# [L&L] Balancing the Wizards in D&D



## Herremann the Wise

Hello Everyone,

Some excellent suggestions here:

Article (Balancing Wizards in D&D)

I think the final point of creativity over dominance however, was the most important for me. This is as crucial to uniting the editions as is square-rooting the quadratic wizard. I think they are on the right path.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Jack99

Spells are dangerous is what I was hoping for - at least it goes some of the way. I am a bit leery about the non-scaling spells though.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

less powerful wizzards with at will cantrips sounds AWSOME... but no rituel mentioned...

I wonder if we are going to see something like

max spell level 1/2  level, number of spells per day equal to caster level no more then 3 per level

so a level 10 wizard would have 10 spells per day max of 5th level, so he could prep 3 5th, 3 4th, 3 3rd, 1 2nd. 

or

a level 6 wizard/4 fighter can still cast 5th level spells but only has 6 per day, so 3 5th, 3 4th


Maybe they take my idea of spell levels preped, equal to 2x caster level and highest spell level is equal to 1/2 level

so a level 10 wizard has 20 level max of 5th level, so he could prep 4 5th level spells, or 3 5th and 1 3rd and 1 2nd, or 20 1st level, or any other combo of 20 levels...

but again...

but no rituel mentioned...

why no rituels... please tell me it is an over sight... Imagin Identfy, and scry and legend lore as rituels...or Planar binding


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Jack99 said:


> Spells are dangerous is what I was hoping for - at least it goes some of the way. I am a bit leery about the non-scaling spells though.




remeber we have assumed (yea I know what that makes u and me) that it was no auto scaleing, but built in metamagic.

fireball 5d6 at 3rd, +2d6 per higher level, so prep it as a 9th level spell and it becomes 17D6


----------



## UngeheuerLich

*L&L: Balancing Wizards*

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Balancing Wizards in D&D)

Those are great design goals.

I especially like the inclusion of "damage makes your next non-at will spell harder to cast."

The remaining points are also very reasonable.

A funny thing:
Right now in 4e I have introduced spell scrolls, because I play an ADnD adventure. And to balance them, I allow them to be cast either as a ritual, or by expending an equal level spell slot.


----------



## Raith5

Interesting. Not sure I disagree with much here. At will magic seems to be prominent.

I like the downplaying of buffs. I still wake up from nightmares from DMing a third ed group that used haste and stoneskin a lot.

Also it indicated that fighters have iterative attacks: "_Haste_ might grant extra attacks, but at a penalty that makes the fighter's ability to attack multiple times come out ahead". Is that a new bit of info?


----------



## GX.Sigma

The thing he said about spell slots is interesting. It sounds like you'll have a number of slots, and a maximum number of spells prepared of each level, but that those won't be the same number. For example, a level 5 wizard might be able to prepare up to 4 1st-level spells, up to 3 2nd-level spells, and up to 1 3rd-level spell, but can only prepare a total of 5 spells per day. So you don't have a rigid number of slots of each level, but more of a loose thing. Interesting to see how that'll work.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

GMforPowergamers said:


> but again...
> 
> but no rituel mentioned...
> 
> why no rituels... please tell me it is an over sight... Imagin Identfy, and scry and legend lore as rituels...or Planar binding



I agree that there are some really cool repercussions from separating out rituals from spells that can be cast. I really hope that rituals make an appearance but at this stage, it is not going to be core (although perhaps the way to connect the core to a rituals module is by basically defining that any spell with a duration 1 minute or greater is called a ritual). Let's wait and see.

Another thing for me is wands as storage devices (even if limited to certain spells) but that is another thread. It's weird but I think I prefer the Harry Potter (no snark by the way) idea of wand as implement over wand as spell storage.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## hafrogman

Herremann the Wise said:


> Another thing for me is wands as storage devices (even if limited to certain spells) but that is another thread. It's weird but I think I prefer the Harry Potter (no snark by the way) idea of wand as implement over wand as spell storage.



The idea of reworking spell-use magical items, combined with changing how spell scaling works, also leads me to consider a third option.  

It might be an interesting idea if wands (or perhaps staves or rods) increased the slot level of a certain spell by 1 (or to a certain max level or something).  So the base fireball might be 5d6, prepare it at 4th and get 7d6 . . . but with a wand of fireball, your third level fireballs scale.


----------



## RangerWickett

If you get access to some at-will magic, hell, I'd be fine playing a high level wizard who just has _five_ powerful once-per-day spells, as long as they get the balance right. Let me telekinetically shove folks and zap them with magic missiles so I can be useful, but then occasionally bust out the "shatter a castle wall" or "have your shadow kill you" type magic.

Make the wizard clever but less damaging than fighters on a round-by-round basis, with occasional spurts of novaing. That's what I'd like. This article makes me excited.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

What about 2-5 Spell slots per level (increasing as you go up), you can merge them for higher level slots. Maximum slots per spell level = 4 or so


----------



## Stormonu

This all sounds pretty good; I'm really liking the idea of how scrolls would work.  I'm a bit leery on wands - sure, they can easily put a limit on what you can "put into" a wand in core (and, personally, I don't mind a wand of _fly_ so what spells are going to be restricted is going to be contentious), but what happens when new spells get added to the system?

On the "Spellcasting is Dangerous", I don't want to see the wizard go, "Oh, it's my turn?"  *Begins to cast spell and gets hit*  "Oh, nah, I won't continue that spell - I'll just use my at-will Magic Missile this turn and try that Disintegrate next turn."  _If the wizard gets hits casting a risky spell, he needs to face the consequences (and probably lose the spell), not switch his action._ Also, I want to see things like _haste_ aging and the like return to spells.  Danger shouldn't only be casting in the heat of battle - some spells just need to be _naturally_ dangerous to cast.

As a pure side note, I'd like to see Protection scrolls - usable by ANY class, return.


----------



## billd91

Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> Scrolls would require a caster to expend a prepared spell to use them. Thus, scrolls would make wizards more versatile but they do not increase the number of spells they can cast each day.




I'm *not* particularly keen on this idea. Kind of kills the idea of a rogue being able to fake his way through a scroll, something that's been around since 1e. Also kind of kills the idea of being able to cast a higher level spell than you have slots for - assuming there are level-based slots. 

I'm not overly fond of magic items burning through internally resources whether they're healing surges, spell slots, or some nebulous ability to use a daily-use magic item.


----------



## Stalker0

I definately liked a lot of ideas in the article.

Casting as Dangerous - I like the ideas being tossed around here, the idea that getting hit is not an autoscrew, but it is a mechanism to curb a wizard's power.

Reduced spell slots - I think this one is the key. Even though 5th level wizards in 3e have some crazy powerful spells, they don't really overpower simply because they can't throw them around that much. But at high levels not only does the wizard have the big booms....he has so many spells he doesn't really run out. If we can take out that last part, it probably will go a long way to help balance.

At-will cantrips can be a lot of fun too....heck the at-will prestigation in 4e has ridiculous mileage if you use it right.


----------



## fuindordm

Yes, please kill the idea of magic items just substituting a PCs abilities/resources with something else. I like most of the ideas in this blog, but scrolls should hold their own magic.

There are other ways to make them more costly. What if each spell scribed cost you 1 HP/ spell level, which didn't heal till the scroll was used?

Or what if creating a scroll of spell X required blood from a monster with ability X? Then it becomes a new form of treasure. 

Or maybe scrolls are tiring to read. Or they take longer than a prepared spell. Or they are painful to read, and so require a skill check and a concentration check. 

I agree that in 3e scrolls are too easy, but the solution is not to make them bland and almost useless.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

billd91 said:


> Mike Mearls said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scrolls would require a caster to expend a prepared spell to use them. Thus, scrolls would make wizards more versatile but they do not increase the number of spells they can cast each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm *not* particularly keen on this idea. Kind of kills the idea of a rogue being able to fake his way through a scroll, something that's been around since 1e. Also kind of kills the idea of being able to cast a higher level spell than you have slots for - assuming there are level-based slots.
Click to expand...


I'm not too sure that as presented, you could not include both these features. Anyone can attempt to cast a scroll but it is difficult (and potentially dangerous). Rogues are good at it (and good at surviving a botched effort), while wizards _can _do it but only if they are desperate (and with a botched effort impacting their ability to cast spells for a duration).

Same with a high level scroll. It can be done with a lesser spell slot but with ramifications for botching. I'm sure there's a way of squeezing this sort of stuff in rather than just saying, "no they don't and no they can't".
Good points though.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## FireLance

billd91 said:


> I'm *not* particularly keen on this idea. Kind of kills the idea of a rogue being able to fake his way through a scroll, something that's been around since 1e. Also kind of kills the idea of being able to cast a higher level spell than you have slots for - assuming there are level-based slots.



IIRC, there was always some element of chance in attempting to use a scroll of a higher level than you were able to cast. I can't remember the earlier rules precisely, but in 3e, you needed to make a level check (d20 + your caster level vs the scroll's caster level + 1) to use the scroll.  I could see something similar happening with this rule: if the spell slot you expended was lower than the level of the spell you were trying to cast, you have to make some check to use it.

For rogues using scrolls (and spellcasters trying to use a scroll without expending a spell slot), maybe it draws on the user's life force and deals hit point damage instead?

Anyway, I like the ideas in the article. Thumbs up from me.


----------



## Elf Witch

I really dislike the idea that casting a spell is dangerous. Fighters don't lose the ability to swing their sword if they are hit. And they are not limited by a finite amount of times they can swing it.

I would be for them losing the ability to cast this round but not losing the spell. 

I am not sure how I feel about at wills will have to see how they do it. 

I do think limiting spell slots is one way to go in bringing in casters powers especially at higher levels.

One thing that bothered me was the grease example complaining that a high level cleric has a -8 at higher levels to his reflex roll.  That is because he is in plate and well one of the trade offs should be the it sucks to be you on something slippery. In my experience after a little while very few people fail a DC 10 save and grease becomes useless. 


I do like not scaling spells or maybe a choice if it you chose to scale it takes a higher level slot.


----------



## FireLance

fuindordm said:


> Yes, please kill the idea of magic items just substituting a PCs abilities/resources with something else. I like most of the ideas in this blog, but scrolls should hold their own magic.



Don't worry, I'm sure that scrolls that hold their own magic will be re-introduced to the game at some point. We can call them "true" scrolls or something.


----------



## GM Dave

A couple of thoughts;

Rituals (since they weren't mentioned)

1>  Likely if they are going with the game design that the Wizard should not step on the Rogue's or Fighter's toes then they likely don't want to allow the reverse to occur.  At least not in the base system.

The example of a significant investiture required by the Wizard to give flying to the whole group seems to set the idea that a money for magic economy is going to be discouraged.

2>  This seems to be further supported by the re-work on scrolls and wands.  If the designers don't want open usage of scrolls without using up prepared slots (scrolls are thus offering flexibility instead of an increase in casting slots per day) then I don't think they'll want to offer rituals in the base game as another way around the 'block'.  They might provide rituals as a 'High Fantasy' module where magic is more common for people to have (to allow for Flying Knights and Rogues that can break into solid rooms).

General Points;

1>  The ability to move a spell up in 'slot' level will likely lead to a reduction in spell glut.  If you know how to cast 'Fireball' then you are less likely going to learn to cast the level 4 or 5 version of the AoE damage spell unless it has some real advantage.  It used to be that you used higher spell slots for spells like lower level damage spells.

2>  It will be interesting if the Save or Die spells have a similar treatment as damage spells.  Will there be guidelines for putting a charm spell in a level 3 slot or a sleep spell in a level 5 slot.  Do these spells get an improvement of more than save like number of targets affected?

3>  Still, it generally seems that they are going the direction that people would want.  Hopefully, more slots at low levels (the PF at will cantrips ideas seems to have caught hold) with only a few extra in width but more in depth flexibility will be good (for example maybe at 10th level a wizard has 7 slots of prepared spells of which 2 are maximum 5th level, 2 4th, 3 3rd level.  The option remains to prepare a lower level spell in a higher slot.)


----------



## FireLance

Elf Witch said:


> I really dislike the idea that casting a spell is dangerous. Fighters don't lose the ability to swing their sword if they are hit. And they are not limited by a finite amount of times they can swing it.
> 
> I would be for them losing the ability to cast this round but not losing the spell.



That actually seems to be the way they are proposing to do it. In the round after you get hit, you have a chance to fail to cast your next spell. If you go ahead and try anyway, you might waste your action, but you don't lose the spell if you fail. If you choose not to cast a spell, you can fall back on a cantrip.

The implication for non-spellcasters is that you don't have to "interrupt" spellcasting any more. As long as you damage the spellcaster on your turn, he will have a chance of spell failure on his next turn.


----------



## Serendipity

Not a single mention of rituals.  I'd be happy if they kept them (in some capacity) and maintained a lack of class based restrictions on them honestly.  
Kind of iffy about the rest of it, though. 
Dangerous magic?  Yes, more please, but then I've got the DCC RPG for that.  I really don't think they'll go anywhere NEAR as far with it as that.  Too much whinymage would ensue. (Though I don't expect it would be core anyway, nor would I expect it to be.)
I'm all for (generally) reducing the number of spell slots to a more manageable number.  Flattening the scalability of some of the spells I'm fine with, if only because it implies that giant rats with 20 hp won't be the norm again (Yes, I know that's hyperbole thanks).
In short, okay with some of it, don't really care about the rest (the whole balance thing, for example, I could care less about).   Very much still looking forward to the 24th.


----------



## Oni

I'm going to be honest, I'm a little concerned about the level of focus on the wizard.  I really feel like there is a quite a bit of hyperbole when it comes to the class, and that there is a perception that doesn't really match their actual capabilities as the gaming table.  The quest for balance often leads to over reaction and/or a reduction to the lowest common denominator of blandness.  I'm not saying there aren't are few adjustments that could be made to improve class balance, but I would much rather the focus be on bringing other classes up rather than the other way around, what we have now is already starting to seem a little foreign to me in terms of the traditional D&D wizard.  This is one of the areas of the game that will make the biggest difference to me when it comes to selling me or losing me.  I really hope they get this right, I'm waiting for the playtest with equal parts anticipation and apprehension.


----------



## satori01

Jack99 said:


> Spells are dangerous is what I was hoping for - at least it goes some of the way.




