Wizards are for Blasting [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

NotScaryBats

2012-08-05, 01:29 PM

I was watching a Q&A session on D&D Next with two guys in charge of development. One guy says 'Fireball? If I have my way, I want that to be the best spell.' He was talking about how spells like 'Stone to Flesh' are basically infinite damage since they instantly neutralize an enemy, and how he didn't like that.

Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

Growing up with D&D, I always made my wizards blasters. My second grade wizard had no use for Charm Person, and instead opted to Melf's Acid Arrow. Reading about 'Batman Wizards' and the like on these forums has led me to realize there are more efficient uses of spells, but there does seem to be a focus on the Blaster Wizard in D&D products.

I believe, after watching that guy talk, that this has been intentional. There have been at least some people on the design team that look at wizards as blasters, and design accordingly.

4th Edition, due to its design, basically did away with the concept of insta-kill wizards in some ways. They can still ruin monsters and lock things down, but its different. Spells like fireball still exist, and spells like sleep are almost universally seen as better.

Finally, it is worth noting that the other guy on the Q&A board said 'And I'm the guy who wants to use Charm Person and the like.' Implying that there isn't a unified front for blaster wizards in the development process.

rorikdude12

2012-08-05, 01:53 PM

Oracle_Hunter

2012-08-05, 01:57 PM

I was watching a Q&A session on D&D Next with two guys in charge of development. One guy says 'Fireball? If I have my way, I want that to be the best spell.' He was talking about how spells like 'Stone to Flesh' are basically infinite damage since they instantly neutralize an enemy, and how he didn't like that.

Do you agree? Disagree? Why?
Only if the rules actually support it this time :smalltongue:

Y'see, even in AD&D "Wizards as Blasters" wasn't really all that true since Wizards simply did not have the spell-slots to do more than a few "blasts" per-day. However, it became much less true in 3.X when SoD and SoS spells became more prevalent and "Death By HP Loss" was frequently a less attractive option. It's all well and good for the designers to want something to be a certain way, but if they don't make the rules to support it, it ain't happening.

* * * *

Personally, I think it wastes a lot of the "Wizard" archetype's potential to turn it into no more than a canon -- glass or otherwise. Magic is often used in Fantasy Literature to do fantastic things -- make flying castles, establish prophecies, reveal what is hidden -- and ideally a Heroic Fantasy RPG would have some scope for Players to do those sorts of things. That said, when you're making a party-based RPG like D&D you need to be careful not to make "playing the Caster" the strictly better decision (unless you decide to have no mundanes at all!).

As an aside, I am not heartened to hear that 5e designers are focused on discussions of "what spell is teh kewlest" rather than figuring out how a Wizard fits into a party that contains a Fighter, Cleric and Thief.

NotScaryBats

2012-08-05, 02:26 PM

The Video in Question (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yoa_xQTya8Y)

If you care about 5e, it really is a fascinating watch. There is much more to the video than the little snippet I quoted, and I get the idea that they are going to produce a very worthy product.

Personally, I think it wastes a lot of the "Wizard" archetype's potential to turn it into no more than a canon -- glass or otherwise. Magic is often used in Fantasy Literature to do fantastic things -- make flying castles, establish prophecies, reveal what is hidden -- and ideally a Heroic Fantasy RPG would have some scope for Players to do those sorts of things. That said, when you're making a party-based RPG like D&D you need to be careful not to make "playing the Caster" the strictly better decision (unless you decide to have no mundanes at all!).

None of those things are for fights, though. So, I think what we are talking about is a wizard in combat -- what's he/she do? Instantly neutralize 1 or more enemies with a Mass Polymorph, or tick off some damage with a Chain Lightning?

Tengu_temp

2012-08-05, 02:31 PM

Fireball-throwing blaster wizards are okay. So are subtle illusionists and enchanters. And spellcasters who use grand, long-lasting rituals.

What is not okay is a wizard who has a spell for every situation, letting him do all other characters can do, but better. Just because it's magic doesn't mean it should be overpowered.

oxybe

2012-08-05, 02:33 PM

part of the problem is that the direct damage spells were weakened from 2nd to 3rd.

in 2nd you get far less HP per level on both PC and enemy sides. most enemies were simply strait up Xd8 for HP, with some bonus HP occasionally.

a 5d6 fireball (17) damage or barrage of 3d4+3 (9) magic missiles is far better against a monster with 5d8 (22) HP then against a creature with 5d8+10[+2 con x5] (32) HP.

this generally meant that going from 2nd to 3rd ed, it was harder for a wizard to disable an enemy with pure damage, usually requiring 2-3 spells to do the job.

on the flipside, a single casting of "hold person" or "forcecage" can effectively remove an enemy from combat until you're ready to deal with them.

now, the other problem is "what is a wizard?" and that's one D&D has failed to answer since the mid 1970's.

the D&D wizard is "DAT GUY WHAT MAKES MAGIKS AND REED BUKHS". the class pretty much has no identity beyond it's vancian casting roots so it tends to get every spell under the sun dropped on it's lap.

when you look at the Wuxia-inspired Monk, the mobile & stealthy ranger, the warlock that deals with supernatural entities, etc... it becomes far more clear what those classes should be doing.

if Wizards could figure out what a wizard is then we wouldn't need to wonder if the wizard should be packing Fireball or Charm Person.

NotScaryBats

2012-08-05, 03:01 PM

I think that is a good point. Perhaps an Illusionist, Bard, Necromancer, Seer, etc for different casters based on the schools of magic they use?

Also noteworthy is that a Cleric can be heavily armored fighting character, healing/support character, or blaster caster, depending on build.

Emmerask

2012-08-05, 03:06 PM

Kerrin

2012-08-05, 03:07 PM

I really like the Tier 3 spellcasters (e.g. Beguiler, etc.) from 3rd edition. I'd like the D&D Next spellcasters to be like that I stead of jacks-of-all-trades.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-08-05, 03:12 PM

None of those things are for fights, though. So, I think what we are talking about is a wizard in combat -- what's he/she do? Instantly neutralize 1 or more enemies with a Mass Polymorph, or tick off some damage with a Chain Lightning?
Ah, but that's the thing -- you were asking about "what Wizards are for" not "what Wizards are for in combat."

In combat, I'd prefer the "Wizards as Controllers" approach; not the 4e Wizard version, but like the 4e Invoker one. Not so much "hits lots of guys" but more "shapes the battlefield" sort of stuff. It's easy to see how mundanes can do damage and even single-target debuffs but it's harder to see how they could create Walls or Zones.

EDIT: Also, I don't like how 5e Clerics look like 3e Clerics again. In the playtest, the Cleric could do everything the Fighter could do but better -- and all at the same time. I'd like Clerics to do more Healing and Buffs myself, to leave some room for the Fighter to be the Defender.

Menteith

2012-08-05, 03:27 PM

I like a system where magic use can be used to create, rather than simply destroy. To me, a Blaster seems dull and one dimensional - magic is almost never a purely destructive force in fiction, and I don't see why one has to straightjacket it into that role, when there are so many other potential options for it.

Greyfeld85

2012-08-05, 03:40 PM

Hm I think that they should split the 3.5 wizard class into 5+ different classes (ie balance* the scools and create classes from the schools then), then the fireball throwing wizard is perfectly acceptable (though I would have named him warmage or somesuch).

*with balance of course I don´t mean perfect balance but more then the current schools of magic in 3.5

Personally, I think they could keep the wizard as a single class, as long as they kept the whole "modular" theme they have going. Force a wizard PC to choose 1 or 2 schools of magic to focus on, then make sure spells are schooled properly (instead of that garbage like when they inserted all the Orb spells in conjuration instead of evocation).

Maybe magic from outside of their major schools of study could still be cast, but require lots of extra time and preparation, much like the rituals from 4e.

Then sorcerers have access to all schools of magic, but they're limited to X number of spells known, much like the 3.5 sorcerer, and the spells have to follow a theme.

I haven't been following the news for 5th edition, but after all the missteps they've made in previous editions, and all the testing they've done through 4e and ToB, they have absolutely no reason for any serious power gaps, like thos present in 3.X.

Zeful

2012-08-05, 03:48 PM

I disagree.

What about all the wizards in literature who used subtle magic? Think about all the stories of magical illusions. All the evil sorceresses who put people under enchantments. How about Circe, who turned her enemies into swine? We don't want all those concepts to be unavailable in D&D, do we?

If it's so trivially easy to do that other classes are rendered meaningless by the simple existence of the option, like 3.5?

Then yes, subtle magic can burn in hell if it's going to completely destroy the game's balance and render any option that isn't itself meaningless.

Menteith

2012-08-05, 03:59 PM

If it's so trivially easy to do that other classes are rendered meaningless by the simple existence of the option, like 3.5?

Then yes, subtle magic can burn in hell if it's going to completely destroy the game's balance and render any option that isn't itself meaningless.

Heavily limit how many spells a Wizard can know, and the scope of those spells. There is literally no power in fiction that I can't eventually replicate with the Wizard from 3.5 - that's a bad thing. But giving players options to select a limited pool of spells or abilties, without having utterly game breaking spells on the list, works fine. No one (well, few people) would call a Bard or Beguiler game breaking, after all.

Water_Bear

2012-08-05, 04:09 PM

Personally, I'd say that the purpose of the Wizard now is keep to prepared Vancian Casting alive.

It's been a part of D&D so long you really can't ditch it, but it's also a bit of a lodestone for game design and logical reasons. The power issue, from what I understand, was fixed in 4e (if that edition did anything right, it was mechanical balance).

So keep the Wizard; maybe make them super-specialists, maybe weaken magic in general, maybe just give them a tiny number of spells-per-day. And then let more interesting methods of casting like spontaneous vancian or psionics take over. You get to keep Wizards in the game, you mollify the anti-Wizard contingent by keeping them reasonably weak, and more interesting casters get some love.

toapat

2012-08-05, 04:30 PM

The power issue, from what I understand, was fixed in 4e (if that edition did anything right, it was mechanical balance)

4th Ed did balance the classes, but in the worst way possible. they leveled the playing field by leveling the variety

jaybird

2012-08-05, 04:35 PM

Make a series of focused casters along the lines of Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage (which needs some improvements). Then give the Wizard a Bard's casting progression - he can have all the schools, but he can't have any of the spells above 7th level and he gets them slower.

Also, balance the freaking schools of magic. Meteor Swarm as it is qualifies as a 7th IMO.

NotScaryBats

2012-08-05, 04:41 PM

I like the concept of 'kernels' that Mike Mearls kept referring to.

What do you think the 'kernel' of a wizard is, for D&D? The Vancian System? Specific spells?

So, you'd still 'feel like a wizard' if you were throwing around acid and fire?

Gamer Girl

2012-08-05, 04:44 PM

Disagree.

Wizards, like most core classes can be whatever you want them to be....at least until you get to 4E when you are forced to be a blasty crowd control wizard.

In 1 to 3 E a blaster was just one type of wizard. The most popular? Well, maybe with a certain type of person, but not popular overall. The blasty wizards come from more the 'kill-loot-repeat' roll players.

If anything a warmage or warlock is for blasting, but not a wizard.

jaybird

2012-08-05, 04:52 PM

In 1 to 3 E a blaster was just one type of wizard. The most popular? Well, maybe with a certain type of person, but not popular overall. The blasty wizards come from more the 'kill-loot-repeat' roll players.

So...a desire to kill people in fights implies roll player? Well, I guess people who play Fighters are all roll players then, as that's exactly what the class is designed for.

In other words, no.

oxybe

2012-08-05, 05:13 PM

again: wizards were borked because they had no focus as a class beyond "casts magic".

the other issue magic was generally ill-defined in what it could and couldn't do... if it wasn't mundane it was "magic".

and the wizard had pretty much all the magics.

Star Badger

2012-08-05, 05:22 PM

So...a desire to kill people in fights implies roll player? Well, I guess people who play Fighters are all roll players then, as that's exactly what the class is designed for.

In other words, no.

I believe they were talking about people who do nothing BUT kill and loot, with no thought to roleplaying.

Eldan

2012-08-05, 05:24 PM

erikun

2012-08-05, 05:44 PM

Just because Fireball is the best spell doesn't make Flesh to Stone a bad option, just not optimal in most cases. Consider a Flesh to Stone spell that grants a cumulative -1 Dexterity penality each round, and petrifies the target when they hit 0 Dex. Is this better than a Fireball that deals 75% HP damage? Probably not, no. However, that doesn't make the Flesh to Stone spell worthless. It grants penalities to AC and reflex saves, it can be used in hit-and-run to eventually pick someone off, it can cause the enemy healer to be casting restoration magic rather than healing...

I like the concept of 'kernels' that Mike Mearls kept referring to.

What do you think the 'kernel' of a wizard is, for D&D? The Vancian System? Specific spells?

So, you'd still 'feel like a wizard' if you were throwing around acid and fire?
The 'kernel' of the wizard is a smart guy who is rewarded for taking the time to prepare themselves for the day ahead. Vancian tends to do this rather well, although it could be cleaned up quite a bit - the idea of only giving the wizard 10 spells to prepare, but allowing them to cast in any mix throughout the day.

Compare this to the 'kernel' of the sorcerer, who is supposed to just know inherit magic and cast it whenever they want - they might be better designed like the D&D3 Warlock. The warlock theme is creating a binding pact and gaining power from it - they might be best with magic similar to the cleric, or perhaps how the D&D3 Binder worked.

Reluctance

2012-08-05, 06:48 PM

toapat

2012-08-05, 06:59 PM

Wizard = do anything is a D&D artifact. You're probably going to wind up with classes called "wizard" and "cleric", since they're part of the essential D&D identity, but I want them forced to specialize. Blasty mages should be distinct from illusionists should be distinct from summoners. That matches fantasy better (mages tending to focus on small areas of specialization), and also does a lot to keep the characters in theme. T3-4 is praised mostly for the ability to not drive the DM mad having to keep track of all the PC options.

The devs want to make blasting more attractive. That's cool, since it is flashy. It's also the sort of tweaking that should come late in the development cycle.

I have 2 problems with the concept of Wizards and Clerics.

Wizards are general practitioners of magic, something so mysterious and difficult to comprehend that you have to spend decades learning some basic stuff, where as learning one basic concept of magic and then extrapolating on that would get you better power, but not the kind of flexibility that more general studies would attain. Basically the Wizard is the ideal, the Mage is the reality.

Clerics: Im personally fine with clerics alone, but clerics take the same space as the paladin, leaving less room for the shining knights.

Dienekes

2012-08-05, 07:17 PM

I think Wizards should be what they want to be. Blasters should be a great option, Illusionists should be another great option, as should Enchanters, and so on.

Personally I'm completely ok with forcing a wizard to only have 1 style of spell for each wizard chosen at first level. Generalists would be possible but advance slower and wouldn't get the most powerful spells for each school.

Now in my own play, blaster wizards are fun. The idea of an insane gen ius who loves to blow stuff up is definitely great. Though, I'll admit I've played a subtle wizard and enjoyed playing it a lot more. It's fun to have a bunch of tricks to use, but I am very wary of a wizard that is the best at everything. This is horrible and needs to be stomped like the cockroach it is.

NotScaryBats

2012-08-05, 07:26 PM

So, a wizard has to be smart, with a large array of powers at her disposal that she must choose from on a daily basis. There should be a strong distinction between what arcane magic is and what divine magic is. She should be viable outside of combat as well as in combat.

Does that sum up our kernel?

Eldan

2012-08-05, 07:40 PM

Oracle_Hunter

2012-08-05, 07:44 PM

I like the concept of 'kernels' that Mike Mearls kept referring to.

What do you think the 'kernel' of a wizard is, for D&D? The Vancian System? Specific spells?
If you were to distill the Wizard from across the Editions of D&D into one thing it would have to be "scholar."

Wizards have always been "book taught" people in D&D and back when they were still "Magic Users" one of the main reasons they were supposed to be adventuring was to discover new spells. The mechanics may change, the spells may change, but the sense that they were studious folks who learned their vocation at the foot of a master or at an academy never left them.

IMHO, not the most useful thing to meditate on when designing a system but there it is.

nedz

2012-08-05, 08:49 PM

Y'see, even in AD&D "Wizards as Blasters" wasn't really all that true since Wizards simply did not have the spell-slots to do more than a few "blasts" per-day. However, it became much less true in 3.X when SoD and SoS spells became more prevalent and "Death By HP Loss" was frequently a less attractive option. It's all well and good for the designers to want something to be a certain way, but if they don't make the rules to support it, it ain't happening. ...

It was also the case that Evasion was not quite so ubiquitous. You had to be something like an 8th level Monk to get Evasion in AD&D, IIRC.

There was also the rule about it expanding to fill an equivalent area in confined spaces, this always caught out the newbie Wizard players.

Fireball was an iconic spell in 1E and 2E, it just lost that status in later editions. I think its probably a good idea if that was recaptured, I'm just concerned that they may get this wrong again.

Zeful

2012-08-05, 09:20 PM

Reluctance

2012-08-05, 09:30 PM

A wizard should fight like a chess player. Like a surgeon. Like an engineer.

I could say the same about a fighter. Roy isn't just good at hitting bad guys hard. He's able to outthink them, rally allies, and do a bunch of other things that heroes do, but that fighters have no mechanical abilities to represent.

Wizards, meanwhile, it sounds like you just want them to have a lot of skill ranks (largely from high intelligence), without cross-class skill limits. After that, once you've cleaned up the individual spells, it's totally cool if the wizard can use one of those strategies. Allowing them to pick "any of the above" makes them far too versatile. The only omnipotent wizards in fiction I can think of are enemies where you have to find their macguffin weakness, and plot devices. Never protagonists. There's a reason for this.

Zeful

2012-08-05, 09:34 PM

I could say the same about a fighter. Roy isn't just good at hitting bad guys hard. He's able to outthink them, rally allies, and do a bunch of other things that heroes do, but that fighters have no mechanical abilities to represent.

Wizards, meanwhile, it sounds like you just want them to have a lot of skill ranks (largely from high intelligence), without cross-class skill limits. After that, once you've cleaned up the individual spells, it's totally cool if the wizard can use one of those strategies. Allowing them to pick "any of the above" makes them far too versatile. The only omnipotent wizards in fiction I can think of are enemies where you have to find their macguffin weakness, and plot devices. Never protagonists. There's a reason for this.

Magic in fiction follows a set of unspoken rules: The more people that have it, the less powerful it's portrayed as. If one person has magic, it'll be cataclysmic in power and scale, capable of rending continents and reshaping the face of nations. If everyone has it, it's orders of magnitude less powerful.

Greyfeld85

2012-08-05, 09:45 PM

Sounds broken. What do wizards give up to prevent them from being just the better option?

Wizards have to prepare their magic ahead of time, and don't have the resources or flexibility to make any changes to their loadout. Their strongest weapon is knowledge and information, allowing them to prepare for their future encounters and hardships; and if they're caught with their pants down, they have to fall back on more mundane means of defense.

At least that's how I feel about it.

My idea of what a Wizard is (or should be) is captured pretty well in the Dresden Files books.

I could say the same about a fighter. Roy isn't just good at hitting bad guys hard. He's able to outthink them, rally allies, and do a bunch of other things that heroes do, but that fighters have no mechanical abilities to represent.

The problem with this assertion is that the name "Fighter" is way too vague to come up with a single, universal definition. That's also the problem that plagues the 3.5 Fighter class, it lacks a single definition, a single focus point.

There are a lot of ways to build a martial combatant, and all of them would fall under the umbrella of Fighter. It's not until you define exactly the sort of combatant you want to build that we can get into the nuts and bolts of how they operate.

Zeful

2012-08-05, 09:47 PM

Wizards have to prepare their magic ahead of time, and don't have the resources or flexibility to make any changes to their loadout. Their strongest weapon is knowledge and information, allowing them to prepare for their future encounters and hardships; and if they're caught with their pants down, they have to fall back on more mundane means of defense.

At least that's how I feel about it.

My idea of what a Wizard is (or should be) is captured pretty well in the Dresden Files books.

So pretty much the broken 3.5 wizard then?

If that's the case 5e will suck.

Gamer Girl

2012-08-05, 09:59 PM

So...a desire to kill people in fights implies roll player? Well, I guess people who play Fighters are all roll players then, as that's exactly what the class is designed for.

Well, Yes.

A wizard-one who uses magic.
A fighter-one who fights.

Menteith

2012-08-05, 10:00 PM

So pretty much the broken 3.5 wizard then?

If that's the case 5e will suck.

