Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
No, i wholeheartly agree with just presenting the scenario and let the characters/players figure it out - or not.

But if i like that, why would i want to have a character in the group who trivializes every scenario that gives the group a day or more to plan or prepare ? Such a character is poisonous to this approach.
Yes, that would be nice. But you don't need the ability to completely change your spellcasting selection every day with a theoretically unlimited pool of options. A sorcerer would have the spell to solve something or not. That is an inherently better design.
Is it? A great many modules I've ran would disagree, as they are predicated upon the notion that the party will eventually be able to do "x", for various values of "x".

Now, one could argue that the combination of "mutable abilities" and "win buttons" is a bad one, and I wholeheartedly agree: the one time I was given a *real* shapeshifter, I 100% dominated every single encounter. I was quite literally the broken definition of "tier 1 - better than the specialists in their chosen field".

But the Wizard is not that. They are "mutable abilities" + (some) "win buttons", given time. Whenever I talk about how the Muggle could handle travel to another plane simply by knowing about and walking to an existing portal, or when I talk about how a muggle could get from Point A to Point B (in 2d Space) by walking there, people always shoot that down? Exactly the same thing here. Sure, eventually the Wizard could open the door, but the Rogue (or even Fighter) can do it now.

Since this multidimensional balance seems too challenging, I continue to recommend making all Wizard spells be usable at will, to make achieving balance easier.

Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
There is also no reason why wizards should be more versatile than other classes when it comes to closing gaps/covering weaknesses. In most other systems the charatcer options that could cover a lot of weaknesses at least in a rudimentary way are those that don't excel anywhere and only have comparatively weak powers.
… Honestly, I think that the problem is bigger and deeper than this.

Just look at all the ways I have personally dealt with the epic challenge the locked door IRL while avoiding the "pick the lock" minigame. Oh, and I even left out "copy the key". Now imagine all the other mundane ways one might approach that challenge, even before magic is added into the mix.

Game designers, scenario designers (both module writers and GMs), and players are all at fault for a lack of creativity, for linear thinking, for unrealistic niche dividing lines.

IRL, I'm a software developer by trade - probably about as "Wizard" a profession as you can get. Yet I've used each of (depending on how you count) 5-7 "handle locked door" techniques… eh, we'll say 1 to several times each in my life. Imagine what a trained adventurer should be able to do to the epic challenge of a locked door in comparison!

IMO, if you have to rely on the Wizard doing something about it tomorrow, somebody probably failed, hard, somewhere. Whether that's the game designer, the adventure writer, the players, or some combination thereof.

Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named? In the past ~10 levels, his net contribution to the party - outside logistics - could have been handled by a bag of flour. And if the Muggle players had known that trick, and packed flour? He probably would not have had to have contributed even that.

Wizards are not "versatile" in any way that should be meaningful to a properly versatile, skilled, well-rounded Muggle, when IRL *me* has around half a dozen Muggle methods to laugh at the need for Knock… tomorrow.