I hate the idea of spell casting as being dangerous.  Realistically, whenever anyone takes a sword wound to their body, there should be a chance they lose their next action...why should a trained Fighter, or Trained Cleric have no penalties while a trained Wizard does?

Thematically it might seem a good idea, but only if spell slotted magic is way more powerful than other actions, (to justify the theme)...and this can be hard to do.

Concentration checks in 3E quickly became hand waivable, as all spell casters took max ranks.

Moreover should spell failure apply to all casters?  I always thought Spell Failure for Arcane casters but not Divine was clunky.

Core rules I say leave it out, but haves module for those that want it.

As for Mearls buff spell comments, the issue with buff spells being overpowered has never been zero going to hero, but more subpar going to supreme....ala the Cleric casting Divine Might, Bless, Holy Weapon on themselves.

I hav seen a party from the safety of a Rope Trick buff a partymate with everything they got, and send them out alone....funny but ultimately also unbalancing.

I don't like, in general, rules that threaten to break verisimilitude, but I would not mind a rule that stated 1 buff on a PC at a time.  Period.

You want Divine Might or you want Haste, 'cause you can not have both.


----------



## RangerWickett

If you are trying to stab someone and you get stabbed first, your sword won't explode because you failed to hold onto it properly.

But if I'm channeling the forces of the cosmos and I get stabbed, I might want to take a second to gather my focus before I try bending reality to my whim. My whim is very fickle, especially when I've just been stabbed.


----------



## MacMathan

Like most of it conceptually.

Lack of rituals would be a downside we will have to see.

Bringing back IMO "problem" spells like Haste not a good thing. 

Related to that the idea of multiple attacks as standard for high level fighters very negative, total regression IMO from the faster one attack but more effective design.

Almost forgot wand as storage seems to cause problems as the game expands, wand as implement much easier to handle and has more literary flavor IMO

As far as Wizards and all casters go the best balanced edition IMO was 4th. The melee types did not become replaceable in the games I played in for the first time.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Actually, rituals could fall into the same category as scrolls:

You can "rememorize" a spell with a ritual and cast it simultaneously. This way, you increase versatility, but not power.

In a certain way it is how scrolls and rituals are handled in 4e, only without a hard birder between those two kinds of magic, and I would like that.

So: Not the right spell meorized?

1. Hey, I can use my scroll, channel my energy into it and cast it as a standard action.
2. Hey, I don´t have the right scroll handy, but I can do a ritual to cast that spell.

Example: Need a fireball to open a door. Np. Sulfur and bat guano, 5 min. And boom.


----------



## MacMathan

While not everyone liked it bringing power level up is what 4e did by giving fighting types their own type of powers. Since there was negative backlash the problem of casters vs fighting types is back and need s to be dealt with in type V.

Mearls did address the perceptual issues around the issue that exist table from table which was nice to see.  




Oni said:


> I'm going to be honest, I'm a little concerned about the level of focus on the wizard.  I really feel like there is a quite a bit of hyperbole when it comes to the class, and that there is a perception that doesn't really match their actual capabilities as the gaming table.  The quest for balance often leads to over reaction and/or a reduction to the lowest common denominator of blandness.  I'm not saying there aren't are few adjustments that could be made to improve class balance, but I would much rather the focus be on bringing other classes up rather than the other way around, what we have now is already starting to seem a little foreign to me in terms of the traditional D&D wizard.  This is one of the areas of the game that will make the biggest difference to me when it comes to selling me or losing me.  I really hope they get this right, I'm waiting for the playtest with equal parts anticipation and apprehension.


----------



## Szatany

Herremann the Wise said:


> Another thing for me is wands as storage devices (even if limited to certain spells) but that is another thread. It's weird but I think I prefer the Harry Potter (no snark by the way) idea of wand as implement over wand as spell storage.
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise




I agree. Ideally, I'd see wants as implements that make casting easier (or stronger), and staffs as spell storage items.



> I'm a bit leery on wands - sure, they can easily put a limit on what you can "put into" a wand in core (and, personally, I don't mind a wand of fly so what spells are going to be restricted is going to be contentious), but what happens when new spells get added to the system?



Then they'll also add new wands I assume.



> We can call them "true" scrolls or something.



Or elder, or whatever 



billd91 said:


> I'm *not* particularly keen on this idea. Kind of kills the idea of a rogue being able to fake his way through a scroll, something that's been around since 1e. Also kind of kills the idea of being able to cast a higher level spell than you have slots for - assuming there are level-based slots.



What you're describing are exceptions from general rules (non-casters can't cast from scrolls _but rogues can_). As such, they can be easily emulated by feats or class abilities in 5e, regardless of what rules we end up with.


----------



## dd.stevenson

Boy, this one really rubbed me the wrong way.  Capping the *total* number of spell slots?  Non-scaling spells?  Reliance on 4E-style at wills?

Naw; thanks.  

I'll still try and see if I can get some guys together to playtest this thing at some point, and I'll give it a fair shake.  But honestly, it doesn't look like any retroclone companies will need to worry about losing my business to fifth edition.


----------



## satori01

RangerWickett said:


> If you are trying to stab someone and you get stabbed first, your sword won't explode because you failed to hold onto it properly.




Shock from trauma is shock from trauma and traning is training.

Most people, when shot with a bow, or swallowed whole by a purple worm go into shock, and stop doing what they were doing.

That is why a Marine that loses a hand from tossing an enemy grenade away, saving the life of his squad, and then goes on to still command the squad, is worthy of the Congretional Medal of Honor.....it is a truly heroic event, and pretty rare, (at least to survive).

No matter how you slice it, I think Mearls was describing something with huge thematic implications as core and not modular.  Rules of "Dangerous Magic"  are fine as an optional module.  What if I want to run a Jordanesque/ Age of Legends  style campaign where magic is plentiful and easy....with magic pony express, and griffin taxis?  

Base assumptions in fundamental systems, do affect the thematic potential of campaigns.  Racial level limits leading to a decline in the Dwarves an Elves in the Forgotten Realms, or not being able to advance beyond 18th level in Krynn but you can play minataurs as a PC race are Eamples.

The core rules should be a neutral base with say Eberron being emblematic of a High Magic/Tech game and Dark Sun as the "Magic is Dangerous" Meme.  Bothe styles are fun and should be supported...as modules.


----------



## Raith5

RangerWickett said:


> If you are trying to stab someone and you get stabbed first, your sword won't explode because you failed to hold onto it properly.
> 
> But if I'm channeling the forces of the cosmos and I get stabbed, I might want to take a second to gather my focus before I try bending reality to my whim. My whim is very fickle, especially when I've just been stabbed.




Why?

If you are fighting with a sword you could make an argument that if you get stabbed it could distract you from your planned attack. So you could say that a fighter needs to focus their mind as well.

I think it safe to presume that both fighters and wizards have some training in a capacity to focus their mind when hit.


----------



## Frostmarrow

I don't know... This sounds like a ban on cleverness. 

-So you can use a combination of spells to circumvent a high CR encounter? This we cannot abide. Hit point atrition makes for more entertaining play.
I feel strangely bitter. Must be something I ate.


----------



## Tom Servo

Wow, I am really of two minds about this article.

On the one hand I don't have any major problem with any particular thing mentioned in the article.  I might not agree with all of them, but I understand where most of the proposed solutions are coming from.

On the other hand, when all the points are considered as a whole I am not sure I would recognize the result as a magic-user or wizard.  Maybe some sort of warlock or sorcerer, not sure.

I guess I'll see on the 24th if the class works well and keeps a classic feel to it.


----------



## satori01

Scrolls as Mearls described would be fine, but as a permanent item, not as a single use item.  Instead of a Scroll of Leviatate, you received the Scrolls of Leng Zi.....the records of a monks conversation with an air elemental prince. 

3E had Sorcerer Staffs, in the final magic item book...that did basically that.  It was a great way as a DM to make sure certain spells were available to the group, despite individual players spell section.

In power no different than allowing a cleric to swap into Cure spells.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

I don't think the non-mention of rituals means much. There have been other indications that ritual magic is on the radar. Maybe it isn't specifically a wizard thing, or maybe it is just not something that needs mentioning in terms of basic magic system design for the wizard. There are tons of ways to make it work well. The 4e type ritual system can be added on top of pretty much anything.

Otherwise, pretty good. I'd still like to see some kind of serious consideration of having casters all be specialists of some sort and keeping overall flexibility in check that way, but we'll have to see just how much you can do with this design.


----------



## GX.Sigma

Frostmarrow said:


> I don't know... This sounds like a ban on cleverness.
> 
> -So you can use a combination of spells to circumvent a high CR encounter? This we cannot abide. Hit point atrition makes for more entertaining play.
> I feel strangely bitter. Must be something I ate.



There's a line between cleverness and exploitation. He calls out in the article what he believes are the "good" kinds of cleverness (using _grease_ to help a grabbed ally) and the exploits that ruin games (_grease_ and _glitterdust_ on your iron golem, umad DM?), and that the former must be present and the latter should be avoided.


----------



## Libramarian

> *Spellcasting Is Dangerous:* This point ventures into the  theoretical, since we still aren't 100% certain how we want to pursue it  (so it's just the kind of thing that we want to gather feedback on in  the playtest). The current proposal is that a wizard who takes damage  has a chance to miscast his or her next spell. A wizard can always  instead choose to do something else or use a cantrip without risk of  failure. In addition, a miscast spell is never lost. The wizard can try  again next round.



Lol what -- this is dangerous spellcasting? You don't even lose your spell. You basically have a chance of losing one round's worth of action, and you can choose to avoid that chance.

And there are people arguing that this is too dangerous?

Definitely having a "we're not playing the same game" moment.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Libramarian said:


> And there are people arguing that this is too dangerous?
> 
> Definitely having a "we're not playing the same game" moment.



It IS too dangerous.  Mathematically, this is horrible.

I know that in 1e and 2e the math was so all over the place that most people paid very little attention to it....and most of the monsters were so easy to defeat that losing a spell wasn't even a big deal.  Unfortunately, when most enemies have 14 hitpoints and your fighter does that with one swing of his sword, the rest of the party isn't really needed to defeat that monster.

However, in both 3e and 4e when the math was a little closer(moreso in 4e, but 3e had the issue more the harder the monsters were) it was a big deal.  Often each party member was expected to output X damage during each of their turns on average.  So, if a monster had 200 hp, let's say you wanted to defeat it in 3 rounds(because in 4 rounds it could do enough damage to kill someone).  That means that each party member in a group of 5 was expected to do an average of 13.3 points of damage per round.

Maybe that meant you missed 2 of the rounds and hit for 40 damage in the third round...maybe that meant you did almost nothing for 2 rounds and cast a spell that did 40 damage in the 3rd round.

However, it was my experience that if a DM noticed that you could wait around for 2 rounds doing nothing and cast a spell in the 3rd round and win....then enemies got stronger to compensate.  After all, there was no risk to your life at all if you could just sit there for 2 rounds not doing anything.

So, if you could do 40 damage per round with a spell, you'd fight enemies that required that each party member do 120 damage in 3 rounds to defeat it.

So, a single round where you were not able to cast a spell could be the difference between life and death for at least one party member.

As far as the suggested solution...it seems alright to me.  You get a disadvantage for being hit(you can't cast your big spell) but your turn isn't completely ruined(you still get to use your less powerful at-will spell instead.


----------



## Leatherhead

I am concerned.

*Cantrips as At-Will Magic:* This is one of those things that would have to be shredded in a test environment. Things like Multi-classing could throw this for loops. And I have to wonder if no scaling applies to the at wills too. It would would be very bad to be stuck with 1d4+1 damage basic attacks while the fighter is whooping it up with 3 (or even 5) 2d6+10 greatsword strikes.

*Keep Spells Under Control/Reducing Total Spell Slots/Spells Don't Automatically Scale:*  The obvious problem here; Is a level 1 spell going to be worth casting past level one? These combined are throwing up a huge red flag for me.

*Spellcasting Is Dangerous:* That's not really dangerous, that's just difficult. But then again I was never a fan of chaos mages, giving one player of a group the ability to randomly die or cause a TPK isn't even remotely balanced.

*Keep Magic Items Under Control:* The scroll thing sounds kind of interesting, but I have to wonder why that kind of mechanic wouldn't be applied to the wizards spellbook proper. I would also like to know how a non-wizard is supposed to use such items. I kind of liked fighters being able to use wands.

*Keep Buff Spells Under Control:* An easy way to do this is to limit the amount (or power) of buff spells that a target can have. It would also significantly reduce the amount of in-game math you would have to work out.

*Creativity, Not Dominance:* I thought improvisation was the root of the "quadratic wizard" problem.  On the other hand, if I can't improvise, I might as well just go play a video game. Improvisation is one of the most important parts of Tabletop RPGs to me.


----------



## Lwaxy

As said in the poll about it, I dislike this approach. I want a flexible, powerful magic system, not castrating magic users. If anything, we need more spells slots to grant spell variety (or better yet, a slot-less system) and rather set limits on how often in a week or so a spell can be cast. 

And yeah, I saw no rituals mentioned, which is disappointing as that's about the one thing I really like with 4e. But I hope, from what I read elsewhere, it would still be included. 

I am not likely to change my tested homebrew for 5e rules, though I'll probably incorporate some. But changes like these wouldn't make it in.


----------



## Leatherhead

Oh, and count me as part of the group who wants to know about rituals.


----------



## Minigiant

*Cantrips as At-will:*
I thought they'd do this. Excellent. No Mo Crossbow Wizards unless you pick no damage Cantrips.

This could effect backgrounds and themes too.

Sage (background): Arcane, Heal, Diplomacy and _read magic_ (at-will)

Mystic (Theme): 
Cantrip Knowledge- Gain the cantrip (at-will) of your choice
Spell Knowledge- Gain one 1st level spell slot and add one 1st level book to your spellbook
Spell Penetration- +2 to caster level checks to bypass spell resistance


Scrollmage (Theme):
Scroll Master- When you cast from a scroll, you may roll a d6. If your roll is greater than the spell level, the scroll is not destroyed upon use.
Power Scribe: Spell casted from scroll deal 2 additional dice of damage
Life Scroll- You may sacrifice 1d10 per level HP to cast a scroll without  expending a spell slot

*Next Three-
Keep Spells Under Control:
Reduce Total Spell Slots:
Spell Don't Automatically Scale:*

Good Good. With At-will cantrips. Wizards don't need more spell slots and more powerful spells. Cantrips can do more heavy lifting .