....no?

In the Dresden Files, most casters are seriously limited to what they can do quickly, and even with ritual magic, it generally takes a serious amount of skill to pull off powerful effects. The scope of magic is pretty broad, but very, very few people have mastery over all elements of magic, and almost everyone has a "favored" branch of magic (Mental control, fire evocation, shapeshifting, summoning/binding, etc). So sort of the exact opposite of what you're implying; could you please walk me through your thought process as to how you arrived at that conclusion?

Eldan

2012-08-05, 10:05 PM

I won't go about quoting everyone, so just a few general answers:

I was writing this mostly from a fluff standpoint, divorced from actual game and balance concerns. Wizards are powerful.

That said, if I had to balance them and their scholarly nature with more mundane classes, I'd say this: don't start wizards out as wizards. Wizards study for years. Make them start out as mundane scholars, or apprentices. Give them knowledge, medicine, tactical insight, arcane knowledge, but no magic, no actual spells, until they get to higher levels, when the fighter surpasses the mundane as well. Have them study their way up to magic.

Alternatively: wizards are inside people, so to speak. They are used to a warm fire, a library, three meals a day and a bed. Spending their days sleeping on forest floors and in wet caves means they wake up tired and aching and go to bed hungry. They are not used to this. It has negative effects on them. Basically, make the wildneress harsher, and everyone else better at surviving in it.

Or another alternative: they need their preparation. Give the wizard an hour, and he will be strong. Give him a week, and you can never take him. Surprise him, and he's dead when poked with a dagger. And if anything is unexpected, they are screwed. Make spells so highly situational that without preparation, the wizard is useless.

Or, of course: just make him squishy. Don't let him cast spells when threatened. Give him fewer defences. Make it so that a man with a metal stick is a serious threat, no matter what the wizard does.

Now, I do not contest that fighters can be smart. They can be just as smart and tactical as wizards. But fighters can also be dumb brutes with sticks. Not wizards. A wizard has to be that smart, or he wouldn't be a wizard. Intelligence is optional, but beneficial for fighters. It's essential for wizards.

None of these make the wizard overpowered, I think. Just more difficult to write and balance.

Zeful

2012-08-05, 10:08 PM

....no?

In the Dresden Files, most casters are seriously limited to what they can do quickly, and even with ritual magic, it generally takes a serious amount of skill to pull off powerful effects. The scope of magic is pretty broad, but very, very few people have mastery over all elements of magic, and almost everyone has a "favored" branch of magic (Mental control, fire evocation, shapeshifting, summoning/binding, etc). So sort of the exact opposite of what you're implying; could you please walk me through your thought process as to how you arrived at that conclusion?

Grey's quote, in my post, that I was responding too, was pretty much describing the exact same limitations as the 3.5 wizard, which meant nothing in the face of divination spells. When A=A and A is bad design...

Eldan

2012-08-05, 10:14 PM

Grey's quote, in my post, that I was responding too, was pretty much describing the exact same limitations as the 3.5 wizard, which meant nothing in the face of divination spells. When A=A and A is bad design...

That is, however, the fault of divination spells, not the idea of a prepared wizard. I very much think that 3.5's perfect divination spells need to go the way of the Dodo anyway.

So, what would you think of a prepared wizard who had mostly mundane knowledge ("In the Flaywind Desert live Dire Scorpions, they are weak to ice magic...", "The red Dragon Shaharvatrax is said to be blind on his left eye, so I suggest the following plan...", "Magister Delfangor writes in The Seven Spheres that on every third day after the solstice..") and vague divinations ("What you seek lies between the fallen moon and the north wind, speak the oldest lie to turn the spider's heart...")?

Greyfeld85

2012-08-05, 10:22 PM

Grey's quote, in my post, that I was responding too, was pretty much describing the exact same limitations as the 3.5 wizard, which meant nothing in the face of divination spells. When A=A and A is bad design...

That's because, as-is, divination spells can give you answers to anything and everything under the sun, with zero (or easily mitigated) drawbacks. And you don't even have to specialize in divination to be good at it, you just have to scrawl the spell in your spellbook and get a few hours of sleep so you can prepare it.

A more realistic look at divination would be insanity-inducing, highly dangerous, extremely difficult, and often fatal. In a world where you're likely to get your face eaten by a demon when you dabble in divination, the whole "prepare for the workday" wizard becomes either a lot more perilous, or a lot more guesswork.

The general idea is to force the wizard to rely on more mundane means of gaining information, so that they have to put in the work just to prepare themselves, instead of putting in 10 minutes of chanting and having all the information he needs.

toapat

2012-08-05, 10:23 PM

The inherent problem of having a Wizard is defined within the name of a class.

They are Wizards.

sure, everyone loves them a good Deus Ex Machina character every now and then, but the kind of power that the defining term implies is that this dude knows a ton about magic.

thing is, do you really want a character who is 100% Deus Ex Machina, 100% of the time?

basically, i dont agree that Wizards should have one specific role, but i also dont agree that you should be allowed to be able to play a Wizard, just a mage, who focuses on some spell group of their choice.

ShneekeyTheLost

2012-08-05, 10:25 PM

Personally, I like the idea of forcing a Wizard to specialize, assuming the schools are balanced with respect to one another.

Right now, Wizard is pretty much 'do anything you want and get away with it'. The Transmutation and Conjuration schools are vastly more powerful than Evocation, which is all but worthless in the face of the Shadow Evocation line of spells.

Here's what would have to happen to make blasting viable:

1) Bring hit points down to a more level playing field. If you need 4+ nukes in order to kill something... that's not balanced.

2) Prevent DC-stacking. Right now, DC's in the 30's are seen as par to below par. If you really focus on it, you can get your DC's much higher. Enough that you'll need a Natural 20 to save. That's not 'save or lose', that's 'roll a nat 20 or lose'. Make those win buttons less certain to work.

3) Level the playing field. Right now, Evocation sucks, because a couple of spells can duplicate 90% of what you'd ever want to bother with it for. Contingency and maybe Wall of Force/Forcecage. In the last example, you even get to bypass expensive material components, in exchange for a Will/negate. See previous comment about DC stacking.

4) Force casters to specialize. All casters. Clerics get spells from 'spheres' (functions similar to domain spell lists) based on their deity choice. Wizards get to specialize in a school.

5) Give melee something to do other than swing a sword. This is why I approve of ToB. If you don't want the 'psudo-magic' flavor, fine. Make up a set of maneuvers which only melee gain access to. Make sure they are worth taking.

6) Revamp multiclassing and PrCing. Melee's other problem is that casters do it better than they do, with things like Gish builds or CoDzilla.

Personally, I like the idea of a whole subset of 'arcane' classes, much like Beguiler or Dread Necro. Warmage would be better if he had spells worth casting. Make an Oracle (divination/abjuration) and a Summoner (Conjuration/Transmutation), and now we're talking. Assuming we balance out the schools so Conjuration/Transmutation doesn't completely overpower everything.

Your traditional 'wizard' was a bookish sort who would never be caught dead adventuring. Those whom adventure tend to be less bookish, but also more focused on using 'magic as a tool' rather than 'magic as everything'.

Eldan

2012-08-05, 10:30 PM

I much dislike the idea mentioned here of making players the more specialized wizards. I very much stand behind the idea that whatever an NPC can do, a PC should be able to do as well.

Greyfeld85

2012-08-05, 10:35 PM

I much dislike the idea mentioned here of making players the more specialized wizards. I very much stand behind the idea that whatever an NPC can do, a PC should be able to do as well.

I don't think anybody was suggesting that NPCs should get to do whatever they want, while PCs are forced to specialize.

Dienekes

2012-08-05, 10:37 PM

I don't think anyone is saying that an NPC gets more options. NPC Wizards should specialize as well.

Or have Generalists Wizards that do not get to use the full power of each of the respective schools. Or something.

In any case the full view really just seems to be, don't let Wizards be able to do anything. It creates ridiculously unbalanced play and isn't fun for anyone else.

erikun

2012-08-05, 10:47 PM

Greyfeld85

2012-08-05, 11:03 PM

I don't like the idea of forcing Wizards to specialize. If you want to make a Summoner and a MageBlaster and an Illusionist, then you should just make those classes and drop the Wizard. Don't call it a Wizard and then say Thou Must Specialize And Be Completely Different From All Others as a way of pretending they're all still the same class.

Why? That's how it currently works. If you Specialize, you have to pick two schools of magic to nix, and you're allowed to choose any two schools except divination. In addition, there are all sorts of feats and alternate class features that allow wizards to further specialize, giving up even more schools or reducing the DCs on spells of other schools, or setting aside spell slots for spells of only school X, and just about anything else under the sun.

Making the wizard super-specialize from the beginning as part of his base class feature is just narrowing their power from the ground-up, instead of top-down, the way things are currently run.

Besides, as it's been stated, wizard are scholars, first and foremost. I find it rather easy to believe that magic is such a deep and complex science that a wizard can only ever master a single school of it in his lifetime.

toapat

2012-08-05, 11:08 PM

I don't like the idea of forcing Wizards to specialize. If you want to make a Summoner and a MageBlaster and an Illusionist, then you should just make those classes and drop the Wizard. Don't call it a Wizard and then say Thou Must Specialize And Be Completely Different From All Others as a way of pretending they're all still the same class.

Plus, I'd prefer the spells to be more in-line with each other and what else can be done in the system. Forcing Wizards to specialize but leaving in Polymorph to break the game really doesn't resolve anything. On the other hand, if you fix all the spells so that your Transmuters and Necromancers are balanced with the other options, then your basic generalist Wizard would be balanced as well - I didn't see a problem of D&D3 spells in combination ever really being a big problem.

My sugestion was not to even call them wizards, because if there is a wizard in the world, he should be either the Archvillian, or a PC who sits in his hut till his Abjuration spell (Warn against Drama) calls him to action to save the PCs from the Archvillian while everything explodes.

also, the schools would have to be divided into better "Archdisciplines" such as:

Invocation: Conjuration (Not healing) + Necromancy (Damagey stuff) + Evocation: The magics of summoning the powers of the multiverse.

Perception: Illusion+Enchantment+Divination+ Necromancy (Feary stuff): The Magics of the Mind

Transmutation: Necromancy (Animationy stuff) + Transmutation + Abjuration + Conjuration (Healing): The Magics of Manipulating the physical world.

Reluctance

2012-08-05, 11:14 PM

That said, if I had to balance them and their scholarly nature with more mundane classes, I'd say this: don't start wizards out as wizards. Wizards study for years. Make them start out as mundane scholars, or apprentices. Give them knowledge, medicine, tactical insight, arcane knowledge, but no magic, no actual spells, until they get to higher levels, when the fighter surpasses the mundane as well. Have them study their way up to magic.

They tried that, back in the TSR days. They even have a bit of that in the 3e wizard. At first level, you're weenie. Once you're into the teens, you're god.

The practical effect? People play fighters until wizards started coming into their own, then killing off the character to introduce a new wizard. Or people started campaigns above first level to avoid the extreme fragility phase. "Suck at 1, awesome at 20" is horrible design, and should go the way of gameplay benefits for RP drawbacks.

Alternatively: wizards are inside people, so to speak. They are used to a warm fire, a library, three meals a day and a bed. Spending their days sleeping on forest floors and in wet caves means they wake up tired and aching and go to bed hungry. They are not used to this. It has negative effects on them. Basically, make the wildneress harsher, and everyone else better at surviving in it.

All penalties that can be mitigated. All penalties that smart characters will mitigate. All you do is punish the players who don't comb through books for the ways around the system.

And don't kid yourself. If there's a major flaw in a character archetype, some writer will be pissed off at the thing getting in the way of his fun and write in some workaround. That's if individual groups don't overwhelmingly houserule it away, like monk/paladin multiclass restrictions or 2e level limits.

Or another alternative: they need their preparation. Give the wizard an hour, and he will be strong. Give him a week, and you can never take him. Surprise him, and he's dead when poked with a dagger. And if anything is unexpected, they are screwed. Make spells so highly situational that without preparation, the wizard is useless.

Either spells are so specific in effect that nobody would use them, or broad enough in effect that a smart player could cover their bases. You're not going to get it to balance perfectly. Even if you could, balancing at-will resources with limited daily resources makes assumptions about daily encounter quotas that are rarely met in real play.

I don't like the idea of forcing Wizards to specialize. If you want to make a Summoner and a MageBlaster and an Illusionist, then you should just make those classes and drop the Wizard. Don't call it a Wizard and then say Thou Must Specialize And Be Completely Different From All Others as a way of pretending they're all still the same class.

Plus, I'd prefer the spells to be more in-line with each other and what else can be done in the system. Forcing Wizards to specialize but leaving in Polymorph to break the game really doesn't resolve anything. On the other hand, if you fix all the spells so that your Transmuters and Necromancers are balanced with the other options, then your basic generalist Wizard would be balanced as well - I didn't see a problem of D&D3 spells in combination ever really being a big problem.

See, I'd be happy if they just put a bullet in the skull of all the overly-broad caster classes. That's not going to happen, though. It's a game called D&D, there's going to be a class called wizard. Just like there will be levels, hit points, dragons, and dungeons.

And yes. Giving wizards an oversize toolkit does break the game. As a DM, one of the most annoying things about T1s is having to prepare one's plots for anything. If you want to argue for 3e style wizards and clerics, do me a favor. Give me plots that cannot be trivialized by spells in core, that don't only work because they arbitrarily nerf spells. It's easier to account for "he can control ghosts" than "he can do everything".

The other alternative is to sharply limit the number of spells a wizard can know. As anyone who played 2e knows, they already tried this. Players either quickly find ways to surpass the rules within their limits, or more often, everybody just ends up ignoring those rules. It's worth asking what rules are likely to actually be used. Rules that add nothing other than annoyance and overhead are likely to be ignored, and rules that are ignored don't count as balancing factors.

Zeful

2012-08-05, 11:19 PM

That is, however, the fault of divination spells, not the idea of a prepared wizard. I very much think that 3.5's perfect divination spells need to go the way of the Dodo anyway.

So, what would you think of a prepared wizard who had mostly mundane knowledge ("In the Flaywind Desert live Dire Scorpions, they are weak to ice magic...", "The red Dragon Shaharvatrax is said to be blind on his left eye, so I suggest the following plan...", "Magister Delfangor writes in The Seven Spheres that on every third day after the solstice..") and vague divinations ("What you seek lies between the fallen moon and the north wind, speak the oldest lie to turn the spider's heart...")?

Much the same, because quite frankly, wizard players are just going to read the monster manual anyway, not bother with those things called knowledge checks and then act like children if/when the DM points out that their character DOES NOT KNOW THIS.

So you can't rely on players playing properly, because all evidence, ever, points to them not doing so, thus further limitations need to be added.

Menteith

2012-08-05, 11:23 PM

Much the same, because quite frankly, wizard players are just going to read the monster manual anyway, not bother with those things called knowledge checks and then act like children if/when the DM points out that their character DOES NOT KNOW THIS.

So you can't rely on players playing properly, because all evidence, ever, points to them not doing so, thus further limitations need to be added.

[CITATION NEEDED]

I'm sorry that you've had that experience. With a few minor exceptions, my players respect Player/Character knowledge pretty well. So yeah, I've just shown that not "all evidence ever" points to that.

toapat

2012-08-05, 11:23 PM

*the section about Generalist wizards being a horrible design choice that i agree with*

Anyone who has read the entire set of LotR books know what kind of spells gandalf uses?

Zeful

2012-08-05, 11:30 PM

[CITATION NEEDED]

I'm sorry that you've had that experience. With a few minor exceptions, my players respect Player/Character knowledge pretty well. So yeah, I've just shown that not "all evidence ever" points to that.

So how do you define "common knowledge" because in game, it doesn't exist, if you know something about player races, or the local area, or any of the various monsters, you had to have rolled a knowledge check to do so, and for a 1HD creature, the DC is 11, which you can't roll untrained.

That evidence isn't looking so good now is it?

toapat

2012-08-05, 11:34 PM

"Archdisciplines" such as:

Invocation: Conjuration (Not healing) + Necromancy (Damagey stuff) + Evocation: The magics of summoning the powers of the multiverse.

Perception: Illusion+Enchantment+Divination+ Necromancy (Feary stuff): The Magics of the Mind

Transmutation: Necromancy (Animationy stuff) + Transmutation + Abjuration + Conjuration (Healing): The Magics of Manipulating the physical world.

basically, when making a Mage character, the idea would be you have to choose from one of those 3, but, in exchange for your highest 3 levels of spells, you would be able to add one additional discipline to the mix, meaning if you wanted to play a wizard, you have to pay a huge fee.

"common knowledge"

"Common Knowledge, Isnt"

Menteith

2012-08-05, 11:36 PM

So how do you define "common knowledge" because in game, it doesn't exist, if you know something about player races, or the local area, or any of the various monsters, you had to have rolled a knowledge check to do so, and for a 1HD creature, the DC is 11, which you can't roll untrained.

That evidence isn't looking so good now is it?

Having poorly functioning Knowledge checks is unrelated to your statement.

"So you can't rely on players playing properly, because all evidence, ever, points to them not doing so, thus further limitations need to be added."

In my experience, I haven't had an issue with players using out of character knowledge in game. You're not going to be able to twist that to prove your point. My experience differs from yours, and shows that not "all evidence ever" points toward players " act(ing) like children if/when the DM points out that their character DOES NOT KNOW THIS."

Reluctance

2012-08-05, 11:38 PM

[CITATION NEEDED]

I'm sorry that you've had that experience. With a few minor exceptions, my players respect Player/Character knowledge pretty well. So yeah, I've just shown that not "all evidence ever" points to that.

Wizards have high Int scores, and will most likely have access to a broad variety of knowledge skills. With the fighter, you might either have the player splash a couple of skill points around if it's a skillpoint based system, or ask the wizard if splashing isn't a productive option.

Still, if you press players about not using OOC knowledge, what'll most likely happen is that the party will collectively buy up enough skills that someone will be able to tell you what monster you're facing off against is. Having paid the skill tax, they'll have support for using OOC knowledge as IC.

And then there are divinations. Did anyone stop and think how frustrating it is to make up a cryptic riddle on the fly?

erikun

2012-08-05, 11:38 PM

Why? That's how it currently works. If you Specialize, you have to pick two schools of magic to nix, and you're allowed to choose any two schools except divination.
There is a large difference between a Beguiler (what this is proposing) and a specialist Illusionist, or a Dread Necromancer and a specialist Necromancer. Even with AD&D and the forced selection of which schools to drop - the choices of which schools you lost were already made for you - a specialist mage had more variety than simply being restricted to one or two schools of magic.

And it is relatively easy to make a specialist wizard worth the specialization. D&D3 did so with just extra spell slots, although it perhaps handed out too many.

My point though is that forcing a focused-specialist Illusionist and a focused-specialist Summoner and others means that you no longer have a Wizard. You just have a bunch of different classes that share somewhat similar mechanics.

See, I'd be happy if they just put a bullet in the skull of all the overly-broad caster classes. That's not going to happen, though. It's a game called D&D, there's going to be a class called wizard. Just like there will be levels, hit points, dragons, and dungeons.

And yes. Giving wizards an oversize toolkit does break the game. As a DM, one of the most annoying things about T1s is having to prepare one's plots for anything. If you want to argue for 3e style wizards and clerics, do me a favor. Give me plots that cannot be trivialized by spells in core, that don't only work because they arbitrarily nerf spells. It's easier to account for "he can control ghosts" than "he can do everything".

The other alternative is to sharply limit the number of spells a wizard can know. As anyone who played 2e knows, they already tried this. Players either quickly find ways to surpass the rules within their limits, or more often, everybody just ends up ignoring those rules. It's worth asking what rules are likely to actually be used. Rules that add nothing other than annoyance and overhead are likely to be ignored, and rules that are ignored don't count as balancing factors.
Here's an idea: Limit the number of spells a wizard can prepare. Don't include wands that allow them to cast a spell 50x. And don't create spells that completely invalidate entire other classes with a single casting.

I mean, is it really difficult to make Knock a one-minute casting time? To make it range touch, and thus the wizard getting hit by any trap on the lock? To make the Knock-item a bell that makes a loud noise and is only useable once per day? (Note: the last is how AD&D actually handled Knock.)

It really isn't hard to make these spells viable in a team environment, especially now that we know what spells are the problem and why they are the problem. They already need to re-write every spell into the new system already, so it's not like the question "Does this spell completely invalidate any secret with no way to avoid it" cannot be asked at this point.

