata'd all projectile weapons to deal force damage, explicitly bypassing any and all damage reduction at the cost of not being able to harm the one monster in the game that's immune to force damage. Protection from Arrows is absolutely hilarious as a result.

jaybird
2012-07-21, 02:42 PM
Regarding the spellbook, how about allowing the Wizard to prepare spells without it by memory, with a Spellcraft or Knowledge (Arcana) check scaling with the level of the spell?

Slipperychicken
2012-07-21, 08:06 PM
Good idea, but there could be a problem if we go the all wizards must specialize route.


With this one, I had the generalist in mind. If we force specialization, then each specialist should have ways to deal with enemies immune to the specialty (either that, or avoid outright-immunity in the first place). A set of "universal" fallback spells -things like a damaging "magic missile" that all Wizards know and isn't subject to immunities, although it deals less damage than an Evoker's specialty-blasts. Could also include a "summon weaker ally" spell, which spawns much weaker summons than the Summoning-specialist gets, but is better than nothing.

Rejnhard
2012-07-21, 09:22 PM
That's actually a pretty elegant idea, though I'm not sure if designing overheat as maxing out at 20 is so feasible: My current conception of "Spell Levels" is that any caster can attempt to cast any spell, but a spell that's too powerful for them to handle is represented by causing enough overheat that they're guaranteed to fail the roll. That way, the caster just has two variables: Saving throw bonus and Cooldown rate, without having to add the third variable of Maximum Spell Level.

The downside is these variables have to scale really quickly for it to work out in a sane way, and it's not very long until you get to cast previously-uncastable spells at-will, but that's perfectly fine as long as the spells are designed with that in mind (it wouldn't work if we just did a straight up conversion of 3.5's spell list).



Being able to cast any spell at the cost of high risk? The warhammer 2e does that in an interesting way, you may want to look on it for some inspiration/butchering material. BTW desperation mechanic sounds pretty cool too (if I may use a somewhat dsicredited term, I'm slightly "narrativist" so dramatic stuff like that I like). I always thought that mechanics should have some way of letting players to make a come back outside of sheer luck.

Back to overheat, indeed, it would be hard to transplant on a DnD wizard. As of now the best I come up with is:

Your highest spell slot avaible has ovearheat 7, each lower spell level causes 1 less overheat. So if you can cast 3rd level spells max then they cause 7 overheat, 2nd level cause 6.... god damn it! I just realised that making it like that would cause mages to cast their highest level spells alternating with at wills to cool down, almost always. Each new level of spells in DnD is usually such an increase in power that 1 less overheat is hardly an incentive to use lower one. DnD wizards and their vancian magic are horribly hard to mod :smallmad:

Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-21, 11:48 PM
Being able to cast any spell at the cost of high risk? The warhammer 2e does that in an interesting way, you may want to look on it for some inspiration/butchering material. BTW desperation mechanic sounds pretty cool too (if I may use a somewhat dsicredited term, I'm slightly "narrativist" so dramatic stuff like that I like). I always thought that mechanics should have some way of letting players to make a come back outside of sheer luck.

As a (somewhat unintended) side-effect, characters who take hits more often (like fighters) also get the most benefit from desperation.


Back to overheat, indeed, it would be hard to transplant on a DnD wizard. As of now the best I come up with is:

Your highest spell slot avaible has ovearheat 7, each lower spell level causes 1 less overheat. So if you can cast 3rd level spells max then they cause 7 overheat, 2nd level cause 6.... god damn it! I just realised that making it like that would cause mages to cast their highest level spells alternating with at wills to cool down, almost always. Each new level of spells in DnD is usually such an increase in power that 1 less overheat is hardly an incentive to use lower one. DnD wizards and their vancian magic are horribly hard to mod :smallmad:

Here's my best shot at a straight conversion: Each spell causes 10^l (where l = the spell level) points of overheat. Your saving throw bonus is equal to 10^(caster level / 2 + 1), and your cooldown each turn is 10^(caster level / 2 + 1)/2.

Still causes all sorts of problems at the low and high level ranges, but at the mid levels it's at least sorta-sane.