----------



## Bluenose

It looks a lot closer to the AD&D Magic-User than the last two editions have given me, which can only be a good thing. The only thing I'm slightly bothered by is the idea about scrolls. I don't like having to use an existing spell-slot to 'power' the scroll. On the other hand, if they're going to be easy and cheap to make, then something has to be done to make them less ubiquitous. I'm jus tnot sure this is the right approach.


----------



## Doug McCrae

I was encouraged by this article, particularly this paragraph - 







> Second, caster dominance shows up at high levels. In my experience, it comes to the fore when a caster has enough spells to unleash powerful combinations. For instance, I remember turning what was supposed to be a deadly fight in 3E against an iron golem into a cakewalk simply by throwing grease and glitterdust at the thing. I've seen similar things happen in 4E. The first spell creates a zone that creatures can't escape, the second one creates another zone that damages or shuts down creatures trapped within the zone.



This, to me, shows that Mearls understands the issues. He doesn't say things like, "It's fine because the wizard player could just avoid using that combo" or "It's fine because the DM could give the iron golem some allies."

One thing I'd like to see, that the article didn't mention, is greatly reduced spell lists for casters compared with the heights of 1e-3e. Perhaps that's assumed.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Leatherhead said:


> Oh, and count me as part of the group who wants to know about rituals.



They've said a couple of times in the past that they feel it is important to give the caster the ability to choose how offensive, defensive or utility they want to go and not to mandate a playstyle.

My guess is that Rituals no longer exist, that everything that would have been a ritual in 4e is simply a spell that you can choose to prepare instead of any of your attack spells the same way it was in 1e-3e.


----------



## Stalker0

Oni said:


> I'm not saying there aren't are few adjustments that could be made to improve class balance, but I would much rather the focus be on bringing other classes up rather than the other way around, what we have now is already starting to seem a little foreign to me in terms of the traditional D&D wizard.




WOTC tried the "bring all the other classes up" approach in 4e, and some people balked at it.

The basic problem is one of flavor. Wizards have a get out of jail free card when it comes to flavor in the form of magic. Anything they do, because it is magic, is ok for flavor. So all you have to worry about are mechanics.

Fighters have it much harder. On the one hand, people want them to be able to compete with wizards at high levels. On the other, people want them to be martial not magical....and that doesn't really work. You can't be equal to a force that can do whatever it wants by using abilities that have to adhere to some mundane flavor restrictions.


So....we have to add some restrictions to magic to balance the books. The "magic is dangerous" concept is one such restriction. It says, a wizard's magic is stronger than a fighter sword if it can be casted. But then it also allows for a fighter to stop a wizard more easily through his bread and butter (damage).

I know some people are eying this magic is dangerous concept suspiciously, but honestly guys you have to give ground somewhere. If you want wizards to be strong, and fighters to compete, then wizards have to have some kind of restriction that fighters do not. And since limited spells hasn't worked all that well in the past on its own, we need something else.


----------



## Leatherhead

Majoru Oakheart said:


> They've said a couple of times in the past that they feel it is important to give the caster the ability to choose how offensive, defensive or utility they want to go and not to mandate a playstyle.
> 
> My guess is that Rituals no longer exist, that everything that would have been a ritual in 4e is simply a spell that you can choose to prepare instead of any of your attack spells the same way it was in 1e-3e.




They had combat utility spells in 4e. I assumed they were referring to those.


----------



## GX.Sigma

Minigiant said:


> *Cantrips as At-will:*
> I thought they'd do this. Excellent. No Mo Crossbow Wizards unless you pick no damage Cantrips.



I hope players don't _have_ to take the damage cantrip. I want crossbow wizards to still be possible.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Stalker0 said:


> I know some people are eying this magic is dangerous concept suspiciously, but honestly guys you have to give ground somewhere. If you want wizards to be strong, and fighters to compete, then wizards have to have some kind of restriction that fighters do not. And since limited spells hasn't worked all that well in the past on its own, we need something else.



I really like the idea of magic being dangerous, though not the article's interpretation. I'd prefer magic that's far more dangerous to the wielder than that.

As you say, it has a lot of advantages. It allows the fighter to be mundane. It allows magic to be potentially powerful. And it's true to the source material. Not Vance, but RE Howard, Lovecraft and Clark Ashton Smith.


----------



## Oni

Stalker0 said:


> WOTC tried the "bring all the other classes up" approach in 4e, and some people balked at it.




I would argue that they didn't balk at that particular design philosophy so much as the execution.  Bring all the other classes up is not the same as give them all the same power system and at the same time drastically change how a lot of classes function.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Oni said:


> Bring all the other classes up



But how does a mundane fighter compete with invisibility, fly, teleport, and wish? Or are you proposing a non-mundane, Cú Chulainn-style fighter?


----------



## Minigiant

GX.Sigma said:


> I hope players don't _have_ to take the damage cantrip. I want crossbow wizards to still be possible.




Old School Crossbow Wizard: Resistance, Light, Flare, Read Magic, Prestidigitation

New School Blaster Wizard: Scorching Burst, Detect Magic, Ray of Frost, Read Magic, Prestidigitation


----------



## Minigiant

Oni said:


> I would argue that they didn't balk at that particular design philosophy so much as the execution.  Bring all the other classes up is not the same as give them all the same power system and at the same time drastically change how a lot of classes function.




It is hard to bring the other classes up to the MAGIC! class without practically giving them MAGIC!

There is a lot of "Rogues jump too high!" and "Fighters can't survive that!" guys. A LOT of them!


----------



## Lwaxy

Stalker0 said:


> The "magic is dangerous" concept is one such restriction. It says, a wizard's magic is stronger than a fighter sword if it can be casted. But then it also allows for a fighter to stop a wizard more easily through his bread and butter (damage).




We've always done it so a caster no matter the class getting injured may lose concentration, and if she does the spell fizzles. The DC to not have the spell fizzle depends on the damage taken, of course. 

I was under the impression a lot of groups to that, but looks like I'm wrong there. 

In any case, for me the yes or no towards 5e goes with the way they handle magic, so if there's going to be yet fewer options for the magic types, I'm going to back off.


----------



## erleni

*Cantrip as at-will:* good! I hate crossbow wizards as they don't really feel magical.

*Keep spells under control: *good. This should extend to any kind of ability. Nobody should be able to shut down encounters regularly with a single tactic.

*Reducing total spell slots:* once again good. Wizards should not have enough spell slots to do everything all the time. Anyway this has to be balanced by making cantrips/at-will meaningful.

*Spells don't automatically scale:* this should be simply balanced with the rest of the math.

*Spellcasting is dangerous:* please don't do it. Too many variables to keep it under control for the good and for the bad, but what I really hate is the "defend the mage" attitude it will bring in (unless wizards are like in 3e where with a relatively small investment they can keep casting even inside a grinding machine).

*Keep magic under control*: solid. Characters should be awsome because they are awesome, not because they carry an arsenal of wands and scrolls.

*Keep buff spells under control:* I agree in general but please be careful in implementing stuff like stoneskin and haste. They were two of the most unbalanced spells in the past.

*Creativity not, dominance:* fully agree.

By the way, 4th edition addressed all these points in the right way (IMHO), except the last one where presentation could be really better.


----------



## Bluenose

Lwaxy said:


> We've always done it so a caster no matter the class getting injured may lose concentration, and if she does the spell fizzles. The DC to not have the spell fizzle depends on the damage taken, of course.




This is already considerably more generous than the AD&D/BD&D method, where there's no "may" about it. Since interrupting a caster was also easier, since spells took time to cast, being able to get a spell off required a lot more thought. By comparison, 3e was Easy Mode for casters.


----------



## Hautamaki

Herremann the Wise said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> Some excellent suggestions here:
> 
> Article (Balancing Wizards in D&D)
> 
> I think the final point of creativity over dominance however, was the most important for me. This is as crucial to uniting the editions as is square-rooting the quadratic wizard. I think they are on the right path.
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise




One point about creativity is that in the internet age you have to take into consideration the combined creative brain power of everyone on Earth who plays the game lol.  If that were not the case, a lot of players would never realize how powerful certain combinations of spells can be.  I'd certainly never be able to come up with Pun Pun on my own, for example.


----------



## Lanefan

Well, it's a few baby steps in some right directions I suppose...

I'm not sold on at-will magic; I don't at all mind the idea of a Wizard having to do something else once out of spells.  What concerns me here is the implication that combats will last long enough for at-wills to be necessary; in other words the need to keep up to some sort of damage-per-round standard in order to cut down the bag of hit points in the expected time.  Better to just reduce the hit point totals, hm?

The next three points - fewer slots, "appropriate" power, and no scaling - aren't very relevant provided things below are seen to...

Spellcasting is dangerous.  Damn right it is!  *High risk, high reward.*  Wizards are powerful, but with that power comes a very high risk, often to the caster and not much less often to those around her.  If you're summoning up the energies of the cosmos and get interrupted there should be a decent chance those energies release anyway in a wild magic surge - sometimes beneficial, sometimes harmful, and sometimes just humourous.  This idea that a blown spell is not lost is kind of ridiculous: a Magic analogy fits here, in that if you've got a spell on the stack and it gets countered you don't get to put the card back in your hand.  Same should be true here: if your spell gets interrupted you don't get to put it back in your brain...

Magic items - answer here is to do away with PC item creation, period.  The scroll-uses-a-slot proposal doesn't work - scrolls should be a one-shot "extra" for when you really need it, and fairly uncommon unless a DM gives 'em out like candy.  And how does this interact with casting a spell off a scroll that is usually too high level for you?

Buff spells got broken in 3e in part because there seemed to be way more of them than in 1e (can't speak for 2e here).  I find people don't tend to use buffs in 1e nearly as much, perhaps because of having to choose between buffing and blasting.

Creativity in spell use is a double-edged sword.  Obviously it's fun to be creative with how one casts spells, but it's that same creativity that can unintentionally break things if not squelched.  My own stance is to let the creativity reign and see what happens, but I realize others may take the other tack - I think the game can support both sides here.

Lanefan


----------



## Ahnehnois

Well, let's have at it:


> Cantrips as At-Will Magic: We're hoping to keep the concept of cantrips for wizards, and expand it to include some nifty attack and utility spells. Wizards would be able to cast spells at will, much as they do in 4E. We think that making cantrips a bit more powerful, while also making them at-will, will go a long way toward making restrictions on prepared spells more palatable for groups that don't see caster dominance as an issue.
> 
> We also look at at-will magic as a key tool in keeping the adventure moving forward. You can still unleash all your prepared spells in rapid succession, but that doesn't leave you powerless.



Okay. Nothing to see here. How often do spells run out anyway? And does it matter?



> Keep Spells Under Control: This is an obvious first step, but we need to make sure that spells are of the appropriate power level and that they don't abuse the system in some way. For instance, the 3E grease spell required a DC 10 Balance check to avoid some of its effects. That seems reasonable, until you realize that grease was a 1st-level spell and that a 15th-level NPC cleric might have a total Balance check modifier of –8. We need to make sure that spells don't create an effect that is too powerful or include loopholes that make them overwhelmingly powerful for their level.



This is a terrible example. If you are a 15th level cleric and you can't stand on your feet, then Grease _should_ be a problem for you. There is no reason why a 1st level spell, used well, shouldn't be powerful under that situation. If anything, more of that type of thing would be good to reduce the difference between characters of different levels.



> Reducing Total Spell Slots: Since wizards now have at-will magic, they need fewer spell slots. The current design places a cap on the total number of spells you can prepare, and it caps the maximum number of spells you can prepare of each level. The reduction of spell slots pushes more reliance on cantrips, and it makes combinations harder to repeat.



That would be nice. I hate memorizing huge number of spells.



> Spells Don't Automatically Scale: We're thinking that wizard spells scale only if they are prepared with higher-level slots. That would mean that a wizard's spells don't all become more powerful as he or she levels up. The wizard would gain some new, more powerful spells. The wizard would not gain those spells while also making the rest of the spell list more powerful.



Not really a big deal; the most powerful spells never scaled much with level anyway. But okay, that's not a bad thing. It's actually a good thing if the power of the spell is less reflective of the caster.



> Spellcasting Is Dangerous: This point ventures into the theoretical, since we still aren't 100% certain how we want to pursue it (so it's just the kind of thing that we want to gather feedback on in the playtest). The current proposal is that a wizard who takes damage has a chance to miscast his or her next spell. A wizard can always instead choose to do something else or use a cantrip without risk of failure. In addition, a miscast spell is never lost. The wizard can try again next round.
> 
> The idea here is to capture the feel of earlier editions, where wizards needed some amount of protection to unleash their most powerful abilities. In play, it means that a wizard has to be careful in a fight, lean on defensive magic, or otherwise stay out of harm's way.



Concept: okay. Implementation: we'll see.




> Keep Magic Items Under Control: There's a good chance that magic item creation will be a rules module that DMs can opt into. At the very least, items such as scrolls and wands will likely change in the following ways.
> 
> Scrolls would require a caster to expend a prepared spell to use them. Thus, scrolls would make wizards more versatile but they do not increase the number of spells they can cast each day.
> 
> 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.



The scroll thing is not good. If anything, it would be better if anyone could use a scroll with a skill check, and tying a spell slot to it makes it harder to use, not easier. Limiting wands is fine but not really important. How many wands other than CLW every saw use anyway? Crafting needs to be fixed for some groups, but I don't think most D&D players ever used it, let alone had problems with it.



> Keep Buff Spells Under Control: We want to make sure that spells such as haste and invisibility are useful without making other classes' key abilities redundant. An invisible creature that makes noise or otherwise gives away its location might not get much of a defensive benefit. Instead, an invisible creature is best off if it has a rogue's excellent bonuses to stealth. In this case, invisibility works as a spell that makes a scout or sneaky character much harder to find. It does not become a huge defensive buff.
> 
> Haste might grant extra attacks, but at a penalty that makes the fighter's ability to attack multiple times come out ahead. The cleric in the group fights much better with haste, but she still can't match the fighter's martial skill. On the other hand, casting haste on a fighter is a great idea. It augments the fighter's already deadly weapon skill.
> 
> Spells such as stoneskin, shield, and blur are great for wizards because they make casting less hazardous and help counter the class's low AC and hit points. A wizard might throw such spells on the rest of the party, giving up some of his or her own defensive options to help the rest of the party thrive.