And once again, if you correct the spells, then the generalist wizard isn't a problem. If you don't correct the spells, then the specialist wizard is just as broken as before.

toapat

2012-08-05, 11:46 PM

And once again, if you correct the spells, then the generalist wizard isn't a problem. If you don't correct the spells, then the specialist wizard is just as broken as before.

I think you are missing the entire problem of a Wizard (There is no such thing as a Specialist Wizard, as soon as they get a focus, they become a Mage).

Wizards can do a ton of stuff because they learn spells to perform mundane actions and magical warfare. Because he gets that broad coverage, he will always make every other party member useless.

I can imaging the entire reason why Fireball was researched was because the local Orc Clan decided to pillage the Wizard's town a few hours too long, and so he made a solution of big explody goodness, so that he would be able to get a carton of milk at the market.

Menteith

2012-08-05, 11:50 PM

Still, if you press players about not using OOC knowledge, what'll most likely happen is that the party will collectively buy up enough skills that someone will be able to tell you what monster you're facing off against is. Having paid the skill tax, they'll have support for using OOC knowledge as IC.

Well sure, if the Wizard has the mechanical, in character, knowledge, there's no issue. He made the claim that regardless of having IC knowledge, players will always abuse OOC knowledge IC. That's not my experience with the game, and I informed him. Nothing more, and nothing less. His signature even asks me to do this.

Reluctance

2012-08-05, 11:52 PM

NotScaryBats

2012-08-06, 12:04 AM

So, you still want to be able to do some of the toolbox wizard stuff -- things like divinations, making people fly, charm and hold -- you just think it should be neutered to be more in line with other classes?

There is still the problem of 'hold person is infinite damage.'

D&D 4e's stance of Ritual Magic looks like this: it takes a long time and is expensive to do teleportations and most 'out of combat spells' from knock to summoning ghostly steeds. Everyone from a Fighter who takes a feat to the Cleric has access to these rituals.

Then, the in-combat wizard focuses on damaging and hindering enemies with things like Cloud of Daggers (move through this and take damage) and Sleep.

Is that more in line with the ideal balanced wizard?

Also, note that we are talking about a Player Character Class, not an Epic Spellcaster. Or, do people really think a level 10 character should be able to do anything if they are smart enough?

toapat

2012-08-06, 12:06 AM

You didn't answer my question.

I'm playing a wizard 20. My friends are playing a cleric 20, druid 20, and, because he brings the beer and makes us laugh, monk 20. Give me a plot that the four of us cannot trivialize with a good night's rest. One that isn't based on arbitrarily neutering magic.

This isn't about things like Grease being OP because nobody thought to give monsters ranks in Balance. This is an exercise in how hard it is for a DM to account for all the options available to an ubergeneralist.

You are inside a Maze. This maze has a ceiling, floor, and 4 walls. And thousands of Minotaurs who can see the Dead Magic Walls of the maze.
All spells impact the walls as though they were infinite hardness and thickness rock barriers. The Outer walls also contain Deadmagic Zones.

All the Minotaurs are 18th level barbarians who built out to TWF with Spiked Chains, so they can attack you through the walls.

How do you survive.

NotScaryBats

2012-08-06, 12:08 AM

That is a really contrived scenario that doesn't really relate to the point of the thread. Let's get back to the point.

toapat

2012-08-06, 12:13 AM

That is a really contrived scenario that doesn't really relate to the point of the thread. Let's get back to the point.

actually, it is a point, Generalist classes reduce the number of options the DM has, to the point where the only significantly threatening scenario is locking them in a box which they cant see, cant affect, and cant teleport out of, and the only one subsitution level for paladin can even deal with.

originally it was a cell that was contained entirely in the Antimagic field, but the Druid's bear made that an easy one.

Reluctance

2012-08-06, 12:16 AM

You are inside a Maze. This maze has a ceiling, floor, and 4 walls. And thousands of Minotaurs who can see the Dead Magic Walls of the maze.
All spells impact the walls as though they were infinite hardness and thickness rock barriers. The Outer walls also contain Deadmagic Zones.

All the Minotaurs are 18th level barbarians who built out to TWF with Spiked Chains, so they can attack you through the walls.

How do you survive.

That's not a plot. Still, given the opportunity to prepare for it, trivial.

Assuming the area we're in isn't directly antimagiced (arbitrarily nerfing magic) or bars planar transit (ditto), everyone casts Gate. We then run to somewhere more hospitable.

Edit: We're saying the same thing. Cool. :)

NotScaryBats

2012-08-06, 12:19 AM

toapat

2012-08-06, 12:28 AM

That's not a plot. Still, given the opportunity to prepare for it, trivial.

Assuming the area we're in isn't directly antimagiced (arbitrarily nerfing magic) or bars planar transit (ditto), everyone casts Gate. We then run to somewhere more hospitable.

A total Deadmagic shell doesnt prevent teleportation spells, so long as they are only within the bubble.

also, preparing? the Minotaurs could pull you through a deadmagic wall and just strip out all your buffs. There is no preparation.

Reluctance

2012-08-06, 12:31 AM

Okay, but a wizard can be 'a generalist' and not 'has all the powers of creation at their fingertips'

If I'm a wizard guy -- beard and the whole stars and moons blue robe. Pointy hat. I know the following spells:

Make a sword catch fire
Shoot magic missiles
Make a person fly
Flesh to Stone
Teleport
Lightning Bolt
Summon Giant Wolves
Communicate Telepathically

That to me is a generalist wizard. He won't be able to instantly kill a dragon, even if he 'knows ahead of time there is a dragon.'

You may not be able to auto-win every encounter. Those two abilities marked can still allow you to evade them at whim, unless the DM specifically accounts for them.

You then have to explain why those eight abilities are the entirety of your wizard's spellbook. If you can swap out some of those abilities tomorrow to, say, spy on your enemies or pump your social skills to insane levels, the DM also has to account for those abilities as well. That's what most of us think when we think of generalist wizards.

I'd be down with allowing something like Expanded Knowledge or the liberal interpretation of Extra Spell, where you spend a feat to gain an ability outside your idiom. I'm not cool with being able to pick up a broad swath of abilities for a cheap cost in gold. (Or worse, in the cleric case, for zero cost at all.)

jaybird

2012-08-06, 12:35 AM

Well, Yes.

A wizard-one who uses magic.
A fighter-one who fights.

I take issue with your assumption that anyone who primarily wants to do combat is a rollplayer, considering you've just, by extension, classified nearly every class T3 and below as a class for rollplayers. Unless you're thinking of a very different definition of 'rollplay'...

Zeful

2012-08-06, 12:40 AM

Erikun. You didn't answer my question.

I'm playing a wizard 20. My friends are playing a cleric 20, druid 20, and, because he brings the beer and makes us laugh, monk 20. Give me a plot that the four of us cannot trivialize with a good night's rest. One that isn't based on arbitrarily neutering magic.

This isn't about things like Grease being OP because nobody thought to give monsters ranks in Balance. This is an exercise in how hard it is for a DM to account for all the options available to an ubergeneralist.

One that if I ever got into D&D again I'd run. It doesn't neuter magic in general, but it is designed specifically against divination and demiplane overclocking:

You are sent out to find a certain item, a clock. When you find it and turn it on, you are granted access to a time outside time, where the wheel of the planes and time itself stops for an hour, in which you are hunted down by bizarre abberations. Only those with access to this changed time know of it, and any written record of it will fade into it, disappearing forever.

The plot is simple, survive and find a way to escape, dodging cultists that want to use it to revitalize a dying god and take over the world in his name.

Knaight

2012-08-06, 12:45 AM

Okay, but a wizard can be 'a generalist' and not 'has all the powers of creation at their fingertips'
...
That to me is a generalist wizard. He won't be able to instantly kill a dragon, even if he 'knows ahead of time there is a dragon.'

To support this, lets look at what an absurdly powerful generalist might look like in another system. The Degrees of Magic Subsystem allows, using the most powerful spells within each broad spell group cast with some risk:

Bestowing flight
Vastly increasing speed and decreasing reaction time
Seriously injuring everyone in a small area (equivalent of 9 D&D squares).
Completely nullifying one person's armor/shrinking their weapon
Opening a small gate that people can choose to walk through, 100 miles away.
Magically poisoning the food of one person.
Giving a temporary knowledge of all languages.
Detecting who has general knowledge about something.
Grow living things the equivalent of one size category.
Curing a major disease.
Bestowing darkvision.
Entangling someone in plants.
Make a human sized illusion.
The equivalent of Dominate Person, which requires total concentration.

This is fairly broad, generalized set of spells. It still isn't all that powerful, and represents a wizard better at most spells than most dedicated specialists. There is real versatility in this, but it doesn't totally outclass what mundane characters can do.

erikun

2012-08-06, 12:48 AM

I think you are missing the entire problem of a Wizard (There is no such thing as a Specialist Wizard, as soon as they get a focus, they become a Mage).
The specialist wizard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#schoolSpecialization)

Wizards can do a ton of stuff because they learn spells to perform mundane actions and magical warfare. Because he gets that broad coverage, he will always make every other party member useless.

I can imaging the entire reason why Fireball was researched was because the local Orc Clan decided to pillage the Wizard's town a few hours too long, and so he made a solution of big explody goodness, so that he would be able to get a carton of milk at the market.
There is another class that can do a ton of stuff. They can fight like the Fighter, sneak like the Rogue, heal like the Cleric, and cast spells like the Wizard. It's the Bard.

However, I've never heard anyone recommend playing a game with four Bards rather than the Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard classes. The reason is pretty obvious: Bards don't fight as well as the Fighter, don't sneak as well as the Rogue, don't heal as well as the Cleric, and don't cast spells as well as the Wizard. In fact, Bards are frequently joked at for precisely that reason - they can do anything, just not exceptionally well.

It is entirely possible to have a class who can indeed "do everything" and yet not be overpowered. The problem is not that the Wizard is capable of replacing another class, but when it can do so as well as or better than the other class. Take a look at my Knock example earlier: if the Wizard could open a locked door like a Rogue, but takes longer, automatically sets off traps, and notifies everyone in the area in doing so, then they aren't better than the Rogue at it. The Wizard doesn't replace the Rogue. Yes, you can run a Wizard rather than a Rogue, but it ends up being a poor choice to do so.

Erikun. You didn't answer my question.

I'm playing a wizard 20. My friends are playing a cleric 20, druid 20, and, because he brings the beer and makes us laugh, monk 20. Give me a plot that the four of us cannot trivialize with a good night's rest. One that isn't based on arbitrarily neutering magic.

This isn't about things like Grease being OP because nobody thought to give monsters ranks in Balance. This is an exercise in how hard it is for a DM to account for all the options available to an ubergeneralist.
Play a system that doesn't allow the Wizard 20, Cleric 20, and Druid 20 to overcome any possible encounter with a single night's rest.

Seriously, every single system that isn't D&D manages to do this, and even D&D manages in some situations. If the D&D3 spellcasters are broken and can overcome every challange trivally, then don't make the D&D5 spellcasters that way - the basics behind the class do not include "overcoming every challange trivially".

hiryuu

2012-08-06, 12:54 AM

Back when I was slicing up the classes to be gutted and transported to another system, this "kernel" thing became necessary to some degree. The trappings of spellcasters in said system directly related to the powers they would get, so I did this:

Wizards - They have a book, they're learned, everyone expects them to know things and be able to manipulate magic. So, wizards got book related and book-named powers, or rather, ones that we associate with books, like "Reading Rainbow" (which was basically just color spray, but out of a book) and "Really Useful Book" (which let them open up their spellbook to find a relevant clue). They also got the ability to create characters from books they've read and act them out to get a few small skill bonuses. The trick was, as others have said, to tone down the divination a little, and simply let them speed up mundane information gathering. Count the trees? The wizard knows. Which book in this huge freakin' library has what we need? The wizard knows! And so on. If it's book related or book themed, the wizard is good at it. They are knowledge masters. Their magic, when not bent to books, is careful, deliberate, and makes allowances for what might happen. They're the CERN scientists and high level biologists of their world.

Sorcerers - They just know magic. That kid in the back who does calculus in his head? That jerk? Yeah. Him. They make pacts with dark powers or else have a natural talent. They have a lot of spells with a small number of random (but controllable) effects, and they have all the major blasting. They also are the ones who can cobble together a power or spell from pieces parts quickly, but it's not going to help for very long. They are kludge-masters. Their magic is rife with error, splashing eldritch energies, and godly ichors that splash and shower the world with spectacular displays. They are the Mythbusters of their world.

Greyfeld85

2012-08-06, 12:56 AM

There is a large difference between a Beguiler (what this is proposing) and a specialist Illusionist, or a Dread Necromancer and a specialist Necromancer. Even with AD&D and the forced selection of which schools to drop - the choices of which schools you lost were already made for you - a specialist mage had more variety than simply being restricted to one or two schools of magic.

And it is relatively easy to make a specialist wizard worth the specialization. D&D3 did so with just extra spell slots, although it perhaps handed out too many.

My point though is that forcing a focused-specialist Illusionist and a focused-specialist Summoner and others means that you no longer have a Wizard. You just have a bunch of different classes that share somewhat similar mechanics.

And this is why Wizards are tier 1 and have the ability to break games: because even super-specialized wizards in 3.X have access to a large enough range of spells to do just about anything under the sun.

Wizards are scholars first and foremost. As long as that is maintained, forcing them to specialize in an attempt to bring them into some semblance of balance should be embraced, not discouraged.

I don't begrudge the batman wizard, but no single character should be able to have an answer for everything. A generalist should have to trade depth of power for breadth of utility. A solid Wizard class should grant the player the ability to choose a deep (specialized) or wide (generalized) power set, without overshadowing mundane classes.

Craft (Cheese)

2012-08-06, 05:10 AM

A more realistic look at divination would be insanity-inducing, highly dangerous, extremely difficult, and often fatal. In a world where you're likely to get your face eaten by a demon when you dabble in divination, the whole "prepare for the workday" wizard becomes either a lot more perilous, or a lot more guesswork.

...I'm sorry, "A more realistic look at divination?"

Eldan

2012-08-06, 05:13 AM

They tried that, back in the TSR days. They even have a bit of that in the 3e wizard. At first level, you're weenie. Once you're into the teens, you're god.

The practical effect? People play fighters until wizards started coming into their own, then killing off the character to introduce a new wizard. Or people started campaigns above first level to avoid the extreme fragility phase. "Suck at 1, awesome at 20" is horrible design, and should go the way of gameplay benefits for RP drawbacks.

That's not exactly what I said. I did not say make the wizard suck first and be more awesome than anyone else later. I said start him weak, then make him powerful later. That's just normal D&D levelling, and everyone does it.

What I said is this. Make the wizard a mundane scholar first. That does not have to mean he has to suck, just that he can't cast spells yet. There are many things a mundane scholar could do. Heal. Brew potions. Create alchemicals. All kinds of knowledge.

And he does not have to suck more than anyone else. I was thinking about something like 4Es tier system here. Heroic Tier "magic users" are mundane scholars. Just as heroic Tier "Fighting Men" are soldiers and thugs and guardsmen.

Similarly, on a higher tier, wizards don't have to overpower everyone else. On a higher level, as I see it, no one should be "realistic" anymore. At the time the wizard learns his magic, the fighter should be far beyond the mundane, in mythic hero territory. Now, D&D does not do this particularly well, but other games show it can be done.

Much the same, because quite frankly, wizard players are just going to read the monster manual anyway, not bother with those things called knowledge checks and then act like children if/when the DM points out that their character DOES NOT KNOW THIS.

So you can't rely on players playing properly, because all evidence, ever, points to them not doing so, thus further limitations need to be added.

You seem to have rather immature players.

And out of nerdery: what I remember Gandalf using:
Lightning Bolt.
Exploding Pinecones.
Energy Shield.
Fire of some kind.
Power Word: Close Door.

I think that's about it. But Gandalf's not really a wizard in the D&D sense. His magic is not only divine, it is also racial.

Also, Toapat: it seems you are using very, very special definitions of Mage and Wizard I have never heard anywhere else. Where do these come from?

Edit: for a more realistic look at divination, we will require some Amanita mushrooms, a flock of ravens, a small living dog, a knife, and preferably some chasm with hallucinogenic fumes.

Earthwalker

2012-08-06, 05:20 AM

So how do you define "common knowledge" because in game, it doesn't exist, if you know something about player races, or the local area, or any of the various monsters, you had to have rolled a knowledge check to do so, and for a 1HD creature, the DC is 11, which you can't roll untrained.

That evidence isn't looking so good now is it?

See this can be taken two ways.
Either no one knows anything about the world around them, or you take it as read that all people must get a few points in some knowledge skills. So even a commoner would have Knowledge (Local) and Knowledge (Nature) to have a basic understanding of the local wildlife.

Knaight

2012-08-06, 05:28 AM

See this can be taken two ways.
Either no one knows anything about the world around them, or you take it as read that all people must get a few points in some knowledge skills. So even a commoner would have Knowledge (Local) and Knowledge (Nature) to have a basic understanding of the local wildlife.

Or you can play games which don't contain a fundamentally broken knowledge system, and disregard that comment entirely.

Eldan

2012-08-06, 05:38 AM

The way I see it, the Knowledge skills represent specialized knowledge. Exotic stuff that, by definition, not everyone knows. The rules in third edition (and 4th, if Bear Lore is any indication) represent badly.

A commoner who raises dogs will know a lot about dogs, even without any Knowledge: nature. He'll know two dozen breeds, their diets, their diseases, their behaviour and so on. Same for horses and livestock. Everyone living in cities knows what a pigeon or cat is, normally.

Just, scratch the entire DC 15+HD basic idea. It's silly and doesn't work. The only other system I know, sadly, is for the DM to decide on a DC based on monster familiarity. For a new edition, the DMG should probably give a basic Knowledge DC to every monster and give a few things that are common knowledge.

Knaight

2012-08-06, 05:55 AM

A commoner who raises dogs will know a lot about dogs, even without any Knowledge: nature. He'll know two dozen breeds, their diets, their diseases, their behaviour and so on. Same for horses and livestock. Everyone living in cities knows what a pigeon or cat is, normally.

I'd argue that a commoner who raises dogs should have a skill to indicate that they raise dogs, and the same applies for horses and livestock. As for pigeons, I'm not sure how long they've been living in cities - modern cityscapes with large numbers of tall buildings with construction elements extremely well suited to nest building and large populations are somewhat better pigeon habitats than cities as they were hundreds of years ago, which fantasy cities often resemble. That doesn't mean that pigeons weren't there, merely that it is an assumption worth checking.

Eldan

2012-08-06, 06:04 AM

Hm, true, yes. The commoner should indeed have those skills. Perhaps with a kind of specialization in (Dogs), though that's Shadowrun rules talking here.

But I think my point still stands, I hope. There are a few things everyone recognizes without studying them exclusively. Common knowledge. Might not be pigeons. Might be rats, then.

Knaight

2012-08-06, 06:44 AM

But I think my point still stands, I hope. There are a few things everyone recognizes without studying them exclusively. Common knowledge. Might not be pigeons. Might be rats, then.

Yeah, certainly. It's just that the best way to represent it varies. I personally favor a baseline higher than the minimum, where the minimum is reserved for those who really, really have no clue. If a character lived in a desert their whole life, they probably have a minimized sailing skill.

Analytica

2012-08-06, 06:44 AM

What I said is this. Make the wizard a mundane scholar first. That does not have to mean he has to suck, just that he can't cast spells yet. There are many things a mundane scholar could do. Heal. Brew potions. Create alchemicals. All kinds of knowledge.

I really, really like this. It is done in the Conan d20 RPG with some success, I think. In 3.5 I have toyed around with "wizard" being a PrC that allows psions to swap out some powers known each day from a book, Vancian-style, but this fits most worlds much better.

The thing is, we can come up with any number of good options, and they are all going to be too far out from what WotC will do, and particularly, from what will be available after two years of modular splat. Still, it is a fun exercise.