Invisible is invisible. That said, it would be nice to reign in some of these spells.



> Creativity, Not Dominance: Finally, on a personal level, I'd love it if creative use of a spell focused more on improvisation rather than number crunching. A web spell entangles the bandit chief's horse, cutting off his best chance to escape. Grease allows a rogue caught in a giant crab's claw to wriggle free with ease. If we build good, clear descriptions into the spells that bring them to life and combine these descriptions with a robust set of DM tools for improvisation, spells become tools that characters can use in creative ways rather than strictly defined special abilities. Hopefully, reining in some of the mechanical challenges that D&D has faced in the past makes it easier to encourage creative use of spells in a compelling, immersive way.



It sure would be nice if this came through in the design.

It's a delicate issue. There's room for improvement from the "classic" D&D approach, but the whole power thing was such a huge step backwards that I think it will be very difficult to sell any kind of rethinking of the game now.


----------



## Dausuul

As a longtime arcane caster player, I love everything in this article*, especially the last point. It really sounds like they're trying to bring back the Old School Wizard. If they also offer a sorceror-style spontaneous casting variant, I will be an incredibly happy camper.

[size=-2]*Except the bit about scrolls.[/size]


----------



## ExploderWizard

Completely at-will magic without limitation cheapens magic and leads to silly situations. 

PEW PEW PEW 

Hey Presto why are you shooting everything we see?

Because I can!!  

The idea that a wizard must always have a ZAP button for infinite damage is very videogamey. Magic must have a cost or it will soon become very mundane.


----------



## Lwaxy

Bluenose said:


> This is already considerably more generous than the AD&D/BD&D method, where there's no "may" about it.




We've tried making it mandatory, however, that lead to a lot of fizzled spells to a point where the players got grumpy. So we now made it that a simple hit with a sling stone or being scraped by an arrow does not necessarily make you lose your spell. Works well enough.


----------



## Lwaxy

Dausuul said:


> It really sounds like they're trying to bring back the Old School Wizard. [SIZE=-2][/SIZE]




The old school wizard was the first thing we house ruled a lot of changes in. I certainly do not want it back. It would be cool enough as an option but as a base for the whole game? No, thanks, if I wanna play old school I can do so without having to buy 5e


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Damage allows you to not successfully cast. That is a known concept from old school ADnD.
This is actually quite a good balance mechanic. A fighter wizard also can´t do everything on its own. He needs someone to take some damage while he "rebuffs".

I like the idea, that the wizard also has cantrips, that he can at least use even under preasure, but for the most powerful spells, he needs not to be hurt.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I think they are on the right path here, but I also think they could worry a lot less about some of these points if they use "dangerous spells" and casting times wisely. Those go a long way toward balancing the wizard out while allowing them to do impressive things that make magic special.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

The more I think of it, the more I think they got scrolls and wands backward.

Now I just hope someone sees this buired on page 5 or 6.


I would put Scrolls, Potions and Oils all togather as 1 item set. spells that effect yourself (healing, hasting, heroism) are potions you drink. Spells that effect objects (magic weapon, mending, holy weapon) are oils you apply, attack spells (fireball, dispel magic, evards spikey tenicals of forced intrustion) are scrolls you read. Each one holds a spell and casts it once when used.  Only some spells can be made this way...like they said about wands

Wands and Staff have spells in them permently. Wands allow swaping only, so a wand of cure light means you can swap any 1st level spell for a cure light. a wand of dispel magic means you can swap any 3rd level spell for dispel. each wand holds 1 spell, and 1 spell only. 
A staff on the other hand is way more powerful, it holds a handful of simalar themed spells, and functions as a wand holding all of them, BUT it also allows 1/per day a free casting of 1 of those spells and holds a prorperty to boot.

Ex:
    Your fighter can have a potion of cure light, an oil of flaming weapon, and a scroll of dispel magic to go with his magic sword and armor.
     Your cleric can have a wand of Cure light so he never has to prep it again
    Your wizard can have a Staff of fire that holds Burning hands, scorching ray, and fireball so he never has to prepthem, and can once per day use one, and as a special property well he holds it he has fire restance equal to his Int modifier.


----------



## Bedrockgames

ExploderWizard said:


> Completely at-will magic without limitation cheapens magic and leads to silly situations.
> 
> PEW PEW PEW
> 
> Hey Presto why are you shooting everything we see?
> 
> Because I can!!
> 
> The idea that a wizard must always have a ZAP button for infinite damage is very videogamey. Magic must have a cost or it will soon become very mundane.




I do agree with this and don't really care much for the idea of at will cantrips, but I think the bulk of the player base wont be bothered by them. I do wonder how much flak these things get in playtests.


----------



## DEFCON 1

ExploderWizard said:


> The idea that a wizard must always have a ZAP button for infinite damage is very videogamey. Magic must have a cost or it will soon become very mundane.




Better to play a videogame than get turned into a Sage NPC at dawn because you used your two spells for the day on the wandering monster that came upon your camp.  After that, you get the joy of being nothing more than a walking encyclopedia for the rest of the day because you don't actually have any more magic.

Magic must actually be used if you want to be considered a magic-user.


----------



## Bedrockgames

DEFCON 1 said:


> Better to play a videogame than get turned into a Sage NPC at dawn because you used your two spells for the day on the wandering monster that came upon your camp.  After that, you get the joy of being nothing more than a walking encyclopedia for the rest of the day because you don't actually have any more magic.
> 
> Magic must actually be used if you want to be considered a magic-user.




Have to strongly oppose making D&D more like a video game in the name of giving people stuff to do at all times. The article was fine but this is an innovation I strongly dislike. 

Since the problem they are addressing is wizards have traditionally been too powerful I dont really see the use of giving them at will functions. Part of the balancing of wizards is they run out of resources eventually.


----------



## steeldragons

DEFCON 1 said:


> Better to play a videogame than get turned into a Sage NPC at dawn because you used your two spells for the day on the wandering monster that came upon your camp.  After that, you get the joy of being nothing more than a walking encyclopedia for the rest of the day because you don't actually have any more magic.
> 
> Magic must actually be used if you want to be considered a magic-user.




If you are foolish enough to blow your only two spells for the day on the first encounter and then want to "boohoo I'm outta magic"...that's YOUR fault, not the systems.

As for "better to play a videogame than get turned into a Sage NPC", says you, is what I sez to that! Again, what your character does (with or without their spells) is on YOU, your imagination and your role playing...or apparent  lack thereof.

If you'd rather play a videogame, by all means go do so...don't muck about in my RPG because you want more "pew pew."


----------



## DEFCON 1

Bedrockgames said:


> Have to strongly oppose making D&D more like a video game in the name of giving people stuff to do at all times. The article was fine but this is an innovation I strongly dislike.




If you're doing 1d4+1 damage a round and it's fluffed as a "magic missile" instead of a "crossbow bolt", and you consider that "playing a videogame"... then I'd wonder what video games you were playing.


----------



## avin

It seems that a lot of people (caster players?) think quadratic wizards vs linear fighters is not an issue.

I like what's proposed on this article. Where do I sign?

As for Haste aging, that solves nothing on a short campaign or one shot game.


----------



## DEFCON 1

steeldragons said:


> If you are foolish enough to blow your only two spells for the day on the first encounter and then want to "boohoo I'm outta magic"...that's YOUR fault, not the systems.




I'd say that only having two spells for an entire day but somehow still being considered a "magic-user", IS a fault of the system.

Heck... I type a couple posts here on ENWorld every day, but I don't consider myself a _writer_.  And making myself lunch in morning doesn't mean I get to call myself a _chef_ either.

If you're a magic-user... I don't think it's asking too much that you actually get to USE magic throughout the day.  Even if the magic is nothing but the Prestidigitation spell over and over.  At least that's _something_.  Cantrips are cantrips.  Why a wizard should only cast a single Light spell once in an entire day is something I just won't ever understand.


----------



## Andor

Bedrockgames said:


> Have to strongly oppose making D&D more like a video game in the name of giving people stuff to do at all times. The article was fine but this is an innovation I strongly dislike.
> 
> Since the problem they are addressing is wizards have traditionally been too powerful I dont really see the use of giving them at will functions. Part of the balancing of wizards is they run out of resources eventually.




Nah. Part of the balancing of wizards has always been that they _switch_ resources eventually.

A wizard who is out of vancian spells and pulls out his crossbow is mechanically identical to a wizard who is out of vancian spells and switches to his at-will cantrip "Ice Dagger" which, by coincidence, has the same damage and to hit roll as a crossbow.

In my experience "Out of spells" usually meant pulling out a crossbow, or in the old days a wand of magic missiles. You might as well build it into the class for those who want the feeling of wizards who always have some magic at their fingertips.


----------



## eamon

ExploderWizard said:


> The idea that a wizard must always have a ZAP button for infinite damage is very videogamey. Magic must have a cost or it will soon become very mundane.



This isn't anything new.  Magic has always been very common in D&D.

I can't remember when (for instance) _magic missile_ has been terribly awe-inspiring.  Certainly good against some foes in some circumstances, but also "mundane" in the sense you're using the word: common, not unusual.


----------



## Lwaxy

DEFCON 1 said:


> Heck... I type a couple posts here on ENWorld every day, but I don't consider myself a _writer_.  And making myself lunch in morning doesn't mean I get to call myself a _chef_ either.




Exactly. In that, the magic systems have always failed. 

Yeah, a MU should run out of resources eventually, but I view it the same as a fighter getting tired vs running out of ammo. You can only stock up on so many arrows or throwing knives but at least you can chose to stock them. It needs to stay the same for the magic types.


----------



## Mattachine

Note: Cantrips (and orisons) were added to AD&D in the 80s (through Dragon Magazine) to offset the dissatisfaction with low level wizards running out of spells.

It is an old idea that many folks seem to forget. 

Back in 1e, Unearthed Arcana, a caster got one cantrip per level per day. 

House rules, rules variants in Dragon, and new classes have been around for 30 years simply to get around the standard casting limit, particularly at low level.

The design team has to account for this.


----------



## GM Dave

Bedrockgames said:


> Have to strongly oppose making D&D more like a video game in the name of giving people stuff to do at all times. The article was fine but this is an innovation I strongly dislike.
> 
> Since the problem they are addressing is wizards have traditionally been too powerful I don't really see the use of giving them at will functions. Part of the balancing of wizards is they run out of resources eventually.




This is the standard of PF for wizards and at-will cantrips have rarely been a concern.

Let's look at the damage of 0-level spells.  1d3 point of damage!  A thrown dagger often hits harder and has more range.

PF even gives extra basic attack spell or actions that can be used a number of days (usually 3+ related bonus).  These are usually 1d6+ 1/2 levels.

By the time players reach 2nd and 3rd level spells, these spells are all but forgotten.

You know the most dangerous at-will cantrip spell in PF is?  Create Water.  It is dangerous because you get to create 2 gal of water per level every round.  At level 1 you are a faucet tap and by level 5 you are a full on hose able to fill a standard 10 gal fish tank in 6 sec.  If you were filling your car at this rate then you'd usually have filled the tank within 2 rounds (a true engineer would be able to get an engine to work with this level of production of water and with a bit of pressuring to have a 'firearm').

When we converted PF to play Dark Sun, we had to remove the Create Water spell from the 0 level cantrip list and change the volume of production of water.

Pew Pew Pew?

The fighter pulls out his two-handed sword and lays one hack and complains that they can't wait all day to get through the door.


----------



## Melkor

Something I posted over on the Wizard's website:

Instead of weakening all spells across the board, couldn't some spells include notes for how a Dungeon Master could offset the effects, so that the DM controls the game instead of having rules that limit the game?

For example, for the Iron Golem Grease thing - couldn't the DM say the floor was covered in sand, or a grated drain, so that the effect only lasted a turn or two?

That way, the Wizard can still shine, but the encounter doesn't have to be a complete wash.

Creative DM solutions can solve a lot of these problems without relying on the rules to limit them.


----------



## Doug McCrae

DEFCON 1 said:


> If you're a magic-user... I don't think it's asking too much that you actually get to USE magic throughout the day.  Even if the magic is nothing but the Prestidigitation spell over and over.  At least that's _something_.  Cantrips are cantrips.  Why a wizard should only cast a single Light spell once in an entire day is something I just won't ever understand.



Yeah. If the wizard's action for most rounds is to attack with a conventional weapon, such as a crossbow or dagger, then isn't playing a wizard very similar to playing a fighter? The classes become too 'same-y', which, ironically, is a common criticism of 4e.



			
				Bedrockgames said:
			
		

> Have to strongly oppose making D&D more like a video game in the name of giving people stuff to do at all times. The article was fine but this is an innovation I strongly dislike.



It's not really an innovation any more. Pew pew all day long has been part of D&D since late 3e's reserve feats in Complete Mage, and entered core in 4e. It's tradition now.


----------



## Sadras

The "video-game" fear is an extremely fair one to have as it reflects a particular style of play which not everyone likes and therefore for obvious reasons should not be included in the basic system. It should be a feature/option/dial that can modify the basic system to "upgrade", if you will, the MU.
The basic system should cater initially to the low-magic campaign not the high magic or magic-free styles. Its always easier to add on than to negate/remove. What was beautiful about the older systems is their simplicity. Its not that they were perfect, far from it, but their ruleset allowed manipulations to modify them to suit the playstyle of the group. 
You could add-on feats, skills, themes, spells...etc It was and is quite easy. 
5E should strive for that same simplicity at least in its basic style of play. 

As for unlimited cantrips - let the DM and players decide how free and easy magic can be cast, it must not be forced on from the get go in class design.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen

I like most of it, and look forward to seeing the playtest.

But I'm not happy with wands and scrolls. As mentioned above, reversing the describe effects would be better.

Scrolls should contain their own magic. I'm still okay with that.

Wands should do something else than just carry spell charges. Allowing spell substitution is cool. Providing an extra spell slot that's reserved for a particular spell could work too.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Sadras said:


> You could add-on feats, skills, themes, spells...etc It was and is quite easy.  5E should strive for that same simplicity at least in its basic style of play.
> 
> As for unlimited cantrips - let the DM and players decide how free and easy magic can be cast, it must not be forced on from the get go in class design.




And this is why the at-will cantrips **ARE** feats.  They _aren't_ "default" as far as we can tell.  The DM has to allow the at-will spell feats to be taken, and the players have to choose to select them.  At this point in time, as far has been mentioned by the designers, they are *optional*.

But as is always the case, some people don't _want_ options to be available, because apparently that means implicitly that they _should_ be used, and thus they are being "forced" into it.  But in my opinion that's an attitude that has no place in the realm of compromise.


----------



## dkyle

Melkor said:


> Something I posted over on the Wizard's website:
> 
> Instead of weakening all spells across the board, couldn't some spells include notes for how a Dungeon Master could offset the effects, so that the DM controls the game instead of having rules that limit the game?
> 
> For example, for the Iron Golem Grease thing - couldn't the DM say the floor was covered in sand, or a grated drain, so that the effect only lasted a turn or two?
> 
> That way, the Wizard can still shine, but the encounter doesn't have to be a complete wash.
> 
> Creative DM solutions can solve a lot of these problems without relying on the rules to limit them.




So now the Wizard feels screwed over because all of the sudden every fight takes place on sand, or over a grate.  Or the DM decides which fights he'll allow the Wizard to use his overpowered toy.  So much for player creativity.

No, the solution is not for the designers to throw up their hands and leave the actually difficult part of game design (balance) to the DM, by offloading it into adventure design.

Also, it is a fallacy that a balanced game is somehow a "limiting" game.  It is easy to permit more options to the players, if the DM doesn't care about balance.  It is much more difficult for the DM to balance a game that was designed without it.

Rules do not remove options in an RPG.  Even in a perfectly balanced RPG, all they do is tell the DM which options are a safe baseline, that produce balanced gameplay.  If a DM wants to permit more options, it is trivial to do so, if he's willing to risk unbalancing his game.


----------



## avin

Wait a minute... people are saying free low level low damage spells are videogamey?

[MENTION=6678226]Mattachine[/MENTION] already pointed out that this exists in D&D since 80's.


----------



## gyor

Rituals were not discussed because they aren't a feature unique to wizards, anyone can cast them such as a Rogue, Warlord, Paladin with the right feat.

 Thier whole fewer spell slots thing could be achieved by removing the bonus spells slots one gains for a high intellience. If that's not enough remove a single maxium slot from each level. Or at higher levels lower slots disappear, but low level spells remain useful because they become more powerful in higher level slots.

 Of course if cantrips are still spells say 0 level spells, then putting them in higher level slots would make them more powerful. I wonder what a 9th level slotted ghost sound cantrip would be like.

 Also if wizards get cantrips do clerics get orisons again?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

steeldragons said:


> If you are foolish enough to blow your only two spells for the day on the first encounter and then want to "boohoo I'm outta magic"...that's YOUR fault, not the systems.
> 
> As for "better to play a videogame than get turned into a Sage NPC", says you, is what I sez to that! Again, what your character does (with or without their spells) is on YOU, your imagination and your role playing...or apparent  lack thereof.
> 
> If you'd rather play a videogame, by all means go do so...don't muck about in my RPG because you want more "pew pew."




are you kidding? 




> If you are foolish enough to blow your only two spells for the day on the first encounter



 so lets say you are waking up from camp outside in the woods less then an hour from the dungeon. You are first level, and as such have 1 spell per day Plus 1 for a high Int. You have preped 2 1st level spells.

5 kobolds ambush the party, the fight lasts 4 full combat rounds, and 1 suprise round (kobolds get the suprise) providing no PCs die from those 5 kobolds, you do what for those 4-5 rounds. Out of game that is like half hour to forty minites.

Lets say you do no spells, int hat fight.

you get to the dungeon and the first room are 2 goblin archers behind cover with a wolf. great sentrys. How ever this is another 3-5 round fight, and another half hour... then you go into the dungons get started.

I bet more then half the wizards in D&D over the last 40 or so years would have been sitting out 7-10 combat rounds. 



> As for "better to play a videogame than get turned into a Sage NPC", says you, is what I sez to that! Again, what your character does (with or without their spells) is on YOU, your imagination and your role playing...or apparent  lack thereof.




Lets advance to level 5, and give them 10 spells... You still can't cast a spell every round, but atleast you can most.

My imagination rocks, but I can't imagin casting 2 spells over 3-5 combats being a fun time. I have put up with it knowing better days are coming, but that is still boreing games.



> If you'd rather play a videogame, by all means go do so...don't muck about in my RPG because you want more "pew pew."




First I don't play video games any more, last time I was playing games regulary was pre PS2, however I did kinda get into GTA Vice city for a while. 

I don't want video games, I want wizards to be magical, and have magi options. I want to play the game at level 1, level 3, or level 10.

Lets look at 3e wizards.

Level 1 Wizards have 1 spell per day (+1 bonus spell)
level 2 wizards have 2 spell per day (+1 bonus spell)
Level 3 wizards have 4 spells per day (+2 bonus spells)

so lets pretend I start at level 3, and everyone else starts at level 1, and I stay at level 3 as the other PCs level up through the levels until level 4.

So this wizard has 6 spells per day, and in the Dungeon with lest say 4 combat encounters, 1 puzzel, 1 trap, and the day starts with that ambush fight out side the dungeon... Each combat last on avrage 4 rounds so lets assume the theif handles the trap, and I am totaly not needed. lets say I have a divination that helps with the puzzel, but doesn't auto settel it.

 so that leaves me 20 combat rounds and 5 spells.

Now imagin that same dungon at level 1... yea..

now imagin a slightly diffrent game, one where I have 5 at will cantrips, Light (no big deal in example) Detect magic (see light), Ray of frost, Magic Missle, Mystic Rubble.

 i also have the same divination type spell as a rituel that I can use, but it costs gold and time.

I also have 2 "Big gun" dailys like Sleep and Burning hands

notice I still have the big magic feel, but I don't go get pizza during a fight (By the way in early level 2e games the rule was always wizard was the one to run errands for the table becuse he  was most likely to sit out a round or two.)


----------



## Sadras

DEFCON 1 said:


> And this is why the at-will cantrips **ARE** feats. They _aren't_ "default" as far as we can tell. The DM has to allow the at-will spell feats to be taken, and the players have to choose to select them. At this point in time, as far has been mentioned by the designers, they are *optional*.
> 
> But as is always the case, some people don't _want_ options to be available, because apparently that means implicitly that they _should_ be used, and thus they are being "forced" into it. But in my opinion that's an attitude that has no place in the realm of compromise.




Ah! I must admit, I was a little lazy in not reading the article from L&L. Just read parts of the last two pages here and got completely the wrong impression from some of you (these threads sometimes get too long). I entered the conversation ass-backwards.

Well from what you've posted (still havent read the L&L article) - what they're proposing seems rather fair for all concerned. Thanx for setting me straight!


----------



## am181d

avin said:


> Wait a minute... people are saying free low level low damage spells are videogamey?
> 
> [MENTION=6678226]Mattachine[/MENTION] already pointed out that this exists in D&D since 80's.




I disagree with Mattachine's characterization. Cantrips weren't At Will until 4th Edition, and Cantrip slots were (in my experience) very rarely used for direct damage spells.

(That said, I'm open to most of what WotC is proposing. The only thing I'm not sure about is using "Cantrips" as a name for At Wills if they're deliberately beefing up the At Wills. When I hear "Cantrip" I think "minor magical effect" and not "competent ranged melee attack".)


----------



## Oni

GMforPowergamers said:


> ar
> 5 kobolds ambush the party, the fight lasts 4 full combat rounds, and 1 suprise round (kobolds get the suprise) providing no PCs die from those 5 kobolds, you do what for those 4-5 rounds. *Out of game that is like half hour to forty minites.*




Good lord, I hope not.


----------



## I'm A Banana

There's a few problems with this.


 Assuming that at-will magic is a good thing is a problem. It may be a good thing for some individual groups, but it's certainly not a classic D&D wizard, and you can't rely on that as a balancing mechanism and keep folks wanting classic D&D wizard gameplay happy. You need to have the option to turn it off, and the game can't assume that it happens. 
 Spells being "interruptable" isn't bad, and I'm fond of their mechanic for it, but it does apply a rather hard limit for any combat-focused spellcasters out there. It's not an unsolvable problem, but it is a little eyebrow-raising.
 Only certain spells will be wand-able? What? Are we going back to 4e's days of "only one daily item power because NUMBERS?" Rather than bake-in artificial distinctions, what is lost by, say, _making wands have the at-will cantrips_?
 Scrolls costing slots is similarly weird. Though it's a good instinct to let a spellcaster gain some versatility, it's very odd to bake it into magic items like that.
 Related to the two above points: whatever the heck happened to the idea that magic items were pure reward and you shouldn't EXPECT to gain any and if you do then bully for you, but there's no guarantee they're going to be useful? If you really want to have wands cast spells, let them cast a million of 'em, and just warn DMs. Or whatever. 

These aren't exactly positive signs. 

And mearls still doesn't seem to quite understand a basic principle of adventure-based design: individual encounters are more disposable. In 5e, it shouldn't be a problem if you grease-glitterdust handicap an iron golem, because the iron golem isn't the only thing you need to kill, and mages only get a handful of spells anyway. 

(not that grease and glitterdust need to do so much -- in 4e, that balance DC is a lot more reasonable given always-increasing bonuses. But there are ways to solve the problem that don't mandate changing how a wizard plays)

I'm not encouraged by this. There's a few good points (very limited spells/day, and damage disruption, for instance), but about equal quantities of troubling statements. 

I've been pretty gung-ho about 5e so far, but I'm not so sure about this one. There's some conceptual problems, here.


----------



## Gold Roger

I think this article way more fack than it deserves. Most of this should  be seen in comparison of 3.x, which was an issue for a lot of people.  Let's see:

*Cantrips as At-Will Magic: *Really, we're talking cantrips here.  Even if they get a tiny bit better than usual, that's still weaker than a  normal weapon. Besides, there's plenty of creatures that can "shoot  magic" at will. We know D&D magic can do this. Doesn't it make sense  for wizards to develope something for backup?

*Keep Spells Under Control: *The wording and example might be a bit  messy, but this is a sensible suggestion. Spells that circumvented  normal defense mechanics could really mess up 3rd edition (black  tentacles comes to mind).

*Reducing Total Spell Slots: *In light of the other changes, this  too, makes sense. Again, especially in the light of 3.5, spell slots got  redicilous. And how often did anyone use 1st-3rd level spells at high  level?

*Spells Don't Automatically Scale: *Spellcasters getting both new  spell levels with more powerfull spells and spells of lower levels  scaling at the same time means a significant power increase at every  level that is hard for non spellcasters to keep up with. In addition,  automatic scaling means a spell that is no problem when initially  gained, could be ridiculous at higher levels.

*Spellcasting Is Dangerous: *Big misnamer here. It should rather be  named "Casting a spell in combat is hard to do". Again, to me this  seemed sensible and in line with traditional D&D. 4th is the only  edition I can think of that did away with this entirely. And it makes  sense. When you're fighting you are aware and reacting to people  attacking you (duh). When casting a spell you concentrate on something  that is definitely not fighting, weaving around your arms and reciting.  Just try that while people come at you with a sword.

*Keep Magic Items Under Control: *Is this even still about the  wizard? Was it ever? I'd assume most of this stuff goes for clerics to. I  can see people not liking these suggestions. The scroll thing is bogus  and I'd prefer wands as implements (maybe required to use cantrips)

*Keep Buff Spells Under Control: *I've always had my problems with  buffs. 1 or 2 buffs? Awesome. Tracking masses of buffs (wether 3rd  edition longtime or 4ths masses of 1 round buffs). Boo. So I'll not  comment further, as I'm heavily biased.

*Creativity, Not Dominance:* Looks like riggid 4th edition style  spell formulas are a thing of history. This is a huge boon for  spellcasters all around and should ensure they're not completely nerfed.  This also puts the magic back into spellcasting more than any definite  rule ever could.

To me this all seems like it could put power levels of spellcasters in  line with other classes while keeping them different and, well, magical.

That people argue against this collection of goals from both sides of  the spectrum just shows you can't please everyone once again. I believe  it's a good compromise for the core. The magic system should be a place  where modularity especially extensive.


----------



## Fifth Element

ExploderWizard said:


> The idea that a wizard must always have a ZAP button for infinite damage is very videogamey.



Drink!


----------



## Minigiant

I just don't get the videogamey feel.

If you don't like wizard's with atwill attack cantrips, don't pick atwill attack cantrips. Take Open/Close instead of Ray of Frost. Detect magic over Magic Needle. Then Polly out you gun crossbow and fire.


As for the leave the spells at high power and make the DM handle everything. No.

Crafty once is abuse the tenth time.
Spontaneously putting drains in rooms, handing goggle to monsters, and adding SURPRISE! Reinforcements! when the casters try their trick the third time la not fun on the DM side. I shouldn't have to fudge and nerf constantly to make the game work.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Assuming that at-will magic is a good thing is a problem. It may be a good thing for some individual groups, but it's certainly not a classic D&D wizard, and you can't rely on that as a balancing mechanism and keep folks wanting classic D&D wizard gameplay happy. You need to have the option to turn it off, and the game can't assume that it happens.




That's why the at-will spells are feats that need to be allowed to exist by the DM, and taken by the players.  They aren't a default part of the wizard (from what we have heard from R&D).  Those who don't want at-will magic in their game can just disallow the feats to be taken.


----------



## billd91

Stalker0 said:


> WOTC tried the "bring all the other classes up" approach in 4e, and some people balked at it.




I don't really see 4e's attempt at combat balance as just "bring[ing] all the other classes up" as much as it was nerfing the heck out of most combat-available spells. That's not bringing the other classes up, that's bringing the casters down.