- One thing that worked really well in a LARP setting was (rare) mages who needed to do 15 minute rituals for every spell cast. They were still powerful in that they were unique in what they could do (and could also prepare up to one spell each day to cast on the fly), but it was no use whatsoever in combat. Soldiers went out to capture people to bring to the magic circle so the mages could mind control them, that kind of thing.
- As such, I would really like a mage class like a sorcerer/wizard hybrid, who might be able to cast a handful of spells spontaneously (staples like detect/dispel magic, basic magic attacks, and maybe their personal specialties, like sand controlling magic, illusions or summoning swarms of insects), but needed to do rituals for everything else.
- On total specialization, possibly removing all infinite spells known casters from the game, because if one remains, everyone else pales by comparison. Again some basic staple spells available to all, then you could add thematic sets of spells through feats or prestige classes. I.e. become an initiate of the fire salamanders, and you get a number of fire spells you are now eligible to learn. As long as the investment in another theme is at least a few levels worth, cherrypicking becomes more difficult. That is, the only way you can get shivering touch spells is by becoming an ice mage, the only way you can get glitterdust magic is to become a fey initiate.

Jacob.Tyr

2012-08-06, 07:58 AM

Eldan

2012-08-06, 08:05 AM

Quite a bit, actually. But then, I have an MSc in Ecology and Zoology and a grandfather who raises homing pigeons :smalltongue:

That, however, is the difference between common knowledge and specialist knowledge. Yes, the commoner would not know these things. However, by the normal D&D rules? You have to roll a DC 11 knowledge check to know anything an animal with one or less HD (I'm assuming rounding up here). And since you need ranks to beat DCs over 10...

Greyfeld85

2012-08-06, 09:45 AM

...I'm sorry, "A more realistic look at divination?"

Would "less cheesy" suit you better?

Yes, more realistic. Realistically, a wizard who constantly consorts with demons, spirits, elementals, and even gods isn't going to just trap them in a little circle for a few minutes, ask them a handful of questions, then be on their marry way. Realistically, summoning forces of evil and chaos should represent a massive risk to the caster's body, mind and soul. The fact that these risks are negligible in the current divination model present in D&D 3.X is not only unbalanced and broken, but also unrealistic.

And when i speak of realism in a fantasy setting, I am referring to the break in logic and continuity present in the fluff of divination magic and outsiders in general, not the contrived idea that I'm trying to place real-world laws onto a magical fairyland, which you seem to be chomping at the bit to imply.

toapat

2012-08-06, 10:03 AM

Also, Toapat: it seems you are using very, very special definitions of Mage and Wizard I have never heard anywhere else. Where do these come from?

most common application of the terminology.

A Wizard is a spellcaster who studied magic for years and learned many different uses, enough that he can say he knows how to do basically anything mundane with magic that can be done.

A Mage is a general term specifying that they are a spellcaster who specialized in anywhere from 1 to several categories* of spellcasting, but cant do everything because they want to be able to do something before they are 75.

*Example: A Pyromancer as compared to an Elementalist: The Pyromancer has an extreme knowledge of fire magic, and can use it to make incredibly precise explosions, work metal, precisely control temperature and flame, fly, and other applications. An Elementalist can heat metal, roughly control temperature, and to make general explosions, like a fireball. On the other hand, they can also control stone, use water magic for healing or to create ice for numerous uses, and fly or create illusions using air magic

Craft (Cheese)

2012-08-06, 10:20 AM

Would "less cheesy" suit you better?

Yes, more realistic. Realistically, a wizard who constantly consorts with demons, spirits, elementals, and even gods isn't going to just trap them in a little circle for a few minutes, ask them a handful of questions, then be on their marry way. Realistically, summoning forces of evil and chaos should represent a massive risk to the caster's body, mind and soul. The fact that these risks are negligible in the current divination model present in D&D 3.X is not only unbalanced and broken, but also unrealistic.

My problem is, well, there's more than one answer to this sort of problem. Maybe the spell just creates a temporary copy of the entity being questioned such that the original doesn't even know (or care) what happened. Maybe you just get used to being suddenly called in to answer a wizard's questions after a few billion years and stop bothering to hunt them down for revenge every time.

None of these solutions are any more "realistic" than any of the others. Whichever one is more appropriate depends on the setting, the mechanical implications, and personal preference, but "realism" has nothing to do with it.

(Personally, my favored solution is to just ban divination of the future altogether. The classic, and most sensible, use of it, the cryptic prophecy, is a lazy, tired old fantasy cliche with no place in my games. Applying Tippyverse-like logic to divining the future also tends to cause really, really weird things to happen to the setting, even if you make it inaccurate and risky. Scrying, however, is just fine.)

obryn

2012-08-06, 10:21 AM

part of the problem is that the direct damage spells were weakened from 2nd to 3rd.

in 2nd you get far less HP per level on both PC and enemy sides. most enemies were simply strait up Xd8 for HP, with some bonus HP occasionally.

a 5d6 fireball (17) damage or barrage of 3d4+3 (9) magic missiles is far better against a monster with 5d8 (22) HP then against a creature with 5d8+10[+2 con x5] (32) HP.

this generally meant that going from 2nd to 3rd ed, it was harder for a wizard to disable an enemy with pure damage, usually requiring 2-3 spells to do the job.
Also, saving throws in 1e/2e were often less of a coin-toss by the time Wizards and Clerics started getting some of their beefier save-or-game-over sorts of spells. Not only were there categories for death magic, paralysis, and petrification - set easier than for generalized spells - but the ways to improve your saving throws were abundant. Also, given that spells with longer casting times were always dicey at best, a good amount of reliable damage was often the smarter bet.

-O

Eldan

2012-08-06, 10:33 AM

most common application of the terminology.

A Wizard is a spellcaster who studied magic for years and learned many different uses, enough that he can say he knows how to do basically anything mundane with magic that can be done.

A Mage is a general term specifying that they are a spellcaster who specialized in anywhere from 1 to several categories* of spellcasting, but cant do everything because they want to be able to do something before they are 75.

*Example: A Pyromancer as compared to an Elementalist: The Pyromancer has an extreme knowledge of fire magic, and can use it to make incredibly precise explosions, work metal, precisely control temperature and flame, fly, and other applications. An Elementalist can heat metal, roughly control temperature, and to make general explosions, like a fireball. On the other hand, they can also control stone, use water magic for healing or to create ice for numerous uses, and fly or create illusions using air magic

No, really. I'm just wondering. I can't recall ever seeing that terminology anywhere. It intrigues me. As far as I can tell, I've never seen it in any fantasy novel, and D&D never used the word "mage", as far as I can tell.

obryn

2012-08-06, 10:43 AM

No, really. I'm just wondering. I can't recall ever seeing that terminology anywhere. It intrigues me. As far as I can tell, I've never seen it in any fantasy novel, and D&D never used the word "mage", as far as I can tell.
Ummm... I can think of one, anyway. In 2e, it was the generalist version of a Magic-User.

(Another aside - D&D didn't have Wizards until 2e, unless you count class titles. "Magic-User" was it. Which makes calling a class a "Fighter" not seem nearly so lame.)

Now, none of this matches the idiosyncratic definitions toapat is using, but still.

-O

Menteith

2012-08-06, 11:02 AM

No, really. I'm just wondering. I can't recall ever seeing that terminology anywhere. It intrigues me. As far as I can tell, I've never seen it in any fantasy novel, and D&D never used the word "mage", as far as I can tell.

Mage has been used in D&D before, and has lead to one of the best typos (http://selinker.livejournal.com/tag/typo)in history.

Greyfeld85

2012-08-06, 11:17 AM

My problem is, well, there's more than one answer to this sort of problem. Maybe the spell just creates a temporary copy of the entity being questioned such that the original doesn't even know (or care) what happened. Maybe you just get used to being suddenly called in to answer a wizard's questions after a few billion years and stop bothering to hunt them down for revenge every time.

These are the sort of "answers" that lead to an unbalanced system that creates the 3.X wizard. If you create a system where magic is so prevalent and heavy-handed that a full progression spellcaster can literally single-handedly rule the world, you either create an extremely high power bar for the rest of the classes, or a gap between them approximately the size of the grand canyon. And in either case, you also create a universe where the only logical result is the universe ceases to exist, because level 10+ wizards are constantly rewriting the laws of existence simply by virtue of being wizards.

The more powerful the magic, the higher risks and/or costs should be associated with it. Knowledge has a kind of untapped power potential that can rip apart the cosmos when applied properly, so it's only logical and reasonable that obtaining it should be risky/costly.

Giving any class the ability to just rip information they want out of thin air without any drawbacks for doing so is bad for gameplay, and it's bad for storytelling.

None of these solutions are any more "realistic" than any of the others. Whichever one is more appropriate depends on the setting, the mechanical implications, and personal preference, but "realism" has nothing to do with it.

In D&D, outsiders are dangerous. Demons, gods, elementals, spirits... they're **** you don't want to mess with. Going against them 1-on-1 is supposed to be dangerous, if not suicidal. Yet there are divinations dedicated to trapping one of them in a little bubble and forcing them to give you the information you want, with no repercussions.

This breaks the very core of what it means to be a badass outsider. Things from another plane of existence so horrible that it would make most mortals wet themselves are being caged and treated like magic eight balls. And the answer is supposed to be "lol, I'm a wizard, bitches"? Yeah, that's not realistic, I don't give a crap what you say.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-08-06, 11:26 AM

Mage has been used in D&D before, and has lead to one of the best typos (http://selinker.livejournal.com/tag/typo)in history.
OK, that is pretty great :smallbiggrin:

toapat

2012-08-06, 11:42 AM

No, really. I'm just wondering. I can't recall ever seeing that terminology anywhere. It intrigues me. As far as I can tell, I've never seen it in any fantasy novel, and D&D never used the word "mage", as far as I can tell.

its a subtlety that you really have to pick up on, i think it most easily is seen in videogames, where a Wizard would break the balance in half.

I know for certain that Warcraft has that very distinction, as Mages are typically the weaker, more focused and younger spellcasters in Dalaran, where as members of the Kirin Tor, like Rhonin or Khadgar are written as being able to cast divinations, earth magic, cast summons, do massively powerful abjurations, and manipulate people's perceptions in addition to the normal fire, ice, and arcane magic of the setting.

The Archmage PrC in DnD itself reinforces the concept of a mage being a specialized spellcaster, although not as well as some other PrCs in the game.

ericgrau

2012-08-06, 12:01 PM

The actual effective non-blaster wizard is the one that walls off half the foes and makes the rest much easier for the rest of the party to handle. Crowd control. In some sense even fireball is a form of crowd control too and is still one of the best spells against groups. I think this is interesting and makes the wizard different from other single target damage which the class is worse at. "Batman" is strictly a support caster. Making classes too much alike is a big mistake of 4e that I hope they don't repeat.

Flesh to stone, charm person and so on are a different story. Between saves, immunities and SR they are usually much worse than direct damage in 3.5, killing most foes more slowly on average. And they don't stack with your allies' efforts, so in practice it's even slower than it is on paper, which is already slow. They are some of the worst spells you can prepare in fact. The issue they do create though is that they are all or nothing: either the player accomplished nothing that turn (most of the time). Or if the BBEG rolls a natural 1 the fight ends in an anticlimatic way. Even if it happened only once by sheer luck you never hear the end of it. And it's just as bad in the hands of a lucky monster who 1 shots a player. Another problem on top of that is that with high optimization and a half dozen splatbooks the wizard might pump his save DC through the roof and cheese away spell resistance with ways such as assay spell resistance.

So the real issue might be all or nothing effects in general. They are too dull when they fail and likewise too anticlimatic when they succeed. The fight seems to be going by easily enough for one side or another, then bam someone rolls a 2 and dies. Challenge level suddenly changes dramatically. Or a frustrated caster watches enemies pass their save again while his party is stomping foes. Every feels like they're doing something except him.

I could understand inserting effects which are more reliable and harder to resist but have a less dramatic effect when they work. And a partial effect when they fail. Maybe a limited duration of only a couple rounds upon success and some minor but similar effect upon failure. Or success is very likely but it only partially hampers the foe. It'd be a shame to eliminate some of the classics entirely IMO. I think if they merely nerf save or dies yet keep the die they'll only polarize them more, making them that much more frustrating when they repeatedly fail, that much more of a fluke on a lucky roll, and that much more inviting of a loophole to heavy optimizers who want to pull some tricks to change them into "just die".

Greyfeld85

2012-08-06, 12:01 PM

its a subtlety that you really have to pick up on, i think it most easily is seen in videogames, where a Wizard would break the balance in half.

I know for certain that Warcraft has that very distinction, as Mages are typically the weaker, more focused and younger spellcasters in Dalaran, where as members of the Kirin Tor, like Rhonin or Khadgar are written as being able to cast divinations, earth magic, cast summons, do massively powerful abjurations, and manipulate people's perceptions in addition to the normal fire, ice, and arcane magic of the setting.

The Archmage PrC in DnD itself reinforces the concept of a mage being a specialized spellcaster, although not as well as some other PrCs in the game.

While interesting, I feel that I should point out that this concept of yours doesn't seem to be very wide-spread.

killem2

2012-08-06, 12:59 PM

So pretty much the broken 3.5 wizard then?

If that's the case 5e will suck.

Player's make the class broken, find a new group if the one you have can do nothing better than ruin everyone's game experience.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-08-06, 01:15 PM

Player's make the class broken, find a new group if the one you have can do nothing better than ruin everyone's game experience.
It's true, I hate when novices break the game. It's their own damn fault for playing by the rules :smalltongue:

Reluctance

2012-08-06, 01:41 PM

Making classes too much alike is a big mistake of 4e that I hope they don't repeat.

This argument has been bugging me for a while. Nobody says that a 3.5 enchanter plays the same as a 3.5 necromancer plays the same as a 3.5 transmuter, and they're all the same class. But 4e classes were built on the AEDU base, and that makes them all the same.

Player's make the class broken, find a new group if the one you have can do nothing better than ruin everyone's game experience.

It's not the bad players you have to worry about. Even if you achieved the mythical perfectly balanced game, they'd still cheat. The problem is when you need an appreciable degree of system mastery to avoid breaking the game by accident.

The other problem that I've touched on is DM sanity. A well-meaning player can look over the cleric spell list and find the perfect spell to solve the dilemma in front of them. I'll repeat my request for a plot that cannot be trivialized by a party of 20th level casters. I've seen one situation and some hot air offered. No plots.

Zeful

2012-08-06, 01:49 PM

Menteith

2012-08-06, 01:50 PM

The other problem that I've touched on is DM sanity. A well-meaning player can look over the cleric spell list and find the perfect spell to solve the dilemma in front of them. I'll repeat my request for a plot that cannot be trivialized by a party of 20th level casters. I've seen one situation and some hot air offered. No plots.

The party needs to breach the Oubliette of Secrets, and steal a secret held only within Vecna's private Sanctum, without the God of Secrets knowing about it. Assume that Vecna is using the DiceFreaks statblock (Wizard 20, Loremaster 15, Archmage 5). Good luck!

EDIT
Fleshing it out a bit more

- Vecna has active agents searching for anyone seeking this secret (Vecna-Blooded Archivists with Willing Deformity: Madness, giving them blanket immunity to all Divinations and Mind Affecting)

- Vecna has multiple Anchorites of undetermined power who can zero in and rofl-stomp the party should they be located. Treat them as Vecna-Blooded Necropolitian Solars with the Magic and Destiny Domains, with properly chosen feats (including Craft Contingent Spell). Give them the Spellstitched Template (performed by Vecna himself) to grant them access to additional Spell Like Abilities.

- The secret is a subclause in the Pact Primeval, that allows a single person to change one line in the Pact Primeval - which means that every LG Celestial, every Devil, and every being on Mechanus will try to stop them, and will also be competing for that knowledge against them. This gives you the ability to throw damn near anything at the party, and allows them potential allies if they're willing to throw their lot in with beings who want to rewrite reality themselves.

I feel that this is an appropriate plot for the group you proposed. Do you agree?

Daftendirekt

2012-08-06, 01:53 PM

D&D 4e's stance of Ritual Magic looks like this: it takes a long time and is expensive to do teleportations and most 'out of combat spells' from knock to summoning ghostly steeds. Everyone from a Fighter who takes a feat to the Cleric has access to these rituals.

Honestly, I thought that it was a pretty good way to do things. While I don't agree with the part of 4e where they achieved balance by making everything exactly the same, I did thing this was a fairly simple yet elegant and effective way to make non-combat utility magic still extent and relevant without being overpowered.

obryn

2012-08-06, 02:20 PM

Player's make the class broken, find a new group if the one you have can do nothing better than ruin everyone's game experience.
If players can break the game that easily by simply using the rules as given, there's a problem with the rules.

-O

Jay R

2012-08-06, 02:43 PM

Mage has been used in D&D before, and has lead to one of the best typos (http://selinker.livejournal.com/tag/typo)in history.

That's actually my third favorite D&D related typo.

2. In the first D&D, there were many errors. In the Monsters and Treasures booklet, each monster was given a percentage for "In Liar". It was a typo for "In Lair", and was supposed to tell you the probability that the monster was in its lair with its treasure.

But many people thought it was the probability that the monster would lie to you - even though the stat was there for many monsters that couldn't talk.

So the Arduin Grimoire, one of the first D&D-like competitors, had a "Is Liar" stat for each monster, telling you the percentage chance that the monster would lie.

But my favorite (barely) D&D-related typo is the typo that achieved godhood.

1. Translating ancient texts is chancy, since scripts, alphabets and meanings change over time. In about the fourth century AD, some scholar puzzled out a reference to the Greek god Demogorgon.

Only there was never a Greek god Demogorgon. That name was an accidental typo or mistake, and so people forever after thought the Greeks had a god that they never did. He has made it into many mythological poems and stories, including Spenser's The Faerie Queene and Shelley's Prometheus Unbound, and was eventually enshrined in D&D as one of the first two Demon Princes (along with Orcus), introduced in the expansion book Eldritch Wizardry, in 1976.

Zeful

2012-08-06, 02:49 PM

Honestly, I thought that it was a pretty good way to do things. While I don't agree with the part of 4e where they achieved balance by making everything exactly the same, I did thing this was a fairly simple yet elegant and effective way to make non-combat utility magic still extent and relevant without being overpowered.

And what is so wrong with making everything exactly the same? Shadowrun does it even harder than 4E, with characters having almost zero mechanical difference between them (a mage is just a gunman with a lot of guns, and a street samurai is a mage with a single very short range gun) and they all use the same mechanics for every action (roll X dice against target number, compare, resolve), but when 4e does it it's blasphemous. Why is that?

Greyfeld85

2012-08-06, 03:34 PM

And what is so wrong with making everything exactly the same? Shadowrun does it even harder than 4E, with characters having almost zero mechanical difference between them (a mage is just a gunman with a lot of guns, and a street samurai is a mage with a single very short range gun) and they all use the same mechanics for every action (roll X dice against target number, compare, resolve), but when 4e does it it's blasphemous. Why is that?

My first guess would be, "Shadowrun is not D&D."

Extrapolating on that, D&D has a wide variety of classes and class mechanics throughout all of its editions (but especially in 3.5). Between vestiges, maneuvers, prepared spellcasting, spontaneous spellcasting, power points, core combat maneuver mechanics, not to mention all the class features that create their own rules and spells that have their own unique and flavorful mechanics, there is a lot of variety to choose from.

Starting from that point and jumping into 4th edition where every class' abilities are just a reskin of the same handful of forced movement and d6 damage, it's pretty bland and difficult to digest.

And despite how you may feel about Shadowrun, it's a niche system that doesn't get a whole lot of spotlight. D&D is going to have more people with more opinions about it, because it's the World of Warcraft of the roleplaying world.

Eldan

2012-08-06, 03:43 PM

Not that niche, really, I know a lot more Shadowrun than D&D players around here.

That said: Shadowrun has a basic mechanic for task resolution. The dice pool. So does 3.5, it's the d20. That does not mean that the task you are resolving is always the same. Wizards can do tons of stuff in Shadowrun.

My problem with 4E is not that all powers are resolved the same way. It's that they do the same way. Shadowrun has Detect Enemy, and Invisibility, and Summoning and Astral travel and tons of spells like that. Most 4E spells are damage+effect.

Greyfeld85

2012-08-06, 03:49 PM

Not that niche, really, I know a lot more Shadowrun than D&D players around here.

Shadowrun is to D&D as EVE Online is to World of Warcraft. Just because you know a handful of people that play it doesn't make it not niche.

That said: Shadowrun has a basic mechanic for task resolution. The dice pool. So does 3.5, it's the d20. That does not mean that the task you are resolving is always the same. Wizards can do tons of stuff in Shadowrun.

-.- thank you for missing the point.

toapat

2012-08-06, 03:51 PM

because it's the The Burning Crusade of the roleplaying world.

corrected that error for you.

(Short Aside)

TBC was when WoW was most popular, WotLK and Cata have both been bleeding players for a while.