And I agree that the result was certainly controversial.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Kamikaze Midget said:


> ,
> 
> And mearls still doesn't seem to quite understand a basic principle of adventure-based design: individual encounters are more disposable. In 5e, it shouldn't be a problem if you grease-glitterdust handicap an iron golem, because the iron golem isn't the only thing you need to kill, and mages only get a handful of spells anyway.




I am not troubled by the article but this is a very solid point and i actually want to encourage you to send this feedback to mearls directly (more tactfully stated of course).


----------



## erleni

Gold Roger said:


> I think this article way more fack than it deserves. Most of this should be seen in comparison of 3.x, which was an issue for a lot of people. Let's see:
> 
> *Cantrips as At-Will Magic: *Really, we're talking cantrips here. Even if they get a tiny bit better than usual, that's still weaker than a normal weapon. Besides, there's plenty of creatures that can "shoot magic" at will. We know D&D magic can do this. Doesn't it make sense for wizards to develope something for backup?
> 
> *Keep Spells Under Control: *The wording and example might be a bit messy, but this is a sensible suggestion. Spells that circumvented normal defense mechanics could really mess up 3rd edition (black tentacles comes to mind).
> 
> *Reducing Total Spell Slots: *In light of the other changes, this too, makes sense. Again, especially in the light of 3.5, spell slots got redicilous. And how often did anyone use 1st-3rd level spells at high level?
> 
> *Spells Don't Automatically Scale: *Spellcasters getting both new spell levels with more powerfull spells and spells of lower levels scaling at the same time means a significant power increase at every level that is hard for non spellcasters to keep up with. In addition, automatic scaling means a spell that is no problem when initially gained, could be ridiculous at higher levels.
> 
> *Spellcasting Is Dangerous: *Big misnamer here. It should rather be named "Casting a spell in combat is hard to do". Again, to me this seemed sensible and in line with traditional D&D. 4th is the only edition I can think of that did away with this entirely. And it makes sense. When you're fighting you are aware and reacting to people attacking you (duh). When casting a spell you concentrate on something that is definitely not fighting, weaving around your arms and reciting. Just try that while people come at you with a sword.
> 
> *Keep Magic Items Under Control: *Is this even still about the wizard? Was it ever? I'd assume most of this stuff goes for clerics to. I can see people not liking these suggestions. The scroll thing is bogus and I'd prefer wands as implements (maybe required to use cantrips)
> 
> *Keep Buff Spells Under Control: *I've always had my problems with buffs. 1 or 2 buffs? Awesome. Tracking masses of buffs (wether 3rd edition longtime or 4ths masses of 1 round buffs). Boo. So I'll not comment further, as I'm heavily biased.
> 
> *Creativity, Not Dominance:* Looks like riggid 4th edition style spell formulas are a thing of history. This is a huge boon for spellcasters all around and should ensure they're not completely nerfed. This also puts the magic back into spellcasting more than any definite rule ever could.
> 
> To me this all seems like it could put power levels of spellcasters in line with other classes while keeping them different and, well, magical.
> 
> That people argue against this collection of goals from both sides of the spectrum just shows you can't please everyone once again. I believe it's a good compromise for the core. The magic system should be a place where modularity especially extensive.




*Cantrip as at-wills*: it makes quite some sense. First of all why should all mages in the world be trained in crossbows? If you study magic it makes more sense to develop something you know than to dabble into something completely alien to you (do Mage's towers have crossbow shooting training fields?)

*Spellcasting is dangerous:* why should damage interfere with casting magic and not with wielding a sword? I've been doing martial arts for some years (even if I'm not a professional) and I can assure you that after getting kicked hard your ability to fight is reduced until you shake off the pain, and if somebody punches you in the face you'll most likely not complete the maneuver you were supposedly doing.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun

DEFCON 1 said:


> And this is why the at-will cantrips **ARE** feats. They _aren't_ "default" as far as we can tell. The DM has to allow the at-will spell feats to be taken, and the players have to choose to select them. At this point in time, as far has been mentioned by the designers, they are *optional*.
> 
> But as is always the case, some people don't _want_ options to be available, because apparently that means implicitly that they _should_ be used, and thus they are being "forced" into it. But in my opinion that's an attitude that has no place in the realm of compromise.



 Actually, this article seems to indicate that attack at-wills will be available without a feat.  And they should be, for players that DO want them available.  For those that don't want them and want to play a crossbow wizard, they can elect to have other cantrips.  They aren't forcing you to pick them.

Overall, I have nothing to complain about with this yet.  This was the class I was most worried about.


----------



## TerraDave

This has been my single favorite one of these columns. Good diagnosis and solutions, fairly specific ones, I actually like. Together. Finally. 

Of course, I knew reading it that the fact that it had both possible problems and a series of fairly concrete proposals would lead to vehement disagreement by others.


----------



## ren1999

How about limiting all characters to acquiring 30 powers?

Instead of limiting the wizard, increase the abilities of the fighter and all the other classes.
A fighter should be able to attack 3 adjacent enemies if a wizard can cast a burst spell on 3 or more enemies.

I'm definitely not liking a lot of official comments on the direction of 5th edition. I wouldn't go scrapping 4th edition rules. I'd make them very clear and simple to memorize. 

5th edition has only one important task in my opinion. 

Group together and remove all duplicate powers/feats/spells/prayers/utilities/special qualities/damage reduction/racial traits/class features/skills/etc..

Remove all of the powers that are rendered useless by stronger duplicate ones and make them scale automatically when leveling-up.

Remove "Incredibly Vastly Improved No Really Improved Initiative" and replace it with "Improved Initiative" then scale it according to level.

Seriously, in many previous editions, the power is not even explained correctly so it leaves players guessing as to how to implement it. 

Here are some more "rules" and "optional rules" to think about. 

Multi-Classing - none but class variants who can chose a total of 30 power/feats/skills/racial traits/class features etc -- 5 per level

Optional Rule -- No resistance spell casting.
A caster rolls a 1d20 when casting on him or herself or a willing target, and fails on a 1-3. At 11th level, fails on a 1-2. At 21st level, fails on a 1.

Paul's XP Method
Each encounter or seperate skill challenge is worth 1XP
Each boss encounter is worth 2XP
Characters level-up after 20XP.

Opportunity Attack Rules
Anytime you leave the square by an adjacent foe, the foe may attack.
Anytime you use a ranged projectile attack in a square by an adjacent foe, the foe may attack.
Touch ranged casting does not provoke an opportunity attack.
Readying a weapon again does not provoke an opportunity attack.

Flanking Rules
You are flanked only if at least two foes are on either side of you and there are no allies adjacent to those foes.

Level-Up Rules
Your total level may not exceed 30th.


----------



## grimslade

On the whole, I like the notes. The 24th will help see how these thoughts are in action. Not too long now.

Cantrips as At-Will spells. Fantastic. Even better if I can load up on non-damage cantrips and sport a bandolier of throwing daggers or a light crossbow. Utility for the victory! Flavoring my damage as magical vs mechanical is not my thing, but I have no problem with it for other wizards. Multiclass rules will account for this somehow.

Keep spells under control- this is less a problem with the spells and more a problem with the rules subsystems they exploit. Why did a 15th level foe have a negative balance score so 1st level spells could eliminate it? Grease was fine, the exploiting of the skill subsystem was broken. Change the balance check to a reflex save and no one would use Grease, even if it's the word.

Reducing spell slots- Fewer max spell slots makes my wizard sad, but is a simple way to make spell selection more meaningful. Easy fix in playtest if it seems to go too far. Good call.

Spells don't auto scale- No brainer. Good enough. More power = higher spell level. Ok. I will still miss my magic Gatling gun of missiles. 

Spell casting is dangerous- Sounds more inconvenient rather than dangerous. Back to Concentration Checks to cast after a love tap. "Feel the power as I tear reality asunder... Ooh ooh hangnail hangnail!" Poof. Danger is the chance for the spell to backfire or hit an ally or buff the enemy. Loss of action is a non-fun flavorless penalty. Also, will there be a way for wizards to turn a check into an auto success like concentration checks in 3.x? Wipes that off the grid, feat-skill tax to do your job. Not on board with this, but we will see it in play.

Keep Magic Items under control- Scrolls use slots. Reins in the infinite spellbook, but has other ramifications, like leaving rogues in the cold for lucky scroll casts. I think it is a good balancing method. MIC being an optional mod is, sadly, a no brainer. I wish it would be balanced into the rules, but other priorities. I am with the wand should be an implement not receptacle crowd. The suggestion of the writings of a monk's conversations with an Air Elemental prince as a reusable or multiuse magic item for Levitate sounds cool as a wand or staff replacement.

Keep buff spells under control- Duh. Under control but not under-powered. Invisibility is invisibility. Up the spell level, but you can't hit what you can't see easily. Stoneskin is a vital spell if spell casting is dangerous when damaged. Haste and polymorph are the 8000 lb Fiendish Awakened Dire Apes in the room. Haste needs to be useful without turning the wiz into a Nova Elemental Lord. Polymorph into a fireproof acid resistant troll? No. But keep the ability to be creative,this spell needs to be able to stretch.

Creativity, not dominance- Creativity sometimes leads to dominance. How about no uncreative prepackaged dominance. Pun-pun was a travesty because it was a pure rules loophole abuse, the kind of thing play testing finds and fixes. The pacifist duelist sorceror using Unseen Servant to run off with disarmed opponents weapons is creative dominance. 

Rituals not in a class discussion. Rituals are not class specific. Sir Not Appearing in This Film, does not appear in this film. Rituals do not help balance or unbalance the wizard or cleric. We wait for a ritual L&L with bated breath.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

I liked most of the article, but it appears to me that they are still struggling with the essential nature of magic items.  I don't mind the scroll part terribly (not least because it is tangentially similar to something I suggested a few weeks back ), though the idea as it stands thus far is rather clunky.  But the repurposing of scrolls as "quasi magic items that augment casting versatility instead of adding raw power" is a way to have the flavor of casters scribing many scrolls without it becoming unbalanced.  And there is nothing inherent in the idea that prevents the traditional D&D magic scroll from also appearing in some form, under stricter limits.

The problem with magic items is that they are conceptually optional and additional, and that is very tricky to balance.  They keep trying to make compromises to work it out, but I don't think they can--comprehensively.  Thus, I suggest again that the way to handle items it recognize that they are optional, additional, and *inherently unbalanced*--and then build the wider system around those assumptions.

It might help if the province and systems around mundane equipment was expanded. This gives more room for "equipment" to work, and thus more room for magical equipment to fit into the larger system.

The bit about limiting wands to certain spells I don't like, either.  Not because of objections raised thus far, but because that method is "brittle" design.  If there are spells that are that much trouble when coming in multiple charges in a wand, then the spell is either too powerful itself, or something is busted in the item/charges arena.  Don't squash symptoms of larger problems with band aids, especially not at this stage of the design.


----------



## The Shadow

A thought I had about scrolls:

Notice he says that you must give up a spell slot to use one.  He does not say you have to give up a spell slot of the same level!

So I'm thinking that if you give up a slot of the same level or higher as the scroll spell, well and good.  But if you use a slot of lower level, there's a chance of miscasting - the chance going up as the mismatch between levels goes up, of course.

Then, what a rogue does is "cast" a 0-level slot to cast the scroll, the miscasting chance being calculated normally... and then modified by the rogue's class ability in some way.


----------



## DEFCON 1

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> Actually, this article seems to indicate that attack at-wills will be available without a feat.  And they should be, for players that DO want them available.  For those that don't want them and want to play a crossbow wizard, they can elect to have other cantrips.  They aren't forcing you to pick them.




The article says nothing about _how you acquire_ cantrip at-wills... only that they are looking to have them exist, and that a few attack and utility spells would fall under the designation.

Thus, since not mentioning something _does not_ mean it's been eliminated... we should go with with what we've been told in previous articles-- that at-wills spells are gained via feats.  Until they say something that specifically counteracts that mention from before... that's the only logical reasoning we can make.


----------



## ExploderWizard

am181d said:


> I disagree with Mattachine's characterization. Cantrips weren't At Will until 4th Edition, and Cantrip slots were (in my experience) very rarely used for direct damage spells.




Exactly. There is a difference between very low cost and completely at-will.

Who ever needs a knock spell?  PEW PEW PEW  break that chain or lock. Why not, it costs absolutlely nothing. 

Need to build an encampment quickly? PEW PEW PEW down goes a grove of trees. 

Need real defensible shelter? PEW PEW PEW I just carved us a cave to camp in.


----------



## Somebloke

Finally the one everyone's been waiting for. 

I like what I hear. Well, granted, I liked what I heard about 4E, and didn't like the end result. 

I can kind of envisage the level/spell system working like the following:

(Warning: Idle speculation ahead). 

You get a flat number of spells per level, which may or may not be modified by your int- say, 1 spell per level, with scaling int bonus.  

Keep the spell pyramid, including int bonuses, but use it to determine maximum spells learned per level- so once you've used up the slots foe this level, you have to take the next.  Grant a small number of at- wills, with very minor scaling, at 1st level (say 2 + 1 per 3 levels). 

So what does this mean, for say a 7th level wizard with 18 int? 

They would have access to 7 spells per day.  Two could be 4th level spells, another three could be 3rd level spells: the remainder would be 2nd level spells. Note that the wizard would actually know a very large number of spells, which- hopefully according to the promise of scaling- could all fit the 4th level slot (well, so it is promised). Once they run out of spells, they have at-will cantrips to rely on. 

-end idle pointless speculation-

If this is the model they would use, it has some merit- it cuts back on spell numbers while giving a wider selection of meaningful spells at low level.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun

DEFCON 1 said:


> The article says nothing about _how you acquire_ cantrip at-wills... only that they are looking to have them exist, and that a few attack and utility spells would fall under the designation.
> 
> Thus, since not mentioning something _does not_ mean it's been eliminated... we should go with with what we've been told in previous articles-- that at-wills spells are gained via feats. Until they say something that specifically counteracts that mention from before... that's the only logical reasoning we can make.



 That is true, but then again, they also said that MONTHS ago, so it is possible things have changed.  We will see.  Personally, I would rather a feat was not required to be a magic-user all the time (rather than part-time MU, part-time Crapsack fighter).

As to the video gamey attack on the system, honestly, D&D SHOULD be looking to video games for some direction, as TTRPGs are a dying breed, and need to keep current rather than stay straight-jacketed to a series of books from sixty years ago.


----------



## Somebloke

ExploderWizard said:


> Exactly. There is a difference between very low cost and completely at-will.
> 
> Who ever needs a knock spell?  PEW PEW PEW  break that chain or lock. Why not, it costs absolutlely nothing.
> 
> Need to build an encampment quickly? PEW PEW PEW down goes a grove of trees.
> 
> Need real defensible shelter? PEW PEW PEW I just carved us a cave to camp in.




Ummmm....replace all of the above with HACK HAACK HACK and you have the first edition fighter. Was that broken???

I think you need to calm down a little.


----------



## Gold Roger

erleni said:


> *Spellcasting is dangerous:* why should damage interfere with casting magic and not with wielding a sword? I've been doing martial arts for some years (even if I'm not a professional) and I can assure you that after getting kicked hard your ability to fight is reduced until you shake off the pain, and if somebody punches you in the face you'll most likely not complete the maneuver you were supposedly doing.




Fair point.

Sadly, we have no such rl comparison for casting a spell.

But I suspect it's a fair bit harder than getting a hit in during a fight. We have the possibility to not hit (hp and attack rolls do what you describe well enough for my purposes). I think losing your concentration for complicated spells is only fair.


----------



## Melkor

dkyle said:


> Also, it is a fallacy that a balanced game is somehow a "limiting" game.




Opinions will certainly vary, and this is probably best kept to another topic altogether, but I think the "fallacy" is that true balance is actually obtainable in an RPG. Sure, it can be an aim or a goal, but again, I digress.


----------



## grimslade

ExploderWizard said:


> Exactly. There is a difference between very low cost and completely at-will.
> 
> Who ever needs a knock spell?  PEW PEW PEW  break that chain or lock. Why not, it costs absolutlely nothing.
> 
> Need to build an encampment quickly? PEW PEW PEW down goes a grove of trees.
> 
> Need real defensible shelter? PEW PEW PEW I just carved us a cave to camp in.




I can replace PEW PEW PEW with HACK HACK HACK and it is equally ridiculous. I understand and appreciate the desire to not have a pervasive limitless magical damage. But hyperbole of cantrips equaling Disintegrate is not helping your argument.


----------



## Fifth Element

ExploderWizard said:


> Who ever needs a knock spell?  PEW PEW PEW  break that chain or lock. Why not, it costs absolutlely nothing.
> 
> Need to build an encampment quickly? PEW PEW PEW down goes a grove of trees.
> 
> Need real defensible shelter? PEW PEW PEW I just carved us a cave to camp in.



You're making some grandiose assumptions about how these cantrips work. Even if the cantrip works the way you assume it does, how long do you think it would take to PEW PEW a cave from a rockface?

I recall when 4E came out and someone was arguing that giving a dragonborn a dragon breath power was completely overpowered because of all the things you can do with it! When pressed, it turns out that every example he could come up with was something that could be done by someone with a torch or a tinderbox.

Same thing here. Give a fighter an axe and he can _level a forest_!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

ExploderWizard said:


> Exactly. There is a difference between very low cost and completely at-will.



 so25x per day is diffrent really? or hay, Int score + level times per day per cantrip



> Who ever needs a knock spell?  PEW PEW PEW  break that chain or lock. Why not, it costs absolutlely nothing.



 or just hit it with yout ace and sword...



> Need to build an encampment quickly? PEW PEW PEW down goes a grove of trees.



 wait, I wonder if my axe will help.



> Need real defensible shelter? PEW PEW PEW I just carved us a cave to camp in.



or use the pick axe...


oh wait the same reason why we don't use the d12 brutal 2 excution axe to break locks, chop trees or break rocks... becuse lets be honnest at will and easy are 2 diffrent things.

I can swing an axe at will, if you want me to chope down trees you will be disapointed.


----------



## Ratskinner

As with several of their articles lately, I agree with the stated goals, but marvel at how they think their proposed mechanics accomplish this. The suggested mechanic about scrolls and wands was the poster boy in this article.

As for all the "pew pew pew" vs "crossbow wizard" stuff....honestly, guys, at this point, I figure they need some way to make either a functional option for a given DM or group to choose. Its legitimate to want to play D&D either way, IMO. Heck, my moods as a DM can vary quite a bit. Sometimes I like gritty, sometimes comedic. I feel the same about "dangerous spells" vs "reliable magic". How they do that....I dunno. Especially dangerous vs reliable, I'd hate to have two versions of the spell list.

Sometimes while reading the discussions in these threads, I think the only way to make this game inclusive enough through modularity is to make the kernel so small as to be almost unplayable.


----------



## dkyle

Melkor said:


> Opinions will certainly vary, and this is probably best kept to another topic altogether, but I think the "fallacy" is that true balance is actually obtainable in an RPG. Sure, it can be an aim or a goal, but again, I digress.




I think it should have been obvious that when I said "balanced game" in that quote, I did not mean perfect balance.

And when I said "Even in a perfectly balanced RPG", I meant a theoretical perfectly balanced RPG, as a hypothetical.  I was not claiming that a perfectly balanced RPG exists.  My point was that balance is not limitation, no matter the degree.  I was only illustrating using the most extreme hypothetical.

But of course, true balance _is_ actually obtainable.  One trivial example: have everyone play characters that are mechanically identical.  Obviously, that's not generally desirable. Perfect balance is also theoretically possible with disparate and varied character mechanics, but much more difficult.  In practice, balance is a matter of degree.


----------



## Ratskinner

Melkor said:


> Opinions will certainly vary, and this is probably best kept to another topic altogether, but I think the "fallacy" is that true balance is actually obtainable in an RPG. Sure, it can be an aim or a goal, but again, I digress.




Actually, it is. I'd cite Capes as an example. However, its not very D&D-ish, since it is so narrative-focused. IMO, D&D's simulationist bent is the root of all its "balance" arguments. Not trying to be judgmental, but it is what it is.


----------



## Dausuul

ExploderWizard said:


> Exactly. There is a difference between very low cost and completely at-will.
> 
> Who ever needs a knock spell?  PEW PEW PEW  break that chain or lock. Why not, it costs absolutlely nothing.
> 
> Need to build an encampment quickly? PEW PEW PEW down goes a grove of trees.
> 
> Need real defensible shelter? PEW PEW PEW I just carved us a cave to camp in.




Yeah,  I'm sure cantrips will be able to cut down trees and carve through solid stone. As for the "problem" of using cantrips to bust open locks, your party fighter would like to introduce you to a totally overpowered and game-wrecking device called a sledgehammer.


----------



## Dragonblade

I don't want "miscast" or "dangerous" magic except for rituals. No other class gets class abilities that can randomly screw them or the party, nor should there be for any class. It should be an option for those who want it, but not default.

If plot breaking magic is confined to rituals then having dangerous rituals is ok.

I also want 4e style implements. Wands and staves that you channel your magic through to help you cast better. Thats how most fantasy fiction works, especially big popular ones like Harry Potter.

Charged spell spamming wands and staves are a weird D&Dism that I have never seen anywhere else. Having both types is fine. But why should there only be one or the other?


----------



## avin

Stormonu said:


> As for the "problem" of using cantrips to bust open locks, your party fighter would like to introduce you to a totally overpowered and game-wrecking device called a sledgehammer.




Can't XP


----------



## KidSnide

Kamikaze Midget said:


> And mearls still doesn't seem to quite understand a basic principle of adventure-based design: individual encounters are more disposable. In 5e, it shouldn't be a problem if you grease-glitterdust handicap an iron golem, because the iron golem isn't the only thing you need to kill, and mages only get a handful of spells anyway.




This is a critical point, but it goes both ways.  On the one hand, you're totally right, individual encounters are more disposable and the PCs should be expected to blow through some of them with a combination of cleverness, luck and party make-up (where the encounter's vulnerabilities line up with the party's strength).  

On the other hand, D&DN should allow DMs to build _specific_ encounters (typically big bad fights), so they are dependably tough and provide a satisfying climax to an adventure.  Obviously, wizards should be able to save up their spells and have a big impact on these encounters, but you don't want them blown completely away either.  (Or, at least, you want to support DMs who don't want those encounters to be blown completely away.)

-KS


----------



## dkyle

Dragonblade said:


> I don't want "miscast" or "dangerous" magic except for rituals. No other class gets class abilities that can randomly screw them or the party, nor should there be for any class. It should be an option for those who want it, but not default.




The problem with making it simply optional (all spells are "safe", vs. all spells are dangerous) is that it's a balance nightmare.  To have Wizards be balanced either way, the class and its spells need to be significantly different with and without.

Perhaps there could be a specific "unstable" keyword for some spells, where unstable spells cannot be used if the caster has been damaged since the end of their last turn.  Magic Missile wouldn't be "unstable", but Sleep might be.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

ren1999 said:


> How about limiting all characters to acquiring 30 powers?
> 
> Instead of limiting the wizard, increase the abilities of the fighter and all the other classes.
> A fighter should be able to attack 3 adjacent enemies if a wizard can cast a burst spell on 3 or more enemies.



And if the Wizard can use a burst spell on 10 enemies 30 ft apart at a range of 600 feet away?

Should Fighters be able to teleport 600 feet away and hit 10 enemies?

What if the Wizard can cast a spell that causes all people within the radius to be unable to move unless they roll an 18+ on a die roll in a large radius?

What if the Wizard can make everyone within a radius blind and unable to hide or go invisible for 4 rounds?

What if the Wizard has the ability to planar travel simply by using one power?

There's just no way that anyone would accept these powers as abilities of the Fighter.  Well, not MOST people.  There's a reason that these powers when given to Fighters seem like an anime.  Most anime have solved the Fighter/Wizard divide by not worrying about being grounded in the laws of physics when it comes to characters who "Fight".

So, when it comes to abilities like this, there are only 2 choices in terms of balance: Limit the power of Wizards OR allow the Fighter to break the laws of physics.  Looks like they chose the first one.


----------



## Tortoise

GMforPowergamers said:


> I bet more then half the wizards in D&D over the last 40 or so years would have been sitting out 7-10 combat rounds.




That's a bet I would take. A wizard that stands around doing nothing is more likely to get killed than one using a crossbow, throwing daggers, or darts, prepping and throwing lit flasks of oil, fighting with a staff, and doing other things to help the party.

In my experience (since 1981) I have only seen a wizard avoid assisting in whatever way possible once, and that was a doppleganger waiting to strike.

If the wizards in your groups just sit around doing nothing, that is on the player, not the system.


----------



## Melkor

Tortoise said:


> If the wizards in your groups just sit around doing nothing, that is on the player, not the system.




I agree. Quite a few memorable moments have happened in our games from a clever player who's wizard had run out of uber-effective spells.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Fifth Element said:


> Give a fighter an axe and he can _level a forest_!



Give me a fish and I eat for a day.
Teach me to fish and I eat for a lifetime.

ExploderWizard: Teachers are broken.


----------



## Stormonu

avin said:


> Can't XP




Which in this case is good, as it wasn't my qoute


----------



## Lanefan

Tortoise said:


> That's a bet I would take. A wizard that stands around doing nothing is more likely to get killed than one using a crossbow, throwing daggers, or darts, prepping and throwing lit flasks of oil, fighting with a staff, and doing other things to help the party.
> 
> In my experience (since 1981) I have only seen a wizard avoid assisting in whatever way possible once, and that was a doppleganger waiting to strike.
> 
> If the wizards in your groups just sit around doing nothing, that is on the player, not the system.



Can't XP you right now so you'll just get a "HEAR HEAR!" here. 

The other useful things a non-combatant can do: keep watch for new foes arriving, and direct traffic within the battle: "Tordek just got clobbered; Regdar, get clear and help him out!"

Lanefan


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Tortoise said:


> That's a bet I would take. A wizard that stands around doing nothing is more likely to get killed than one using a crossbow, throwing daggers, or darts, prepping and throwing lit flasks of oil, fighting with a staff, and doing other things to help the party.
> 
> In my experience (since 1981) I have only seen a wizard avoid assisting in whatever way possible once, and that was a doppleganger waiting to strike.
> 
> If the wizards in your groups just sit around doing nothing, that is on the player, not the system.






> That's a bet I would take. A wizard that stands around doing nothing is more likely to get killed than one using a crossbow, throwing daggers, or darts, prepping and throwing lit flasks of oil, fighting with a staff, and doing other things to help the party.



 so your DM targets non threats with MORE attacks then whimpy AC combatants...even counting melee with a staff?

maybe that was not what you ment, but it is what it comes off as, I will asume there is some miscommunication and move on...



> In my experience (since 1981) I have only seen a wizard avoid assisting in whatever way possible once, and that was a doppleganger waiting to strike.
> 
> If the wizards in your groups just sit around doing nothing, that is on the player, not the system



 Ok, your group all charge in and...um what? 

miss alot, AND be on the line of combat...

I guess they are all fighter Mages? or something? I know I can only remember 1 or 2 times that a straight wizard entered combat and made a diffrence. Infact I can think of only 1 time, and it was totaly badass BECUSE it was so rare. 

If wizards got +1 to hit (or-1thac0) for the first 3 or 4 levels and d6's for those hp and leather armor (or like 4e int mod over dex) then I would agree, this class is meant to go into a fight with a weapon, and then at latter levels use spells




> that is on the player, not the system



 is getting very old very quicky, and this is not just to you or even on this topic... but it is SUCH BS... "Your problem is becuse your players are not smart enough"  "Your problem can be solved with Better players" is BS
 The problem can be solved by makeing all classes contribute to the game.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Melkor said:


> I agree. Quite a few memorable moments have happened in our games from a clever player who's wizard had run out of uber-effective spells.




we are not even on the same page here... Uber-effective spells?? Clever players ??

no I am talking avrage players with average spells, and no hp and no AC and no attack bonus... 

I mean Andel picking up a 2e 1st level wizard, having magic missle once per day, having 4hp a 10 AC and an adjusted 20 thac0 with a thrown dagger or an edjusted 21 thac0 with his staff...

I am talking Ross playing his wizard in 3e with a 14 AC with mage armor (that lasted 1 hour) and having 1 ray of frost and 1 magic missle, and a staff with +1 to hit.