(End Short Aside)

anyway, shadowrun is a much less available system then DnD, and a less well known system. it has great flavor, but if what you say is true, then the discussion here doesnt really apply to it.

I admit my Wizard/Mage view isnt too common, but it is a view that would allow better balancing of spellcasting without actually limiting what it can do.

Eldan

2012-08-06, 04:07 PM

I didn't. Please don't assume things like that.

The point was that in Shadowrun, all the mechanics are the same. However, they aren't. Spellcasting mechanics are still different from guns. Which is what I said. Then I went on to state my problem with the 4E mechanics and compare them to the 3.5 and shadowrun magic mechanics. Which is an entirely different, if related point.

Greyfeld85

2012-08-06, 04:11 PM

I honestly haven't a damn clue what you're actually trying to say anymore.

Eldan

2012-08-06, 04:29 PM

Right. More slowly, then.

There's a difference between how one checks if an action is successful and what that action then does.

Shadowrun, D&D 3.5 and D&D 4E all share in common that they have mostly unified mechanics for how one checks whether or not an action is successful.

In shadowrun, one uses a dice pool to achieve that. In D&D, one rolls a d20+modifiers against a target number.

However, in both Shadowrun and 3.5, one has a variety of options and abilities to choose form. Shadowrun mages have dozens of spells that do various different things. So do 3.5 wizards. They can travel to other planes, summon creatures, enhance their senses, create illusions, or affect their enemy's mind. These actions all do very different things. They can also blast, but actual blasting spells are a minority. The effects of the powers are varied.

In 4E, from what I've seen in the PHB, most of the powers of almost any class are blasting powers. They deal some damage and have a small secondary effect. The effects are similar. While there are other powers, blasting powers are a majority.

Now, can we please drop this before we get another edition war thread?

toapat

2012-08-06, 04:59 PM

*QFT*

Edition wars really dont get the point of why each edition is better: 3.5 you can break more entertainingly, 4/e has better internal and cross class balance.

but on the other hand, here, we are arguing among ourselves that yes, Wizards should be able to blast, but they should also be able to cast sleep, flesh to stone, and other fun things.

And i take a third option, I say that the concept of having a Wizard is fundamentally wrong, because of a non-PnP based definition of Wizard and Mage.

Eldan

2012-08-06, 05:29 PM

toapat

2012-08-06, 05:42 PM

Right, and that is fine.

So, what you are saying, if I understand this correctly (leaving aside your terminology for now), is that an adventuring spellcaster probably does not have the time to study all areas of magic, but instead will be specialized? That there may be omnispecialists, but that they are likely sitting in a library somewhere, not out slaying dragons?

it would be an explanation, that my inner worldbuilder likes

My inner DM doesnt like the idea though that there could be mortal spellcasters with more well rounded spellpools then the PCs if they are not the archevillian

My inner player doesnt care, because my inner player is a divine warrior.

Greyfeld85

2012-08-06, 07:31 PM

it would be an explanation, that my inner worldbuilder likes

My inner DM doesnt like the idea though that there could be mortal spellcasters with more well rounded spellpools then the PCs if they are not the archevillian

My inner player doesnt care, because my inner player is a divine warrior.

This is why the Ritual system from 4e works so well. It encompasses the idea of study toward a larger range of magic without the drastic power creep inherent in standard-action spellcasting.

This is also why I made the statement (a couple pages back, I think) that in addition to the whole "specialization" thing, wizards could learn spells outside their spec. as rituals akin to the 4e ideal. Just as a thought.

Analytica

2012-08-06, 08:07 PM

This is why the Ritual system from 4e works so well. It encompasses the idea of study toward a larger range of magic without the drastic power creep inherent in standard-action spellcasting.

This is also why I made the statement (a couple pages back, I think) that in addition to the whole "specialization" thing, wizards could learn spells outside their spec. as rituals akin to the 4e ideal. Just as a thought.

I really like the 4e ritual system in theory. In practice, I dislike it because the rituals are powered by money. There cannot exist hermits in the desert spending all day in trances travelling the dreamlands, at least using PC rules, because each casting requires monetary resources that match either the total agricultural production value of a village for a year, or what you would get for looting a few treasure-carrying monsters. Certainly fixable by powering them with dailies or healing surges instead, but if not done, it makes me feel the caster is a mere gadget user rather than someone who in and of themselves can draw upon cosmic forces. With that fixed, I think you have a good idea there.

Eldan

2012-08-06, 08:10 PM

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-08-06, 08:57 PM

Yoink. I'll have to steal that for my ritual system.

Using dailies or surges instead of cash by no means clears up all of the issues with 4e rituals, but it certainly does help. I experimented with a more Vancian approach when I ran 4e for my primarily 2e group--namely, you can pre-cast one or more rituals to prepare them for later use (with the limits to the number you can prepare at one time being based on tier, class, and type of ritual) then spend a daily and an action point to cast a prepared ritual later as a "full-round" (standard+minor) action--and the caster players in the group really liked them while the noncaster players didn't feel overshadowed.

Kerrin

2012-08-06, 11:14 PM

I've felt the cost of a ritual should be payed in time. So tossing the monetary cost would do it for me.

As an add on cost for some rituals, those that are deemed to be extremely "draining" on the caster, burning some sort of health would be appropriate.

Daftendirekt

2012-08-07, 12:56 AM

I really like the 4e ritual system in theory. In practice, I dislike it because the rituals are powered by money. There cannot exist hermits in the desert spending all day in trances travelling the dreamlands, at least using PC rules, because each casting requires monetary resources that match either the total agricultural production value of a village for a year, or what you would get for looting a few treasure-carrying monsters. Certainly fixable by powering them with dailies or healing surges instead, but if not done, it makes me feel the caster is a mere gadget user rather than someone who in and of themselves can draw upon cosmic forces. With that fixed, I think you have a good idea there.

You've got a good point. Having to carry around a big sack of residuum just to fuel your rituals was a bit lame. Having more utilitarian spells be long rituals that you obviously would need to spend a resource on is a good way to do it.

That resource just shouldn't be money. Or, at least, only make it money in a very small handful of cases, and only where it makes thematic sense.

Eldan

2012-08-07, 04:53 AM

Using dailies or surges instead of cash by no means clears up all of the issues with 4e rituals, but it certainly does help. I experimented with a more Vancian approach when I ran 4e for my primarily 2e group--namely, you can pre-cast one or more rituals to prepare them for later use (with the limits to the number you can prepare at one time being based on tier, class, and type of ritual) then spend a daily and an action point to cast a prepared ritual later as a "full-round" (standard+minor) action--and the caster players in the group really liked them while the noncaster players didn't feel overshadowed.

Ah, no. I don't even play 4E. My ritual system is for 3.5. What I meant is that I had to include an option to replace monetary components for rituals so hermits could cast them.

Analytica

2012-08-07, 08:26 AM

Ah, no. I don't even play 4E. My ritual system is for 3.5. What I meant is that I had to include an option to replace monetary components for rituals so hermits could cast them.

In 3.5 ability burn might be a good solution.

Eldan

2012-08-07, 08:46 AM

I was going for a feat cost and massively increased casting time.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-08-07, 08:46 AM

You've got a good point. Having to carry around a big sack of residuum just to fuel your rituals was a bit lame. Having more utilitarian spells be long rituals that you obviously would need to spend a resource on is a good way to do it.

That resource just shouldn't be money. Or, at least, only make it money in a very small handful of cases, and only where it makes thematic sense.
The resource was never actually money, but Reagents. Admittedly, just like expensive 3.X spell components, these Reagents were described mostly in terms of money but that just means you need to fluff 'em in your world.
In my case, the Reagent Trade was a major driver of high-end economies. Much like food IRL, it was mostly produced and consumed by domestic producers/consumers (e.g. hermits in the wilderness) but more sophisticated economies could produce a surplus that could be traded with its neighbors in exchange for gold. Residuum was the "salt" of this exchange in that it was universally desired, easy to transport, and simple to subdivide; it was also only available from disenchanting magic items, as a the gift of the Fey Court, or by refining Astral Diamonds.

In such a world, the hermit could make his own Reagents provided he lived in a sufficiently magical part of the world and took enough time to make it. How long? Days, months or years -- depending on his skill, the availability of resources, and the quantity desired.
As with most things, it only required a little imagination to resolve :smallsmile:

Eldan

2012-08-07, 09:07 AM

Hmmm. I 'll ad a ritual for that. That might actually be more interesting than a feat. A ritual that creates Residuum that can be spent as a material component of other rituals.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-08-07, 09:11 AM

Hmmm. I 'll ad a ritual for that. That might actually be more interesting than a feat. A ritual that creates Residuum that can be spent as a material component of other rituals.
There is one.

It's called Disenchant Magic Item :smalltongue:

If you make a Ritual to create Residuum out of thin air, then you have destroyed the need for any other Reagent or means of creating Reagents. It's like being able to pull 25 GP black onyx gems (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm) out of your butt at will.

obryn

2012-08-07, 09:14 AM

I ahh ... don't know why I'd worry about those reagent costs for a hermit, honestly. Someone who spends their whole life digging around in the desert and communing with nature could come up with all sorts of talents and relationships with spirits that a routine adventurer couldn't. Not everything can be learned by just spending a feat slot. :smallsmile:

For my Dark Sun 4e game, I allow ritualists (PC or NPC) to defile the land around them rather than pay a reagent cost. Or, if they want to take their time and cast while preserving the land, they can collect reagents from the bits and pieces in the world around them; a hermit could certainly spend much of their time doing this.

With that said, I think both casting times and costs are too high. I've cut both in half.

-O

Eldan

2012-08-07, 09:44 AM

There is one.

It's called Disenchant Magic Item :smalltongue:

Not for 3.5 E though, I assume?

Oracle_Hunter

2012-08-07, 10:29 AM

Not for 3.5 E though, I assume?
My point still stands regarding crapping 25 GP onyx :smalltongue:

Analytica

2012-08-09, 11:36 AM

The resource was never actually money, but Reagents. Admittedly, just like expensive 3.X spell components, these Reagents were described mostly in terms of money but that just means you need to fluff 'em in your world.
In my case, the Reagent Trade was a major driver of high-end economies. Much like food IRL, it was mostly produced and consumed by domestic producers/consumers (e.g. hermits in the wilderness) but more sophisticated economies could produce a surplus that could be traded with its neighbors in exchange for gold. Residuum was the "salt" of this exchange in that it was universally desired, easy to transport, and simple to subdivide; it was also only available from disenchanting magic items, as a the gift of the Fey Court, or by refining Astral Diamonds.

In such a world, the hermit could make his own Reagents provided he lived in a sufficiently magical part of the world and took enough time to make it. How long? Days, months or years -- depending on his skill, the availability of resources, and the quantity desired.
As with most things, it only required a little imagination to resolve :smallsmile:

This can be done, but depending on what kind of price scale it uses, it may or may not work out the way I would prefer it to. Specifically, if I cannot as a player routinely use lesser rituals for flavor purposes without having to kill monsters to do so, I am less happy with my game experience. I agree it can be worked out in several ways though. :smallsmile:

killem2

2012-08-09, 04:46 PM

It's true, I hate when novices break the game. It's their own damn fault for playing by the rules :smalltongue:

It isn't that easy.

Playing by the rules is one thing, getting greedy with the powers at hand with out thinking about the others in your party is another.

Roleplaying doesn't mean take advantage of every possible gain and minimize every possible loss. When your actions start effecting the players around the table, "playing by the rules" is a pretty weak excuse. :smallwink:

Cybren

2012-08-09, 07:36 PM

Arranis Thelmos

2012-08-10, 10:22 PM

I honestly haven't a damn clue what you're actually trying to say anymore.

Can I please sig this?

Oracle_Hunter

2012-08-11, 12:06 AM

It isn't that easy.
It really is.

I played a 3.5 game with a complete roleplaying novice (her only previous game was Diablo :smalltongue:) while I was a 15-year veteran of D&D in various editions and a seasoned DM.

She played a Neutral Cleric, I played a Fighter/Rogue.

By LV 5 she had figured out how Summon Monster can be used to replace trapfinding. By LV 8 she had figured out how Summon Monster can be used to replace melee.

By the end of the campaign I spent every battle as the Caster's Pet or in the thralls of an enemy spell. She was having a blast. I was not.

Also: Stormwind Fallacy -- Roleplaying & Power are not inversely related; playing by the rules doesn't make you a bad roleplayer or even a bad Player. The Cleric was no mad powergamer and while I could have told her to stop having fun so that I could do something poorly that is simply not how I'd prefer to play my games.

If the rules of your game are broken, then they're broken no matter how much you can willfully ignore them. If I wanted to make up my own rules to play by, I wouldn't spend $$$ on books that I planned to ignore.

Knaight

2012-08-11, 09:31 AM

If the rules of your game are broken, then they're broken no matter how much you can willfully ignore them. If I wanted to make up my own rules to play by, I wouldn't spend $$$ on books that I planned to ignore.

Plus, If I'm buying books and planning on ignoring the rules, I have certain standards for fluff. GURPS will usually meet this, as the non rule elements are well researched, well written, and interesting. WotC fluff isn't worth the shelf space it uses up, let alone money.

Popertop

2012-08-11, 11:09 AM

There is definitely a niche for blasty magic. But in my opinion, that's not really a wizard. A wizard should be incredibly smart. He should use the minimum necessary effort to the greatest possible effect. Big explosions and blasts of ice and lightning bolts feel like a waste of effort. As does killing your enemies, instead of charming, dominating, reanimating, humiliating or diplomancing them. A wizard should fight like a chess player. Like a surgeon. Like an engineer.

Addendum: Choosing on a daily basis is not really necessary, I think. Now, I like Vancian magic. I really do. But I do not see it as a requirement to make something a wizard.

However, I want to see some kind of mechanical representation of both intelligence and study, and foresight and preparation. Of any kind. And Vancian is the best I know, out of all the mechanics I've ever seen.

Mmmm. This. The last paragraph especially.

WARNING:Wall of Text ahead, and Mild Ranting.

Wizards in 3E really seem Mary-Sue, just like Clerics and Druids, when they don't have to prepare really, they can just pick good, generally applicable problem-solving spells (have the more situational ones stored as scrolls) and just be pretty much invincible.

I really think the study and preparation for the day is what sets them apart and really says "this is the essence of a wizard." Getting that right from the get go can really make it easy to handle how much power and versatility you give them through the spells. I really hope they get this part right with 5E. IMO, its way too easy to get spells in 3E. If I ran games I would make magic more mysterious by having the more universal spells available from the get go, with more power having strings attached.

Sorcerer Rant/
Meanwhile Sorcerers just kind of get swept in with Wizards except "Oh yeah, they know less spells. Also they learn them slower." When Sorcerers are supposed to be the physical embodiment of magic. I also don't get how they are supposed to share the same spell list. Really makes Sorcerers feel tacked on, which, as I understand it they are. Pathfinder goes a long way making Sorcerers feel completely unique with the Bloodlines, and I basically port them back to 3.5 :smalltongue:
/Sorcerer Rant

Cleric;Paladin Rant/
As far as clerics go, I really hate how they step on the toes of both the fighter and the paladin, at the same time. :smallannoyed: Like, come on.

I don't really see any compromises that doesn't piss somebody off, be it cleric or fighter or paladin players. This I think is the biggest design failing of 3E. They created all these options for clerics, then with each new book, just kept piling them on. You can just trade your domain away for devotion feats, whereas Paladins have to actually take them, but oh wait they don't get any extra feats. Thats just the tip of the iceberg I could rant for a while longer about how smite evil sucks and they should expand on that and everything.
/Cleric;Paladin Rant

And the fighter is just sitting there with his thumb up his butt while the cleric dances around with persisted Divine Power. At least Transformation prevents you from casting, I don't know why there's a separation there. The fighter lacks a central identity to really tie his mechanics together. What does a fighter really do? I think once we answer that question we can start solving more problems.

Druid;Ranger Rant/
And where does the Druid fit in all this? Part of me feels like you could have D&D exist as-is completely absent of Druids. I don't really remember druidic figures being all that prominent in fantasy. And how is all this ridiculous power justified anyway? A friend I used to argue with would just default to "They are nature." Yeah I guess you can say that, but really, you could just stay with one world-shattering class feature (I know Animal Companion isn't necessarily world-shattering, except, yeah it is when you can completely invalidate another class with it). I remember reading somewhere that in older editions the Druid had Wildshape while the Ranger had an Animal Companion, I feel it should stay that way. I think the ranger has some issues regarding the polarity of his class feature (favored enemy) anyway. Haven't really stumbled upon a fix for that I've liked. I never understood in the first place why they were guardians of the wild that randomly hated/were good at hunting specific types and subtypes of beings. Kind of breaks verisimilitude for me as well. If someone could explain this for me I would happily indulge you.
/Druid;Ranger Rant

One of the things during the video that slightly worries me is when an audience member asks "how are you going to fight the ghost of 3rd edition?" and the guy just handwaves it and says "I can't really talk about that." I feel like it would have been very easy to just recycle one of his earlier answers about where they are taking the product, the modularity, revisiting what made each edition so great, etc.

On the whole I'm rather disappointed with WotC's treatment of the IP to begin with, though these developers seems to have their heads in the right place. I hope they can turn things around with 5E and come up with a great product.

Zeful

2012-08-11, 11:45 AM

Sorcerer Rant/
Meanwhile Sorcerers just kind of get swept in with Wizards except "Oh yeah, they know less spells. Also they learn them slower." When Sorcerers are supposed to be the physical embodiment of magic. I also don't get how they are supposed to share the same spell list. Really makes Sorcerers feel tacked on, which, as I understand it they are. Pathfinder goes a long way making Sorcerers feel completely unique with the Bloodlines, and I basically port them back to 3.5 :smalltongue:
/Sorcerer Rant
Every homebrewer and their dog has tried to add bloodlines to the sorcerer, it's about as unique as any other trite cliche.

Dante & Vergil

2012-08-11, 01:02 PM

Every homebrewer and their dog has tried to add bloodlines to the sorcerer, it's about as unique as any other trite cliche.

And yet, WotC did not do this themselves...

Knaight

2012-08-11, 01:26 PM

And yet, WotC did not do this themselves...

On the other hand, WotC did produce a truly versatile sorcerer who embodies the sorcerer fluff quite well. It's called the Psion (or the Wilder). Natural magic they can easily adjust? Check. Capable of doing magic intuitively, without needing a whole bunch of random stuff? Check. Natural specialization that represents the diversity of talents in sorcerers? Check. Comparatively few broad spells that they truly understand and can play with? Check.

Zeful

2012-08-11, 01:26 PM

And yet, WotC did not do this themselves...

For which I am eternally grateful. Because it's stupid and limiting as hell.

Eldan

2012-08-11, 01:31 PM

Limiting? Why would it be limiting? You are given a choice between different class features. That opens up many, many new possibilities you would not have otherwise.

Popertop

2012-08-11, 08:15 PM

On the other hand, WotC did produce a truly versatile sorcerer who embodies the sorcerer fluff quite well. It's called the Psion (or the Wilder). Natural magic they can easily adjust? Check. Capable of doing magic intuitively, without needing a whole bunch of random stuff? Check. Natural specialization that represents the diversity of talents in sorcerers? Check. Comparatively few broad spells that they truly understand and can play with? Check.

except that is a Wilder, not a Sorcerer.

You know, I actually am on the verge of replacing vancian casters with psionics.

Knaight

2012-08-11, 08:45 PM

except that is a Wilder, not a Sorcerer.

You know, I actually am on the verge of replacing vancian casters with psionics.

The only thing wrong about it is the name. The Wilder mechanics are a beautiful fit for the Sorcerer fluff, and the Psion mechanics are almost there (intelligence as the spell casting stat is the big sticking point).

Eldan

2012-08-11, 08:49 PM

D&D sorcerers were never Vancian. They don't prepare their spells. What feeble vestiges they had of that system never fit them much. Why have slots, if they don't prepare anyway? Yes, psionics make quite good sorcerer system. And if you keep in arcane/psionic transparency, it's not that different anyway.

Zeful

2012-08-11, 08:49 PM

Limiting? Why would it be limiting? You are given a choice between different class features. That opens up many, many new possibilities you would not have otherwise.

All of them suck and are tied to fluff that needs to find it's way to get fired into the damn sun. You can change the fluff, but with human memory the way it is, it's not worth it. I'd rather designers not outright add dumbass fluff to a perfectly servicable and more importantly GENERIC class.

Eldan

2012-08-11, 08:53 PM

Zeful

2012-08-11, 09:07 PM

Eh. That's just something you'll have to live with in 3rd edition. 90% of the fluff wizards wrote, if any exists at all, is utter crap. Some is more generic than most, but in the end, you're best of chucking out all but the very basics and writing your own. See it as a set of class feature choices and you'll be much happier. Plus, I don't find the bloodline concept that bad.

No, 3.5's fluff does it's job, it's generic. It's supposed to incite the imagination and make the player and DM develop it further. A class built around a bloodline does not do this, and should be the domain of specific settings. It's not that bloodlines having power is bad, it's that tying it to a class that's supposed to be generic is nonsensical. This kind of thing should be chosen for the reason of developing the character in that direction, not placed as a requirement for a certain playstyle.

toapat

2012-08-11, 09:29 PM

No, 3.5's fluff does it's job, it's generic. It's supposed to incite the imagination and make the player and DM develop it further. A class built around a bloodline does not do this, and should be the domain of specific settings. It's not that bloodlines having power is bad, it's that tying it to a class that's supposed to be generic is nonsensical. This kind of thing should be chosen for the reason of developing the character in that direction, not placed as a requirement for a certain playstyle.

and yet no one complains about the flavor of the Tome of Battle Classes, despite being written with Faerun at its heart.

You also are complaining about flavor specifically written for the PF homeworld of Golarion

Knaight

2012-08-11, 09:49 PM

and yet no one complains about the flavor of the Tome of Battle Classes, despite being written with Faerun at its heart.

The flavor of the Tome of Battle classes is one of the main reasons their introduction gets contested. It is downright terrible, and the one redeeming feature is that the classes have obvious analogs in core classes when it comes to class fluff. The background of the emergence of the schools is even worse, but it is also really easy to excise.

Arranis Thelmos

2012-08-11, 10:30 PM

Knaight

2012-08-11, 10:39 PM

2) Admittingly I've never had much of a problem with the sorcerer's spell progression, but what are some good ways of fixing it? Why does it really need to be fixed?

The sorcerer's spell progression is fine, compared to non spell casters. The issue is that it follows the wizard's, cleric's, druid's, and basically every other casting class that gets 9th level spells by a level, and the theoretical "gain" of simultaneous casting isn't worth that. Among other things, simultaneous casting is already at a power disadvantage due to the smaller spells known list.

Arranis Thelmos

2012-08-11, 10:45 PM

So it's okay if they know more spells? If a character got additional spells known based on their Int modifier, would that be a good fix?

Menteith

2012-08-11, 11:13 PM

1) How can I make a diviner or necromancer useful to the party? It always seemed like they have had some pretty weak spells, and they're the two schools first to go in my group.

2) Admittingly I've never had much of a problem with the sorcerer's spell progression, but what are some good ways of fixing it? Why does it really need to be fixed?

3) What are some good buffing builds other than making a transmuter? Or a lockdown specialist other than an enchanter? How can I convince the players of taking a lockdown or buffing build?

4) Honestly, what are some good builds in general? I have players who argue that all the good stuff are in the splat books, but I want to show that you can make good things out of core.

Are we talking 3.5 in general? If that's the case....
1) Divination can't be a banned school to begin with. I'd recommend against specializing in it unless you have a very specific build in mind already, though it's a powerful choice for a combat light campaign. The Spontaneous Divination ACF is available at level 5, and is a very powerful choice that allows you to effectively cast any Divination spell you know out of combat. For Necromancers, a build focusing on Lord of the Uttercold or Enervation can be a powerful nuker. Alternately if you're sticking to Core, Necromancers are very strong debuffers, with a wide array of save or die/loses at their disposal, with spells like Cause Fear, Blindness/Deafness, and Ray of Exhaustion at the low levels and never stop getting decent control effects. They can play the "army of the dead" reasonably well, but are frankly worse at it than that Cleric or Dread Necro.

2) The Sorc just isn't well designed. It doesn't need to be fixed - I feel that the underlying system should be scrapped. An Invocation-based or Psionic class seems better for representing innate magic than the weird, pseudo-Vancian that the Sorc uses. If you're really enamored with the Sorc as is, hunt down a few of the decent Sorc-specific spells from outside Core and offer them as options. Arcane Fusion comes to mind.

3) Show players a Sculpted Grease/Web/Glitterdust/Stinking Cloud/Black Tentacles in action against them? If you want to show how powerful something can be, let them see it in action first. Buffing is the same thing; let the party fight against heavily buffed up enemies, and see the impact such a build can have. For a lockdown specialist, Conjuration is pretty much the best I can think of. Necromancy has a range of potent tools; unfortunately, many creatures will have immunities which make the school less powerful. It also has problems targeting every save, while Conjuration can target Fort/Ref/Will starting very early on in the game. Enchantment has similar problems to Necromancy (has problems targeting anything but Will saves), but also tends to lack AOE control tools Conj has. Transmuters are pretty much your best bet for buffing builds.

4) Define "good" builds. Powerful builds are achieved pretty much by Wizard 20 (and there aren't exactly a whole lot of options for specialization in straight Core), but something like Wizard 7/Loremaster 6/Archmage 5/Lore Master 2 seems fine to me. Most metamagics aren't worth it without a reducer (none in Core), so invest in metamagic rods. You'll have feats to burn, and will end up scraping the bottom of the barrel in later levels, but since the biggest power of the class is the spells, you'll be fine.

erikun

2012-08-11, 11:19 PM

So... Sorry to be shifting the conversation without a clutch, but I was wondering what might make some good wizard builds. It's pretty easy to build a damage-dealing wizard, but some things I've read in this topic have got me thinking about other ways to play casters such as lockdown and buffing. I have some questions that have always been asked of me by my players, and I've always had a rough time answering.
Are you talking about how to build a good D&D3 spellcaster with these methods, or how to design a good spellcasting system around these methods? Given you questions, I'm thinking it's more the former.

1) How can I make a diviner or necromancer useful to the party? It always seemed like they have had some pretty weak spells, and they're the two schools first to go in my group.
Necromancy has some of the better debuff insta-gimp spells; suddenly losing 16 levels will hamstring pretty much anything vulnerable. It is also very good with minionmancy: having lots and lots and lots of creatures under your control. Clerics tend to be better at this than wizards, thanks to Rebuke Undead allowing them to control more and clerics getting all the raise dead-like spells as well.

Diviners are a bit trickier, as most "diviners" end up going into the thematic Divine Oracle PrC (for some nice insight bonuses). Divination itself does have some handy spells, from Contengency to information-gathering to scry-and-die. However, I think most diviners just gather information on their off days and prepare to nuke when adventuring.

2) Admittingly I've never had much of a problem with the sorcerer's spell progression, but what are some good ways of fixing it? Why does it really need to be fixed?
It doesn't really need to be fixed. A person choosing spells poorly will end up just a bit better than a blaster wizard with toughness; a person choosing well will dominate as much as any wizard. The biggest problem is that the sorcerer player has no way of getting rid of a bad spell; it'll be sitting in their spell list for the ~6 levels before they get a chance to trade it out.

Giving them extra spells known could alleviate that, but giving them the ability to switch out spells (or just learn new ones, period) would probably be more useful. If you are looking at implementing that suggestion blindly, I'd recommend limiting the spells available for adding (perhaps only spells two below your highest level) and throw on a noticable XP cost. Otherwise, you'll just have a Spell-to-Powe Erudite on your hands.

3) What are some good buffing builds other than making a transmuter? Or a lockdown specialist other than an enchanter? How can I convince the players of taking a lockdown or buffing build?
"Lockdown specialist" would be a conjurer: walls and fogs and Black Tentacles. Perhaps an illusionist as well.

If your players are interested in playing blasters, then there won't be much you could do to encourage them to switch to a spell granting +2 to hit for an ally. Perhaps throw them up against an enemy ground with a buffer-spellcaster to show how effective it is.

Another option might be to introduce more control-oriented spells the the full spell list casters; I've recommended the various (non-Force) walls be added to the Warmage's spell list. You might get a player to give them a try if they're always available an right there.

4) Honestly, what are some good builds in general? I have players who argue that all the good stuff are in the splat books, but I want to show that you can make good things out of core.
Clerics who buff themselves. They don't even need WIS as a primary score. 14 WIS will still get you 9th level spells with items, so you can always focus on boosting STR. Plus, spells like Righteous Might are things that a fighter can't hope to do.

Wizards with Silent Image, Glitterdust, Web, Invisibility, Stinking Cloud, Fly, Solid Fog, Black Tentacles, Resilient Sphere, Bestow Curse, Polymorph... What's more, you can specialize to get even more spells, and for very little loss. Enhancement has little to offer beyond Sleep and Dominate. Evocation and Necromancy are normal second schools to drop.

Druid. Wolf Companion. Hide Armor. Entangle. Shillelagh. Seriously, there is so much going for the druid. Even simply taking Natural Spell and flying around as a bird out of melee reach makes them ridiculously good.

Sorcerers can do most of the stunts wizards can do. Bards can, as well. Anyone with the Use Magic Device skill and desire to pick up wands can do basically anything they want.

hiryuu

2012-08-11, 11:32 PM

All of them suck and are tied to fluff that needs to find it's way to get fired into the damn sun. You can change the fluff, but with human memory the way it is, it's not worth it. I'd rather designers not outright add dumbass fluff to a perfectly servicable and more importantly GENERIC class.

Yeah, because out of 37 bloodlines (10 more from third party material), around a third of which have not much really to do with your ancestry, and about 26 ACFs that fiddle with the bloodline features, you certainly can't find anything you want and it's unfairly limiting.

Zeful

2012-08-12, 12:33 AM

Yeah, because out of 37 bloodlines (10 more from third party material), around a third of which have not much really to do with your ancestry, and about 26 ACFs that fiddle with the bloodline features, you certainly can't find anything you want and it's unfairly limiting.

I've stopped caring about Pathfinder for years, to be perfectly honest. That all of that exists does not motivate me to care now. I don't play in the system, I won't run the system, I'm not going to buy the system. The existence, or non-existence of any particular features are a non-factor to me.

Knaight

2012-08-12, 12:36 AM

I've stopped caring about Pathfinder for years, to be perfectly honest. That all of that exists does not motivate me to care now. I don't play in the system, I won't run the system, I'm not going to buy the system. The existence, or non-existence of any particular features are a non-factor to me.

The extent to which you care about Pathfinder really doesn't affect the truth of your argument regarding it. I say this as someone who likely cares even less about pathfinder, given my opinions on 3.5 D&D.

Zeful

2012-08-12, 12:45 AM

The extent to which you care about Pathfinder really doesn't affect the truth of your argument regarding it. I say this as someone who likely cares even less about pathfinder, given my opinions on 3.5 D&D.

What argument? I'm not the one who brought up Pathfinder.

Knaight

2012-08-12, 12:57 AM

What argument? I'm not the one who brought up Pathfinder.

The "bloodlines are restrictive and bad" argument. Specifically, this one:

All of them suck and are tied to fluff that needs to find it's way to get fired into the damn sun. You can change the fluff, but with human memory the way it is, it's not worth it. I'd rather designers not outright add dumbass fluff to a perfectly servicable and more importantly GENERIC class.

Every homebrewer and their dog has tried to add bloodlines to the sorcerer, it's about as unique as any other trite cliche.

For which I am eternally grateful. Because it's stupid and limiting as hell.

Zeful

2012-08-12, 01:09 AM

The "bloodlines are restrictive and bad" argument. Specifically, this one:

Only one of those is "bloodlines are restrictive", the first one, because they are. Adding bloodlines moves the class from the generic by giving it a set of assumptions about how the class works. The fundamental assumptions behind bloodlines is restrictive. To argue otherwise is disingenuous.

The only other actual argument amongst what you quoted was that such redesigns are prevalent, and functionally identical to the point that the assumptions that spawned them become cliche.

Grundy

2012-08-13, 10:01 PM

Zeful

2012-08-13, 11:10 PM

To get back to the OP, at least a little, what has always bothered me about wizards, or casters in general, is that they circumvent the rest of the game's mechanics. I'd like to see spells keep the flavor of the classic spells- magic missle, fireball, knock, charm person, etc. But instead of just pushing the "I Win" button, give a bonus to existing mechanics. Skills, bab, damage, movement rates, etc.

For example; charm person gives a bonus to bluff. Say 4+caster level, so it stays useful. Invisibility boosts hide, and so on.
Then remove all ranges of "you" or "personal" to take advantage of teammates.
PS I've totally cribbed this idea from this forum, but I think it bears repeating.

I also like the idea of getting rid of spell levels and replacing them with prerequisites.

It's not really necessary for caster level to influence spell power when there are perfectly good attributes not currently in use that could do that. If spell power scaled off a core attribute not related to the thing they use for spells per day or DC, you lose that quadratic power curve, and introduce other attributes that need tending if you want to be the best there ever was when it comes to spell casting, as the quadratic power curve and single ability dependence made casters scale far too well.

Grundy

2012-08-14, 06:12 AM

Thats why I like the idea of making magic use the existing rules. If charm person helps a caster bluff, they still need Cha to make the spell effective. Likewise, if blaster spells work off BAB, the caster still needs Dex and Str.
Suddenly, casters are as MAD as anybody else.
Also, along those lines, I've never liked touch attacks. Why shouldn't armor protect against magic effects? I know that if I had to deal with extreme cold, heat, etc. I'd rather have some protection. Even electricity isn't all bad- a good suit of metal armor shouldn't have metal touching bare flesh. Padding is better protection than air.

Eldan

2012-08-14, 06:25 AM

It's not really necessary for caster level to influence spell power when there are perfectly good attributes not currently in use that could do that. If spell power scaled off a core attribute not related to the thing they use for spells per day or DC, you lose that quadratic power curve, and introduce other attributes that need tending if you want to be the best there ever was when it comes to spell casting, as the quadratic power curve and single ability dependence made casters scale far too well.

I'm not too sure about that. Becoming more powerful as you level up is a good thing, I'd say. If it all depends on attributes and the wizard gets more powerful by gaining new spells, we have a weird situatoin where it basically levels up in the opposite way to the fighter.

A fighter, as he levels up, still uses the same attacks, but they get more powerful as BAB increases.

The wizard, on the other hand, ditches his low level attacks, as they become rather useless,and learns new ones instead.

To make the comparison, that somehow sounds as if the fighter was starting out with only daggers and shurikens, then leveled up to maces and slings at level 5 and swords and bows at level 10.

I'd rather have everyone be quadratic, really. It means levels make more of a difference.

erikun

2012-08-14, 06:57 AM

To get back to the OP, at least a little, what has always bothered me about wizards, or casters in general, is that they circumvent the rest of the game's mechanics. I'd like to see spells keep the flavor of the classic spells- magic missle, fireball, knock, charm person, etc. But instead of just pushing the "I Win" button, give a bonus to existing mechanics. Skills, bab, damage, movement rates, etc.

Also, along those lines, I've never liked touch attacks. Why shouldn't armor protect against magic effects? I know that if I had to deal with extreme cold, heat, etc. I'd rather have some protection. Even electricity isn't all bad- a good suit of metal armor shouldn't have metal touching bare flesh. Padding is better protection than air.
The logic behind saves/touch attacks is that it allows the Wizard to have poor skill with martial weapons while still being effective. A Wizard with +5 BAB isn't going to be as effective as a Fighter with +10 BAB wielding a sword, but can still meaningfully hit targets due to ignoring armor. It also creates opponents who are naturally good against mages (those who use DEX for AC) and opponents who are vulnerable, thus making mages good against some targets but melee better against others.

At least, that was the idea. It didn't exactly turn out that way with 3.5e, but then again, I could say that about a lot of stuff in the 3.5e system.

Zeful

2012-08-14, 02:01 PM

I'm not too sure about that. Becoming more powerful as you level up is a good thing, I'd say. If it all depends on attributes and the wizard gets more powerful by gaining new spells, we have a weird situatoin where it basically levels up in the opposite way to the fighter.

A fighter, as he levels up, still uses the same attacks, but they get more powerful as BAB increases.

The wizard, on the other hand, ditches his low level attacks, as they become rather useless,and learns new ones instead.

To make the comparison, that somehow sounds as if the fighter was starting out with only daggers and shurikens, then leveled up to maces and slings at level 5 and swords and bows at level 10.

I'd rather have everyone be quadratic, really. It means levels make more of a difference.

Except you can't do that by splitting the design paradigm between classes, if you keep mundane and magical classes separate paradigms, either the mundane paradigm needs to brutally overpower the magical one to make up for their lack of versatility, or the magical one needs it's versatility pruned back drastically such that a character that can do everything other characters can do, but worse cannot be allowed to exist, with the current set up being legitimately impossible.

So this leads us to two options, either by evening out the basic mechanical interaction (fireball is no longer a spell that your reflex save opposes, it's an attack that has to hit your AC to do anything), or what I posted above. And neither sounds like something you'd support.

The logic behind saves/touch attacks is that it allows the Wizard to have poor skill with martial weapons while still being effective. A Wizard with +5 BAB isn't going to be as effective as a Fighter with +10 BAB wielding a sword, but can still meaningfully hit targets due to ignoring armor. It also creates opponents who are naturally good against mages (those who use DEX for AC) and opponents who are vulnerable, thus making mages good against some targets but melee better against others.

At least, that was the idea. It didn't exactly turn out that way with 3.5e, but then again, I could say that about a lot of stuff in the 3.5e system.
Actually the logic was that there were some effects that didn't care if you were wearing armor, as the effect worked if it hit at all, rather than if it hit you through the armor.

Grundy

2012-08-14, 09:58 PM

Starbuck_II

2012-08-14, 10:42 PM

There is another class that can do a ton of stuff. They can fight like the Fighter, sneak like the Rogue, heal like the Cleric, and cast spells like the Wizard. It's the Bard.

However, I've never heard anyone recommend playing a game with four Bards rather than the Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard classes. The reason is pretty obvious: Bards don't fight as well as the Fighter, don't sneak as well as the Rogue, don't heal as well as the Cleric, and don't cast spells as well as the Wizard. In fact, Bards are frequently joked at for precisely that reason - they can do anything, just not exceptionally well.

Well, Bard one inspires Courage raising everyone to past a Fighter's ability to hit on equal level (Words of Creation). Bard two: the Dragonfire adept bosts damage even further. Bard two is skill monkey (he is more focused on skills than other two). Third is primary spellcaster (takes Item Creation feats/Metamagic).

Hideous Laughter is they go to Save or die at 2nd level. Grease is helps as does Charm.
I beat Temple of Elemental Evil (video game) with a Party of Bards. Use Magic Device helps.
You give one Bard the stat "Wonderous item" spells (like Bears's endurance, (possibly 2 to one bard and 2 to other). You need 4 spells only (you buff Con, Str, Dex, and Cha if caster Bard, but you can get away with not buffing DC if you don't want to).

Back to 3.5: At 1st level, a Bard is better except HD (inspire makes hit chance same unless Bard chose to dump hit).
Bards get more love in splatbooks: namely Complete Arcane, Mage, BoED, and Dragon Magic. Item buffs in Magic Item Compreduim. Spel buffs from Spell compendruim.

But as my game of ToEE showed, a party of Bards can kick butt in Core.

Eldan

2012-08-15, 05:12 AM

What effect wouldn't be mitigated by armor? There's plenty of lore surrounding the concept of metal in particular disrupting magic, not the least being the ASF. The best counter example I can think of is heat metal.

But I love the idea of spells being a partial effect, especially at low levels. Hold person, for example, could reduce movement by 5 ft/ two caster levels. Eventually you could even get to paralysis. Invisibility works by buffing your hide.
I imagine durations increasing as well. Perhaps feats or class features could trade effectiveness for duration, range, AoO, etc.

This, very much. More spells should be gradual, instead of save-or-die. Perhaps we need a few more condition progressions like fear? There are three levels of fear, the first of which don't entirely disable you. And mundanes can get into the fear game with intimidate. If daze, stun, paralysis and all those were a kind of progression from "slightly annoying penalty" to "dangerous" to "waiting to be CdG'd", it would be quite a bit more useful. Same for death effects. Maybe make it fatigued-exhausted-X-dead or something.
I also liked the Flesh to Stone fix that slowly sapped dexterity instead of instantly petrifying.

Dsurion

2012-08-15, 02:45 PM

This, very much. More spells should be gradual, instead of save-or-die. Perhaps we need a few more condition progressions like fear? There are three levels of fear, the first of which don't entirely disable you. And mundanes can get into the fear game with intimidate. If daze, stun, paralysis and all those were a kind of progression from "slightly annoying penalty" to "dangerous" to "waiting to be CdG'd", it would be quite a bit more useful. Same for death effects. Maybe make it fatigued-exhausted-X-dead or something.
I also liked the Flesh to Stone fix that slowly sapped dexterity instead of instantly petrifying.I've strongly considered ditching all of 3.5's spells-as-written and making a system like this myself.

Eldan

2012-08-15, 02:47 PM

I think that project was started at least once already on the forums, but didn't get far.

Anyway, I don't think you need to rewrite every spell. Many of them are pretty okay as written.

Knaight

2012-08-15, 02:51 PM

I've strongly considered ditching all of 3.5's spells-as-written and making a system like this myself.

Why stop at the spells? Ditch 3.5 entirely, build a new system from scratch, and include spells the way you want them.

Psyren

2012-08-15, 04:37 PM

Wizards in d&d are intelligent. They are scholars. They study the forces of the universe to bend them to their will. They learn. They know things. They see details and plans and patterns and connections. They have seen secrets that would drive lesser minds insane.

Somehow, I can not believe that the first thing that would come to the mind of such a person would be "blow it up".

If a wizard fights, the battle should already be over. They prepare the battleground, so that when they enter, they only have to execute their plan. They have a thousand subtle tricks.

In short: I dislike having to fight at all with wizards. And when I do, I think magic should have more interesting applications than that.

This is probably the best answer I've seen to the OP's question.

The problem is - this works great for a simulationist world, an actual setting where the smartest guy is indeed the guy who comes out on top. This is to be expected in a world where being smart not only conveys all the regular advantages of being smart, but also grants metaphysical command over the building blocks of the world as well - like a programmer who can subsequently hack reality. Or in CoDzilla's case, the guy who is pious/devout gets all kind of freebies from their super-outsider buddy.

But at the game table, the smart guy is just one of a pack of other schlubs, and few of his friends are likely to want to play second banana to his machinations over the course of an entire campaign. Unfortunately, with so-called "God wizards" that's exactly what tends to happen.

I don't have an easy solution to this problem myself. WotC went and put themselves in the very uncomfortable situation of having to solve this conundrum, because Pathfinder stole most if not all of the players who enjoy 3.5 precisely because they don't consider the disparity to be that big a deal. To differentiate D&D Next, WotC must now answer this unanswerable question, because failure to do so is now failure to differentiate.

Knaight

2012-08-15, 05:44 PM

The problem is - this works great for a simulationist world, an actual setting where the smartest guy is indeed the guy who comes out on top. This is to be expected in a world where being smart not only conveys all the regular advantages of being smart, but also grants metaphysical command over the building blocks of the world as well - like a programmer who can subsequently hack reality. Or in CoDzilla's case, the guy who is pious/devout gets all kind of freebies from their super-outsider buddy.
People who aren't all that smart ended up in positions of power all the time. Intelligence is a useful trait, yes, but all told it usually ends up being worth much less than wealth, being born into the right place, and the ability to get people to follow you. A lack of intelligence is a very large detriment, but intelligence generally doesn't get you that far in real life.

I don't have an easy solution to this problem myself. WotC went and put themselves in the very uncomfortable situation of having to solve this conundrum, because Pathfinder stole most if not all of the players who enjoy 3.5 precisely because they don't consider the disparity to be that big a deal. To differentiate D&D Next, WotC must now answer this unanswerable question, because failure to do so is now failure to differentiate.
It's not unanswerable. There is absolutely no reason magic has to be extremely powerful, let alone particularly applicable to adventuring, and given that intelligence is not particularly useful for gaining power anyways seeing that everyone has similar amounts of power isn't somehow upended.

Eldan

2012-08-15, 05:56 PM

Yeah. I think I've stated it before, but: there's no reason magic has to be as powerful as it is in D&D.

It can be as weak as you want it to be. Your only spell makes feathers float, but only two inches high, and only as long as they are hovering above a metal surface.

That's a ridiculously weak example, but you know what? If I could learn to do that in real life, you bet I'd go study for that. And there's plenty of middle ground between world-shattering wizard-god and Rincewind.

S: Actually, Rincewind could be a good example of an interesting first level wizard. He has a diverse skill set: magical knowledge, geographical knowledge, theological knowledge, historical knowledge, knowledge of magical creatures, dozens of languages and a basis in many other areas of knowledge. He can feel and see magical auras. That already makes him a useful character to take along in the average party (granted, probably moreso if he weren't quite as doomed and cowardly).

Grundy

2012-08-15, 09:08 PM

The last time I built a game, I ditched spells entirely. It was also 22 years ago....
I was griping, for sure, but also looking ahead to things I'd like to see in dnd5. Since the devs all listen to me, I'm sure it'll be in there;).

Zeful

2012-08-16, 02:11 AM

I don't have an easy solution to this problem myself. WotC went and put themselves in the very uncomfortable situation of having to solve this conundrum, because Pathfinder stole most if not all of the players who enjoy 3.5 precisely because they don't consider the disparity to be that big a deal. To differentiate D&D Next, WotC must now answer this unanswerable question, because failure to do so is now failure to differentiate.

It's not an unanswerable question. In my posts in this thread I have posited three of the four answers I've worked out running this crap around in my head.

They fall into two camps. Maintaining the broken paradigm, or removing the broken paradigm.
For the former, you have the choices of stupidly empowering mundane characters to overcome the versatility of magical characters, or you can cut back the versatility of spell-casters to remove the "everything you can do I can do better" aspect. For the latter you have removing the caster level scaling of spells and adding in a mirrored set of attributes to Str, Dex, and Con to act as a form of "magical power, magical accuracy (and AC), and magical resistance" and treating spells like attacks when necessary (there really is no reason Fireball can't be an attack that hits everyone and is apposed by AC as dodge and deflection bonuses do the same thing as the reflex save did anyway), or doing what 4e did (raising mundanes up with magical mechanics).

It's all just a lot of work.

Psyren

2012-08-16, 09:08 AM

People who aren't all that smart ended up in positions of power all the time. Intelligence is a useful trait, yes, but all told it usually ends up being worth much less than wealth, being born into the right place, and the ability to get people to follow you. A lack of intelligence is a very large detriment, but intelligence generally doesn't get you that far in real life.

"Please, Shepard. Social, environmental concerns accounted for. Not an undergraduate." - Dr. Mordin Solus

In case I wasn't clear, I meant independently of environmental/external factors. Given identical backgrounds, the person with higher mental stats has more upward potential than the one with higher physical ones. Intelligence and Wisdom to gain merit, Charisma to gain influence. And lack of those attributes can harm you significantly even if you are a superb physical specimen - you may not even get the chance to show off your prowess to people that matter (decision-makers) if no one can get along with you.

The exception is hunter-gatherer or other labor-intensive societies where physical prowess directly correlates to production. And even then, the brainy character has an edge if he can invent things like irrigation, subsistence farming and industry.

It's not unanswerable. There is absolutely no reason magic has to be extremely powerful, let alone particularly applicable to adventuring, and given that intelligence is not particularly useful for gaining power anyways seeing that everyone has similar amounts of power isn't somehow upended.

It's not an unanswerable question. In my posts in this thread I have posited three of the four answers I've worked out running this crap around in my head.

They fall into two camps. Maintaining the broken paradigm, or removing the broken paradigm.
For the former, you have the choices of stupidly empowering mundane characters to overcome the versatility of magical characters, or you can cut back the versatility of spell-casters to remove the "everything you can do I can do better" aspect. For the latter you have removing the caster level scaling of spells and adding in a mirrored set of attributes to Str, Dex, and Con to act as a form of "magical power, magical accuracy (and AC), and magical resistance" and treating spells like attacks when necessary (there really is no reason Fireball can't be an attack that hits everyone and is apposed by AC as dodge and deflection bonuses do the same thing as the reflex save did anyway), or doing what 4e did (raising mundanes up with magical mechanics).

It's all just a lot of work.

I suppose "unanswerable" is indeed a misnomer. The issue then becomes answering the question in a way that still holds broad appeal.

"Magic doesn't have to be powerful" - I suppose it doesn't, but if it's not, the question then becomes "why am I wasting my free time on this escapist power fantasy if I'm not actually escaping anything?" and as more people are unable to answer that question with 5e, they end up gravitating back to roleplay systems that do.

"Empowering mundanes" was tried in 4e as Zeful said. Clearly, if that had been as successful as they wanted, they wouldn't be rushing into 5e now - so my current theory is that the fans who want that are outnumbered by the ones who want magic to be superior. Of course, there are other factors at play there too, so that's an oversimplification.

I do like the idea of tweaking caster level - a powerful stat that passively scales independently of all others is indeed an oft-overlooked source of problems. It lies at the heart of all attempts to balance casters by making them MAD failing.

toapat

2012-08-16, 10:03 AM

I suppose "unanswerable" is indeed a misnomer. The issue then becomes answering the question in a way that still holds broad appeal.

"Magic doesn't have to be powerful" - I suppose it doesn't, but if it's not, the question then becomes "why am I wasting my free time on this escapist power fantasy if I'm not actually escaping anything?" and as more people are unable to answer that question with 5e, they end up gravitating back to roleplay systems that do.

"Empowering mundanes" was tried in 4e as Zeful said. Clearly, if that had been as successful as they wanted, they wouldn't be rushing into 5e now - so my current theory is that the fans who want that are outnumbered by the ones who want magic to be superior. Of course, there are other factors at play there too, so that's an oversimplification.

I do like the idea of tweaking caster level - a powerful stat that passively scales independently of all others is indeed an oft-overlooked source of problems. It lies at the heart of all attempts to balance casters by making them MAD failing.

Which is why i take Refuge in Audacity by declaring that magic should be as powerful as ever, but requiring significant specialization.

asto the SAD issue? the only real way that can be solved is if you split extra spells per day away from minimum required attribute and DCs, and even that isnt entirely a solution because of how easy it is to optimize DCs in 3.5

Psyren

2012-08-16, 10:10 AM

Madfellow

2012-08-16, 10:23 AM

I'd just like to point out that fantastical escapism doesn't require you to be able to blast fireballs out of your hands. Pretending you're a badass swordsman or a nigh-invisible assassin can (and in my mind should) be just as cool as being able to inflict pain with a thought or save someone from the brink of death. Yes, a lot of people want to be wizards or other casters, but there are also those who want to role play as the big strong guy or the cunning smart guy. Making casters inherently more powerful than mundanes just alienates those players, and in my mind actually makes casters less interesting. "Oh, you're charging at me with a sword? Yawn."

And besides, variety is the spice of life. Sometimes people get bored of playing as casters, and when that happens they don't want their only option to be sucking at adventuring.

Eldan

2012-08-16, 10:39 AM

MAD casters?
Hm.
Charisma for the power of spells. Duration and DCs.
Intelligence for the highest level spell you can cast, as it is now.
Wisdom for how many you get per day.

Too MAD? After all, the physicals need all three stats too, though various classes can get by more or less with dumping one of them.

toapat

2012-08-16, 11:08 AM

The most important "casting stat" is still CL. Most attempts to balance casters by making them MAD ignore that problem.

If I make a summoner, for instance, I don't care about my save DCs - so I'm free to tank my "DC stat" and focus on the one that gives me spell access/bonus spells. Even if those two are different, I'll focus on the "bonus spell" stat and get the "spell access" stat just high enough to get the spells I need. (For instance, a summoner that needs Int for spell access and Cha for bonus spells, will start the game with 14 Int or so, and rely on items to get it higher. All stat boosts will go to Cha.)

But if my CL is tied to an attribute as well, suddenly I care about it, even as a summoner. My summons won't last as long, and be easier to dispel, if I ignore this stat.

This is mostly an off-the-cuff mental exercise for me though, I haven't seen such a system in action or attempted to truly flesh it out.

As i pointed out, even the solution i gave, wasnt, because it can just be ignored without problem.

Interestingly, RAW, Bards, Clerics, Sorcerers, and Wizards only have a Caster Level if you take the Caster level rule into account as a specific Rule (each of their entries outside of Epic makes no mention of Caster level for spells), where as a Paladin is specifically stated to have a caster level equal to one half their paladin level.

Madfellow

2012-08-16, 11:49 AM

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-08-16, 12:10 PM

"Empowering mundanes" was tried in 4e as Zeful said. Clearly, if that had been as successful as they wanted, they wouldn't be rushing into 5e now - so my current theory is that the fans who want that are outnumbered by the ones who want magic to be superior. Of course, there are other factors at play there too, so that's an oversimplification.

Keep in mind that 4e empowered mundanes and nerfed casters into the ground, at least as far as the "interesting" magic goes. I'm one of those people who likes his casters to have lots of world-changing magic and his martial types to be superhuman in their own right; ideally, my high-level casters never have a combat focus and my high-level martial types are well-rounded engines of destruction. If you have two basic camps of "I like my world-changing wizards, boost the fighters up to the same mythical level" and "I like my down-to-earth fighters, nerf the wizards down to the same gritty level," it's no wonder WotC trying to compromise by making the fighter too off-the-wall for the gritty people and the wizard too one-dimensional for the gonzo people wasn't the best strategy.

Knaight

2012-08-16, 12:13 PM

I suppose "unanswerable" is indeed a misnomer. The issue then becomes answering the question in a way that still holds broad appeal.

"Magic doesn't have to be powerful" - I suppose it doesn't, but if it's not, the question then becomes "why am I wasting my free time on this escapist power fantasy if I'm not actually escaping anything?" and as more people are unable to answer that question with 5e, they end up gravitating back to roleplay systems that do.

"Empowering mundanes" was tried in 4e as Zeful said. Clearly, if that had been as successful as they wanted, they wouldn't be rushing into 5e now - so my current theory is that the fans who want that are outnumbered by the ones who want magic to be superior. Of course, there are other factors at play there too, so that's an oversimplification.
This brings us to the point of whether or not "escapist power fantasy" is even a valuable trait in roleplaying games. I'd posit that it generally isn't, but I suspect enough people disagree with me that D&D does need to have it to some extent. That said, even minor, not very powerful magic is still magic, and is still potentially very useful, particularly when attached to a character who also has a large base of knowledge and a high capacity to learn.

Empowering mundanes was tried in 4e, yes. However, there is the matter of the way they went about it, which is generally disliked. ToB also empowered mundanes, it was a beloved book. Going away from D&D, Qin and Weapons of the Gods both have very powerful mundane characters, both received a very good reception. The thing is, they went about empowering mundanes in a very different way.

Psyren

2012-08-16, 12:51 PM

If you guys are curious about how Wizards of the Coast is tackling the wizards vs fighters issue, you can check it out here:

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120514

and here:

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120730

*reads*

Article 1: Lots there that I like!
- Groups that "don't see the problem" - this was a fantastic point by Mearls, and one I agree with totally. Those were exactly the people that 4e kicked out of the room; 5e's ultimate goal in designing the wizard (or any other caster) must be sure not to alienate them yet again.
- Removing autoscaling - psionics uses this to great effect, and it seems that it will be applied even more broadly this way. (Forcing you to use a higher-level slot to achieve stronger effects from your spells is functionally identical to augmenting.)
- Buffing at-wills, cutting back on slots - this is potentially a way to get the more powerful spells/combos out of "rituals" and back into the casters' hands without unbalancing the system again. But whether they are successful really depends on the spells themselves, so I'll reserve judgment here until I see some.
- Removing loopholes - WotC needs to come to the simple realization that there is no internal way to do this 100% perfectly. They instead need to be diligent about releasing errata and other corrections when thousands of players inevitably poke these holes in their spells. They also need to give any clarifications or interpretations they post online the strength of law.
- Dangerous magic - All I hope is that they're careful here. This sort of thing has been tried, and it's easy to make it too weak/unnoticeable, or too strong (and casters thus unplayable.)

Article 2: Great stuff for fighters - these dice pools could potentially accomplish many of the tricks a "maneuver system" would have with much less complexity. They remind me of Ambush feats for sneak attackers, only much broader in application. I definitely approve and hope they can work out the costing appropriately.

Cautious optimism for 5e - rising.

Zeful

2012-08-16, 12:52 PM

Empowering mundanes was tried in 4e, yes. However, there is the matter of the way they went about it, which is generally disliked. ToB also empowered mundanes, it was a beloved book. Going away from D&D, Qin and Weapons of the Gods both have very powerful mundane characters, both received a very good reception. The thing is, they went about empowering mundanes in a very different way.

The only problem with the way 4e did things was implementation. Quite a few of the concepts involved in the system were actually on the right track.

Like the whole Action Economy issue. Many mundane characters had no use for their swift and immediate actions, and for no good reason, especially considering real life combat. Tome of Battle also did this by adding counters and boosts alongside stances and strikes to allow mundane characters to use all of their actions in a single round vastly improving their action economy.

Rituals were also a good thing, as it would allow the designers to remove a lot of the abilities that weren't supposed to have combat use from actual combat, so they didn't have to chose between a wizard's combat effectiveness and their non-combat effectiveness, as well as stepping away from the "6 second standard casting time" issue that kinda plagued 3.5 (I know why they did it, to keep play moving and not have to manage the other player's actions during the castings, and effectively excluding the wizard's player from the game when they needed to do something big, I just don't agree with it).

But like many things, the implementation was bad. Every spell deemed as "non-combat" was stuffed into the ritual system preventing a lot of types of adventures. And the maneuvers lacked any real utility, making the game effectively two different games that both were pretty shallow (which is where the video gamey complaint comes from, 4e was essentially a Pen and Paper port of D&D Tactics, rather than a Pen and Paper version of Descent: Journeys in the Dark).

Starbuck_II

2012-08-16, 01:17 PM

You know, I recently saw a Wizard homebrew that fits what OP asks for?
It has blaster spells pepared, but as spell-like abilities cast utility (wisdom modifier/day)
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=11119.0

Water_Bear

2012-08-16, 01:22 PM

...That said, even minor, not very powerful magic is still magic, and is still potentially very useful, particularly when attached to a character who also has a large base of knowledge and a high capacity to learn.

I would be okay if they wanted to reduce the raw power of magic, but I don't see why they feel the need to strip it's variety away as well.

My ideal of magic-balance in D&D comes down to the standard of Illusion magic. It is potentially devastating; even low level spells like Silent Image and Disguise Self can end or circumvent encounters. But they need skill, on both an IC and Metagame level, to use effectively and mundanes can take reasonable precautions to minimize their effectiveness. Excluding stuff like Simulacrum and Ice Assassin, Illusion in 3.5/3.P is the most interesting and well balanced school IMO.

So rather than saying "no Teleportation/Summoning/Polymorph/Save-or-Die Spells for YOU!" a better way of treating it is to say "what are the inherent limitations of this kind of magic?"

My ideal would be something like this;

Abjuration should be completely stripped into the anti-magic school, which is built just to mess with other wizards or strengthen your own casting.
Conjuration needs elaborate diagrams and lengthy rituals for summoning or teleportation to work reliably; otherwise you risk disaster with blind jumps or summoning things you can't control.
Evocation needs you to provide sympathetic elements; i.e. actually making material components matter.
Necromancy requires you to sacrifice part of your own life force, or that of another, to power its magics.
Enchantment's suggestions and compulsions must mesh with the personality or the target takes penalties due to the strain of following your orders; like Al-Mualim said, completely broken slaves are much less useful.
Transmutation requires you to understand the nature of both the object/creature to be changed and the end result; enforce obscure Knowledge checks to reduce the chance of messing up, but have the existing raw power of the school make up for it.

Of course, that isn't what 5e will do (and we're probably better off for it), but a guy can dream right?

Knaight

2012-08-16, 01:25 PM

The only problem with the way 4e did things was implementation. Quite a few of the concepts involved in the system were actually on the right track.

My favorite example is the At Will/Per Encounter/Per Day detail. It makes little sense from a simulation perspective, but is connected to in game time, thus appearing to be a simulation. Added to this, the per day basis forces a certain pacing as regards in game time, which is frustrating. Yet all they had to do was go with At Will/Per Scene/Per Chapter, and all of this resolves itself nicely. I'd rather it be completely removed to be honest, but still, they had an obvious better version right there in front of them, and they turned away.

Psyren

2012-08-16, 01:26 PM

This brings us to the point of whether or not "escapist power fantasy" is even a valuable trait in roleplaying games.
*snip*

Whether you personally think so or not, a single glance at Pathfinder's runaway success should answer that question for you - and that's just in the tabletop arena. Pathfinder dethroned 4e, in part, because it enables the same kind of grandiose storytelling that 3.5 and previous editions of D&D did, yet 4e denied.

Empowering mundanes was tried in 4e, yes. However, there is the matter of the way they went about it, which is generally disliked. ToB also empowered mundanes, it was a beloved book. Going away from D&D, Qin and Weapons of the Gods both have very powerful mundane characters, both received a very good reception. The thing is, they went about empowering mundanes in a very different way.

It was more the way they depowered casters that led to 4e's slippage, in my opinion (though there were indeed enough oddities on the mundane front, like Warlords healing with speeches, to create a sizable disconnect.) But those oddities were few and minor. Rather, it was the way that utility magic and combat magic were partitioned into what felt like - as Zeful described it - separate games. As his post above mentions, certain kinds of story become more difficult for the DM to tell if you segregate character capability this way. And certain kinds of fantasy are difficult for the player to realize as well.

toapat

2012-08-16, 01:44 PM

Excluding stuff like Simulacrum and Ice Assassin

both of which are broken not by vagueness on their part, but by vagueness on the end of the divine rules. (Because the Ice assassin spell states that the duplicate is a Construct with all the special attacks, qualities, and class levels of the target. the problem here is whether Divine Ranks qualify as a Special Quality.)

either way, I dont feel that the schools as they are in DnD are that good, as they all are in a way, subgroups of more overarching concepts, as i outlined in an earlier post.

Evocation itself is used only as pure blasting magic, even though you could evoke the Eagle's splendor in someone.

Psyren

2012-08-16, 02:19 PM

Menteith

2012-08-16, 02:36 PM

Also, subverting experience costs is pretty trivial to do, and opens up a wide of abuses.

jaybird

2012-08-16, 02:41 PM

either way, I dont feel that the schools as they are in DnD are that good, as they all are in a way, subgroups of more overarching concepts, as i outlined in an earlier post.

Evocation itself is used only as pure blasting magic, even though you could evoke the Eagle's splendor in someone.

I feel like school balance is one of the key problems. In conjunction with limiting Wizards to 2/3 casting and limiting high-level spell access to specialists a la Beguiler, it would do a lot to reduce the world-breaking nature of 3.5 arcane magic. If Conjuration and Transmutation were balanced down to approximately Illusion's level of power (without the Shadow line of spells), and Evocation and Enchantment were similarly balanced up, things would work a lot better.

demigodus

2012-08-16, 02:47 PM

If you guys are curious about how Wizards of the Coast is tackling the wizards vs fighters issue for 5E, you can check it out here:

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120514

The cantrips/at-wills + less spell slots, makes me think we are likely going to end up with wizards being able to blast more or less at-will, but everything else will be far less flexible. Which isn't necessarily a good thing. In 3.5, if you wanted to buff your party, rather then turn yourself into a war machine, that took a lot of spell slots. Might end up invalidating that tactic, while still allowing self-buffing if done right (after all, who are you going to cast various protection spells on first? Yourself, or the fighter? To you, for whom is it more important to survive? You, or the fighter?)

From the article:

Wands would no longer accept just any spell. Instead, we would provide a specific list of spells that can be added to wands. The idea here is to keep things under control so that casting fly on everyone in the party is a real investment by a wizard.

So, apparently they want to make buffing the entire party be a bad option. Only wizard gets to fly. So he can stay out of harm, and blast from safety. For everyone else, it is a waste of resources...

Madfellow

2012-08-16, 02:53 PM

You're making the assumption that all of a wizard's cantrips are blasting spells, when in fact they include things like Light, Ghost Sound, Detect Magic, Comprehend Languages, etc. And the cleric's list of orisons is similar. Before you start complaining about all the stuff that might detract from the game, you should do a little research to find out what is actually in the game.

demigodus

2012-08-16, 02:54 PM

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-08-16, 03:01 PM

both of which are broken not by vagueness on their part, but by vagueness on the end of the divine rules. (Because the Ice assassin spell states that the duplicate is a Construct with all the special attacks, qualities, and class levels of the target. the problem here is whether Divine Ranks qualify as a Special Quality.)

No, IA is broken even if you're not going around copying gods. Being able to copy Elminster, an Archfiend, or an Elder Brain on a whim because you have their eyelash in your spell component pouch by RAW is the big problem with that spell. That's the vague wording that needs to be fixed.

Yeah, being able to copy someone powers and all is bad enough, but it's the wording on material components that really makes it abusive, as well as cheesy interpretations like having the components for apocalypse from the sky in the pouch because artifacts don't have a listed price. The concept behind simulacrum and ice assassin are perfectly salvageable (make something that looks like person X out of snow and send it to kill them).

either way, I dont feel that the schools as they are in DnD are that good, as they all are in a way, subgroups of more overarching concepts, as i outlined in an earlier post.

Evocation itself is used only as pure blasting magic, even though you could evoke the Eagle's splendor in someone.

Evocation's concept isn't so much "bring forth X" where X is any abstract property, but more the manipulation of energy and creation of matter. It has a pretty strong link to the elements and the Inner Planes. Fox's cunning, owl's wisdom, and eagle's splendor would make more sense as Enchantment, I think.

I feel like school balance is one of the key problems. In conjunction with limiting Wizards to 2/3 casting and limiting high-level spell access to specialists a la Beguiler, it would do a lot to reduce the world-breaking nature of 3.5 arcane magic. If Conjuration and Transmutation were balanced down to approximately Illusion's level of power (without the Shadow line of spells), and Evocation and Enchantment were similarly balanced up, things would work a lot better.

My personal rearrangement of the schools would be to move any magic-related Abjurations like dispel magic and any force-related spells into Evocation (since they're manipulating raw magical energy), move instantaneous Conjurations to Evocation (since they're creating things from nothing), and move mental buffs from Transmutation to Enchantment. That splits up the power schools of Conjuration and Transmutation a bit, gives Evocation more to do than blast, and gives Enchantment some beneficial effects.

Though it might anger a few purists, I'd be tempted to go even further and remove Abjuration entirely, leaving an [abjuration] descriptor for grouping purposes, and putting its spells where they fit in other schools (mind blank in Enchantment, nondetection in Illusion, explosive runes in Evocation, etc.). Further splitting Transmutation into Transmutation (non-creature transformation, like warp wood and transmute mud to rock) and Alteration (creature transformation like polymorph and stoneskin) would preserve the 8 school setup, call back to AD&D's school names, and bring Transmutation further in line with the other schools in terms of narrowness of focus now that Conjuration would basically be teleportation, summoning, and a bit of control.

Madfellow

2012-08-16, 03:04 PM

So blasting, plus stuff that can't be used in combat. Still end up with a wizard that just blows up stuff in combat. Out of combat, sure those are fun, but they need to fix the in-combat-wizard too...

How about a Ray of Frost? Freeze an opponent in its tracks. And besides, the wizard's non-cantrips include stuff like Burning Hands, Sleep, and Alarm. They are not taking the variety away from wizards, so stop panicking.

Knaight

2012-08-16, 03:33 PM

Though it might anger a few purists, I'd be tempted to go even further and remove Abjuration entirely, leaving an [abjuration] descriptor for grouping purposes, and putting its spells where they fit in other schools (mind blank in Enchantment, nondetection in Illusion, explosive runes in Evocation, etc.). Further splitting Transmutation into Transmutation (non-creature transformation, like warp wood and transmute mud to rock) and Alteration (creature transformation like polymorph and stoneskin) would preserve the 8 school setup, call back to AD&D's school names, and bring Transmutation further in line with the other schools in terms of narrowness of focus now that Conjuration would basically be teleportation, summoning, and a bit of control.
As long as we're angering the purists, we could go a bit further. The 6 psionic disciplines are actually really well defined, quite distinct from each other, and comparatively devoid of gray areas. With a little bit of renaming to remove the psionic flavor, they could be the new schools.

jaybird

2012-08-16, 03:41 PM

Stuff

I'm of the opinion that it's slightly counterproductive to cut Abjuration when it's one of the more balanced schools. Other then that, I like it. Knaight's right, though - rebalancing schools would go a lot better if we split spells up along Psionic lines.

MukkTB

2012-08-16, 03:42 PM

I'm in favor of breaking the wizard up into its components. Illusionist / Necromancer / ect. Maybe leave a much weakened generalist Wizard with a core of 'arcane' themed spells.

Psyren

2012-08-16, 03:55 PM

Concerning Abjuration - I've long advocated the psionics approach, i.e. roll it into Evocation. It gives Evokers much-needed Nice Things, it fits thematically (manipulating energy -> manipulating spell energy) and both schools benefit from each other - Abjurers gain offense, Evokers gain defense.

One problem with splitting all the schools down psionic lines though - Psionics has no Necromancy or Illusion analogue. I think Necromancy should still be its own school, and also get back the healing spells. Illusion is strong enough to stand on its own as well.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-08-16, 06:04 PM

As long as we're angering the purists, we could go a bit further. The 6 psionic disciplines are actually really well defined, quite distinct from each other, and comparatively devoid of gray areas. With a little bit of renaming to remove the psionic flavor, they could be the new schools.

One problem with splitting all the schools down psionic lines though - Psionics has no Necromancy or Illusion analogue. I think Necromancy should still be its own school, and also get back the healing spells. Illusion is strong enough to stand on its own as well.

That's another way to approach it, though the thematic correspondence is basically there already. Evocation/Conjuration/Transmutation/Divination/Enchantment map nicely to Psychokinesis/Psychoportation/Psychometabolism/Clairsentience/Telepathy, with Metacreativity being a mix of Evocation and Conjuration and Necromancy, Illusion, and ward-y Abjuration being schticks that psionics don't traditionally do (except for a bunch of stuff in CPsi, which doesn't exist). The differences in what kind of effects go where is more a result of obvious misclassifications (e.g. orb spells) than real thematic differences.

I'm of the opinion that it's slightly counterproductive to cut Abjuration when it's one of the more balanced schools. Other then that, I like it. Knaight's right, though - rebalancing schools would go a lot better if we split spells up along Psionic lines.

Abjuration is fairly well-balanced in terms of breadth of options, but it doesn't quite fit thematically with the rest. Of the 8 schools, there are four grouped around how they interact with the world (Conjuration moves stuff, Evocation creates stuff, Transmutation changes stuff, Abjuration protects stuff) and four grouped around what they do conceptually (Divination detects things, Illusion deceives things, Enchantment messes with your mind, and Necromancy messes with your life force). The "what" schools make sense that they don't fall under three of the "how" schools (you can't exactly move, create, or change "the future" or "someone's thoughts/perceptions/soul" in the same way you can move, create, or change matter or energy) and the "how" schools aren't limited by any sort of "what" (Conjuration doesn't move one kind of stuff to or from one kind of place, it just moves stuff).

However, Abjuration is the odd one out. Moving, creating, and changing are hard to accomplish with one another (unless you go for out-there interpretations like "changing your position," which is why the devs tend to throw too much unrelated stuff in Transmutation) but protecting can be accomplished by creating a barrier, moving you from harm's way, changing your defenses, etc. And you can protect from the "what" schools (protect your perceptions, your mind, and your soul). Further, many Abjurations overlap thematically with other schools more explicitly. Invisibility hides you from physical sight and is an illusion, while nondetection hides you from magical senses and is an abjuration; magic missle smacks someone with magical force when you cast it and is an evocation, while explosive runes smacks someone with magical force a while after you cast it and is an abjuration.

Obviously there are other examples of spells that are misclassified (why telekinesis is Transmutation for "changing position" instead of Evocation for forces or Conjuration for movement is beyond me), but Abjuration as a school is almost entirely mis-classified as far as I'm concerned, with all of its spells deserving to go either to the same school as what they protect against (protecting from Enchantment -> also Enchantment), an opposed school (protecting from Divination -> Illusion and vice versa), or a school dealing with their effects (triggered wards -> triggered Evocation, generally).

Concerning Abjuration - I've long advocated the psionics approach, i.e. roll it into Evocation. It gives Evokers much-needed Nice Things, it fits thematically (manipulating energy -> manipulating spell energy) and both schools benefit from each other - Abjurers gain offense, Evokers gain defense.

Abjuration isn't just protection from magic, though, as mentioned above. It's protection from scrying, summoned creatures, detection, energy, trespassing, and a bunch of other effects. That's why I feel the anti-magic stuff should go in Evocation but the rest should go in other schools. It makes a lot more sense to me that an enchanter is himself hard to enchant, an illusionist is best at hiding himself from divinations, and an evoker that can call fire from thin air in the midst of battle can also call it from wards when someone tries to sneak up on him.

I agree that just mixing Evocation and Abjuration rounds evokers out nicely and makes a very good stereotypical wizard with the blasting + wards combination, but that should be more of a class-based thing, I think, just like how beguilers combine Illusion and Enchantment (and a splash of other thematically-similar things) while the schools themselves remain separate. I mean, a wizard with Divination, Evocation, and Abjuration spells and the bonded staff ACF makes a pretty good Gandalf, and a sorcerer with Conjuration (Summoning), Conjuration (Creation), and Transmutation (Polymorph) spells and a bunch of evil ACFs makes a pretty good Maleficent, there's no need to try to cram everything into one school.

hiryuu

2012-08-16, 06:05 PM

"Please, Shepard. Social, environmental concerns accounted for. Not an undergraduate." - Dr. Mordin Solus

In case I wasn't clear, I meant independently of environmental/external factors. Given identical backgrounds, the person with higher mental stats has more upward potential than the one with higher physical ones. Intelligence and Wisdom to gain merit, Charisma to gain influence. And lack of those attributes can harm you significantly even if you are a superb physical specimen - you may not even get the chance to show off your prowess to people that matter (decision-makers) if no one can get along with you.

The exception is hunter-gatherer or other labor-intensive societies where physical prowess directly correlates to production. And even then, the brainy character has an edge if he can invent things like irrigation, subsistence farming and industry.

Actually, no. You can't just toss out all external factors then, since those attributes directly apply to external factors. Not only that, but you have to both need and be capable of applying an invention or idea in order for it to work. If any one of those factors is missing, it will not catch on. Even if it could save lives. As an example, vaccinations and anthropogenic climate change are things that are blatantly obvious to experts in their fields but hot-button issues among the public and politicians. The scientists and inventors aren't in charge. They never have been, either. Higher mental stats do NOT guarantee upward mobility. They never have.

Ultimately, the winner is actually whoever has the timing right. You know the sewing machine was invented four times before it actually caught on? The steam engine was invented in Ancient Rome. Again, these things didn't catch on because success is a matter of luck, not intelligence. You actually have to be in the right place at the right time practically accidentally in order to rise to the top. Read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers for a good explanation of this phenomenon.

Eldan

2012-08-16, 06:17 PM

Eldan

2012-08-16, 06:18 PM

toapat

2012-08-16, 06:27 PM

Invocation: Conjuration (Not healing) + Necromancy (Damagey stuff) + Evocation: The magics of summoning the powers of the multiverse.

Perception: Illusion+Enchantment+Divination+ Necromancy (Feary stuff): The Magics of the Mind

Transmutation: Necromancy (Animationy stuff) + Transmutation + Abjuration + Conjuration (Healing): The Magics of Manipulating the physical world.

as long as we are here talking about how magic should be ordered.

asto Ice Assassin: Im guessing whoever wrote/edited that spell didnt know about the spell component pouch

Spell components should have been more standardized.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-08-16, 06:46 PM

Personally, I'd put Necromancy either with Evocation (you move positive/negative energy, instead of elemental energy), or split it between Evocation and Conjuration (you move around souls and life force).

I like it where it is as a separate school because of the 8 schools and the 4/4 symmetry, honestly, but also because it mixes Evocation (channeling positive and negative energy) with Conjuration (moving souls around) with Transmutation (physical debuffs) with some other stuff that isn't as clear-cut (aging, diseases, and such). Granted, it suffers from being a bit of a catch-all school like Transmutation, except Necromancy is "the spooky school" where Transmutation is "when in doubt, it's Transmutation."

Really, if you boil things down far enough pretty much anything can be a combination of Divination, Evocation, Conjuration, and Transmutation, or even just Conjuration and Transmutation if you can move things in time and conjure matter/energy, but that sort of defeats the purpose of classifying spells into schools.

Psyren

2012-08-17, 01:46 AM

@hiryuu:

Actually, no. You can't just toss out all external factors then, since those attributes directly apply to external factors.

I'm not "tossing them out." I'm holding them equal for simplicity's sake. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus)

Not only that, but you have to both need and be capable of applying an invention or idea in order for it to work. If any one of those factors is missing, it will not catch on. Even if it could save lives. As an example, vaccinations and anthropogenic climate change are things that are blatantly obvious to experts in their fields but hot-button issues among the public and politicians. The scientists and inventors aren't in charge. They never have been, either. Higher mental stats do NOT guarantee upward mobility. They never have.

It's not a question of "guarantees," but of probability. Yes, vagaries of chance and accidents of birth play a large part in the given advancement of a person. But that is irrelevant to the topic of physical vs. mental attributes. Assuming equal opportunity, social stratum, wealth, political connections etc. the smarter and/or more charismatic individual gets further in life than the duller one.

I agree that just mixing Evocation and Abjuration rounds evokers out nicely and makes a very good stereotypical wizard with the blasting + wards combination, but that should be more of a class-based thing, I think, just like how beguilers combine Illusion and Enchantment (and a splash of other thematically-similar things) while the schools themselves remain separate. I mean, a wizard with Divination, Evocation, and Abjuration spells and the bonded staff ACF makes a pretty good Gandalf, and a sorcerer with Conjuration (Summoning), Conjuration (Creation), and Transmutation (Polymorph) spells and a bunch of evil ACFs makes a pretty good Maleficent, there's no need to try to cram everything into one school.

Or one class for that matter. I agree. Though it remains to be seen if 5e will split the Wizard the way it should have been.

Roguenewb

2012-08-17, 06:10 PM

First off, can I say how much the idea of a Beguiller analogue for Evocation/Abjuration got me? That sounds like my dream wizard.

Second, I think 5e is going about this the right way by (apparently) removing Caster Level as a relevant effect. The key to the Linear/Quadratic problem was that warrior's man powers were scaling on two axes (BAB and Feats), while the casters were scaling on four (Caster Level, Highest Spell Castable, Total Spells Known, and Spells Per Day). What is 2 to the 2nd? Four. Wizards were fighters squared, as we all understand. Now, if you take away Caster level, we still have three things left for wizards, and 2 for fighters. Now, as we've seen from that article (and the second playtest document), fighters are getting this pool of expertise dice. This means that we have 3 axes for wizards (Spells per day, total spells known, and highest spell castable) and 4 for fighters (highest manuver known, damage dice, BAB, and total manuvers known). The reason Feats left the list is probably too specific for me to mention here...but, they appear to have stopped being a unique Axis for fighters/warriors.

But wait, you say, now fighters have more axes, won't they crush Wizards? Here's where some cool thinking comes in. Remember how wizard spells are so much more versatile than "I hit it", that appears to be still true. Plus it includes all sorts of out-of-combat/utility awesome-sauce. So in reality you have Wizards on 1 solid axis (Total spells per day), and 2 *great* ones (spells known, and highest castable), and fighters on two great axes (expertise dice, and highest manuvers known) and two decent-to-poor ones (BAB, and total manuvers known).

tl;dr it's about how many axes your advancing on each level, 5e seems to be tweaking these comparisons.

Psyren

2012-08-18, 12:10 AM

Taking CL away from casters isn't enough. The system they've described is basically a mashup of the 3.5 and 4e Psion - you have a bunch of at-wills, and you can spend {resource} to augment them when you need to push out power. The power of those effects is still the important thing, not merely how limited they are. A class that can break the game in half 1/day is still overpowered.

So in addition to limiting caster ammunition as above, the power of the spells needs to be reined in too. And finally, the martial classes need to be buffed. The "dice pool maneuvers" system may be the solution there.

Mr Tumnus

2012-08-18, 12:55 AM

Knaight

2012-08-18, 01:18 PM

Psyren

2012-08-19, 10:57 PM

Not sure where you're getting that. I'm looking at the DND Next Playtest and I don't see what you're talking about. Wizards have spells per day just like they do in 3.5 and pathfinder.

From the articles Madfellow linked (see the quote below.) None of it appears to be in the playtest yet, but it sounds like the direction they want to head in.

If you guys are curious about how Wizards of the Coast is tackling the wizards vs fighters issue for 5E, you can check it out here:

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120514

and here:

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120730

GenghisDon

2012-08-27, 07:29 AM