I can exchange stories of very clever PCs of ANY class doing amazing things, I can tell stories of otimizers and the best spells... that is not what this is about...


----------



## Melkor

GMforPowergamers said:


> The problem can be solved by makeing all classes contribute to the game.




With all due respect, GMforPowergamers, there are those of us who don't see it as a problem to begin with.


----------



## billd91

GMforPowergamers said:


> is getting very old very quicky, and this is not just to you or even on this topic... but it is SUCH BS... "Your problem is becuse your players are not smart enough"  "Your problem can be solved with Better players" is BS
> The problem can be solved by makeing all classes contribute to the game.




Not from where I'm sitting. A player who feels blocked from doing anything worthwhile in previous editions is probably also the kind of player who would feel like he can't do anything in differently balanced systems like 4e. And I think you see it plenty around here too. If an action isn't approaching optimal or not associated with *the way they want to play*, people will reject it as not being worthwhile to do. And that may not be the case.

I don't see it necessarily as a question of being smart. It's more a question of inflexibility to circumstances, I think, particularly negative or limiting circumstances.


----------



## Incenjucar

Melkor said:


> With all due respect, GMforPowergamers, there are those of us who don't see it as a problem to begin with.




There are always people who something something.

The game has to be successful. They have to go with what is most likely to appeal to the most people of the audience they believe they have identified.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Melkor said:


> With all due respect, GMforPowergamers, there are those of us who don't see it as a problem to begin with.




With respect, I don't care.

  See it looks like this (from my point of view) 



> "My toyota lost control and excelerated"
> "Yea mine too"
> "Me three"
> 
> "Mine never did"
> "I have been through 3 toyatoa's in 28 years and it never happend"
> 
> "See some people don't see it as a problem"




in this case I can tell you, Not everyone sees it, and to be honnest I hope you never do, but what does it hurt to fix a problem?
that is like wanting Norton's anti virus not to update until AFTER you get a virus, becuse if you haven't yet you don't think you will.


----------



## Remathilis

I'm 110% certain that "bonus spell slots for high ability scores" are gone from the game. 

I like everything said. Even scrolls being "damn, I wish I had lightning bolt and not fireball prepped" insurance. 

I wouldn't be surprised if each level is capped at 4 spells tops. A 20th level wizard has 40 spells to burn; some effective due to high level, some weaksauce due to low level. Along with cantrips, this sounds like a good amount.


----------



## billd91

GMforPowergamers said:


> With respect, I don't care.
> 
> See it looks like this (from my point of view)




So... the class balance issue in D&D looks like it could cause a car to crash into a crowd of people and kill them?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

billd91 said:


> Not from where I'm sitting. A player who feels blocked from doing anything worthwhile in previous editions is probably also the kind of player who would feel like he can't do anything in differently balanced systems like 4e. And I think you see it plenty around here too. If an action isn't approaching optimal or not associated with *the way they want to play*, people will reject it as not being worthwhile to do. And that may not be the case.
> 
> I don't see it necessarily as a question of being smart. It's more a question of inflexibility to circumstances, I think, particularly negative or limiting circumstances.




Ok, well I guess me and my groups should stop role playing, we only have 6 DMs about 2 dozen players (incuding over lap with DMs) and are totaly doing it wrong.

I guess it was chris, he was the evil one, he was an optimizer and new all the right spells, and all the creative work arounds... he started it. BUt I guess the role playing hobby is so big and strong that a few less players and DMs wont hurt

 OH wait no this is suposed to be about inclusion not who is better... This is again BS, my players are not rejecting options becuse they are a little less, in fact the problem is that some choose by flavor and others my mechanics and sit at the same table.

an AC 32 warden who can twice per encounter boost that to a 40 who has an attack bonus that can hit himself, for a boat load of damage, at the same table with a AC 19 shaman with an attack bonus of +14 and almost no damage to speak of...


----------



## grimslade

billd91 said:


> So... the class balance issue in D&D looks like it could cause a car to crash into a crowd of people and kill them?




You never saw the GenCon of Ought Four, bodies everywhere and a cleric with war and travel domains covered in gore. I still have nightmares.


----------



## Incenjucar

billd91 said:


> So... the class balance issue in D&D looks like it could cause a car to crash into a crowd of people and kill them?




Well let's face it not everyone who plays the game is perfectly balanced so if the game gets shelved indefinitely there's a non-zero chance...


----------



## billd91

GMforPowergamers said:


> OH wait no this is suposed to be about inclusion not who is better... This is again BS, my players are not rejecting options becuse they are a little less, in fact the problem is that some choose by flavor and others my mechanics and sit at the same table.
> 
> an AC 32 warden who can twice per encounter boost that to a 40 who has an attack bonus that can hit himself, for a boat load of damage, at the same table with a AC 19 shaman with an attack bonus of +14 and almost no damage to speak of...




Yep, they're sitting at the same table. And they won't change anything about how they play to reach a mutual accord? Isn't that a good example of being inflexible about the way they want to play to the detriment of the group as a whole rather than adjusting to their circumstances as players?


----------



## Melkor

GMforPowergamers said:


> With respect, I don't care.
> 
> See it looks like this (from my point of view)
> 
> in this case I can tell you, Not everyone sees it, and to be honnest I hope you never do, but what does it hurt to fix a problem?
> that is like wanting Norton's anti virus not to update until AFTER you get a virus, becuse if you haven't yet you don't think you will.




I'm certainly not trying to make this a personal issue, or be hostile in any way. 

Please take a look at my other post on this subject about play experience. I mention in that post that I have probably been fortunate enough to have great DMs that have insulated me from a lot of these problems, so admittedly, I just don't see them, and that probably makes it hard for me to understand the....passion (?) with which some people post about inherent 'balance' issues, or other problems, they have had playing D&D.


----------



## Tom Servo

Dausuul said:


> your party fighter would like to introduce you to a totally overpowered and game-wrecking device called a sledgehammer.




I love that quote, the sledgehammer must be nerfed!  I say let's have lock smashing as a sledgehammer daily power.

My problem here is that using magic in this way takes the "magic" away from magic.  Magic just becomes another tool in the toolbox.  A glowing purple ray of energy is just another sledgehammer after the 20th time you've seen it in a day.

Also, perhaps related to "magic as dangerous", I don't think bending the laws of nature to your will is something to be done frivolously or for free.  If a wizard wants to expend their powers smashing locks or felling trees there should be some cost associated to it.

Finally, while there is little mechanical difference between a crossbow and a "ice dagger" cantrip, there is a big difference in my imagination.  One is shooting a weapon, the other causes a dagger of ice to appear out of thin air and then fly towards the target.  The latter should be rarer in my opinion.

All this said, I totally respect that others have very different tastes and opinions on this.  I'm just trying to clarify this point of view a bit more.


----------



## Incenjucar

Having to hold yourself back can get really frustrating really quickly, reducing the fun of the game. Better game design can keep people from having to sit on their hands and play dumb.


----------



## SkidAce

Any "extreme" is detrimental to the game.

However, a different perspective:  Holding yourself back can become rewarding very quickly as you see the increased enjoyment of one of your friends come to fruition because he is no longer over shadowed.  Eventually as a group your play styles gel and everyone is playing, having fun, and not holding back.


----------



## Incenjucar

SkidAce said:


> Any "extreme" is detrimental to the game.
> 
> However, a different perspective:  Holding yourself back can become rewarding very quickly as you see the increased enjoyment of one of your friends come to fruition because he is no longer over shadowed.  Eventually as a group your play styles gel and everyone is playing, having fun, and not holding back.




That only works if the other players can actually ever catch up instead of suffering from an ever-widening power gap. If the power gap widens as in 2E and 3E, then the casters are going to be holding back more and more and more so that the thief can feel like something other than a speed bump.

Worse, that can actually lead to people developing resentment of their fellow players for putting them in that position.


----------



## Fifth Element

SkidAce said:


> However, a different perspective:  Holding yourself back can become rewarding very quickly as you see the increased enjoyment of one of your friends come to fruition because he is no longer over shadowed.  Eventually as a group your play styles gel and everyone is playing, having fun, and not holding back.



That's not an onus that should be put on the players, or the DM, by the system. If the systems gives your character abilities that, if used to their fullest extent, hurt the fun of other players, then that's a system problem, not a player problem.

Also, what [MENTION=6182]Incenjucar[/MENTION] said.


----------



## Thaumaturge

As far as wands go, what if instead of limiting the spells that go on wands, the designers alter the number of charges specific spells use?

If, for example, fireball is perfectly fine on a wand, then it can have a 1 to 1 charge to use ratio. If knock is seen as too game-breaking to be on a wand, which it probably is, it could have a 3 to 1 charge to use ratio. Casters could still use wands for everything, but some things would just be more efficient than others. Particularly powerful spells could even use all charges on a wand.

The biggest negative of this would be the necessity to add a line in every spell description stating how many charges it consumes per use in a wand. 

I think it makes intuitive sense that some spells are more efficient when stored than others, and is maybe a better story solution than some spells are 'wandable' and some aren't. I could be wrong about this.﻿

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Dausuul

The ability to stick any and every spell (up to 4th level) into a wand was an aberration of 3E. No other edition has had it, and I see no need to bring it back in D&DN. 3E wands embodied everything I hated about 3E's handling of magic items--they were both utterly bland and very powerful.


----------



## I'm A Banana

I've been over this at length in other threads, but suffice it to say that it is entirely possible to balance spellcasters for infrequent spike effects when other characters can't -- it is one of the things that adventure-based design enables much more easily than encounter-based design. 

The maths I applied kept wizards balanced with 3 spells/day at first level, and you could conceivably change that number, with tweaks to things like check results and damage maths. 

And if one d00d tooling around on a message board can see a way in which it works, I assume the full-time designers can see it even more clearly. Even if that d00d is admittedly stunningly intelligent...and dashingly handsome...

At any rate, it is not the case wizards must meet a micro-level encounter balance in order to not overshadow the non-magical characters over the course of a night's gameplay.


----------



## Tortoise

GMforPowergamers said:


> so your DM targets non threats with MORE attacks then whimpy AC combatants...even counting melee with a staff?
> 
> maybe that was not what you ment, but it is what it comes off as, I will asume there is some miscommunication and move on...
> 
> Ok, your group all charge in and...um what?
> 
> miss alot, AND be on the line of combat...
> 
> I guess they are all fighter Mages? or something? I know I can only remember 1 or 2 times that a straight wizard entered combat and made a diffrence. Infact I can think of only 1 time, and it was totaly badass BECUSE it was so rare.
> 
> If wizards got +1 to hit (or-1thac0) for the first 3 or 4 levels and d6's for those hp and leather armor (or like 4e int mod over dex) then I would agree, this class is meant to go into a fight with a weapon, and then at latter levels use spells
> 
> 
> is getting very old very quicky, and this is not just to you or even on this topic... but it is SUCH BS... "Your problem is becuse your players are not smart enough"  "Your problem can be solved with Better players" is BS
> The problem can be solved by makeing all classes contribute to the game.




I'll cover everything above briefly. 1> I did not say your player's lacked intelligence, just that the choice to stand around doing nothing is on them, not the system. 2> I'm one of the DM's and what you said above makes no sense in the context of the previous part of the conversation. 3> I notice you skipped all the other options that were available besides jumping into the combat line. Does that mean you see combat or standing around doing nothing as the only two available options? That isn't a limitation in any edition.

I ran a 2e campaign with a party consisting of 3 wizards, 2 fighters, 1 fighter/thief, 1 fighter/wizard, and no clerics. The wizards proved their worth time and again both with and without using spells. They were always doing something with the goal being to aid the fighters, and sometimes even they stepped into combat, but never did they stand around doing nothing for 7-10 rounds. When we converted to 3e they kept doing things, both combat and non-combat. System made no difference to how the players chose to run their characters.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Tortoise said:


> I'll cover everything above briefly. 1> I did not say your player's lacked intelligence, just that the choice to stand around doing nothing is on them, not the system. 2> I'm one of the DM's and what you said above makes no sense in the context of the previous part of the conversation. 3> I notice you skipped all the other options that were available besides jumping into the combat line. Does that mean you see combat or standing around doing nothing as the only two available options? That isn't a limitation in any edition.
> 
> I ran a 2e campaign with a party consisting of 3 wizards, 2 fighters, 1 fighter/thief, 1 fighter/wizard, and no clerics. The wizards proved their worth time and again both with and without using spells. They were always doing something with the goal being to aid the fighters, and sometimes even they stepped into combat, but never did they stand around doing nothing for 7-10 rounds. When we converted to 3e they kept doing things, both combat and non-combat. System made no difference to how the players chose to run their characters.




I have had players do awsome things, I have even seen a level 2 wizard (technicly still had all his spells) fight off 4 memebers of town guard with 2 daggers (well miss used throwing knife from combat and tactics) and a staff. (long story)  but for everystory of that we have way more were PCs did nothing of consaqence all night.


----------



## Tortoise

GMforPowergamers said:


> With respect, I don't care.
> 
> See it looks like this (from my point of view)
> 
> 
> 
> in this case I can tell you, Not everyone sees it, and to be honnest I hope you never do, but what does it hurt to fix a problem?
> that is like wanting Norton's anti virus not to update until AFTER you get a virus, becuse if you haven't yet you don't think you will.




Wait, let me get this straight. You want the game to tell the player what their character does every round or for the character to have a "never-empty-gun"? So the game is broken unless either of those conditions are met?


----------



## Tortoise

GMforPowergamers said:


> I have had players do awsome things, I have even seen a level 2 wizard (technicly still had all his spells) fight off 4 memebers of town guard with 2 daggers (well miss used throwing knife from combat and tactics) and a staff. (long story)  but for everystory of that we have way more were PCs did nothing of consaqence all night.




Ah, now I see the communications issue. Equating doing nothing of consequence with doing nothing during a round.

Even simple things are important. PC's do not have to be firing the BFG every round to matter. As long as they are making an effort to do something toward the party goal however minor they might see it at the moment, it adds up toward survival and/or a win.

When a player only considers what their character does in combat as important it indicates a couple possibilities. 1> playstyle is aimed at the tactical almost excusively, or 2> They don't really care about other elements of the game. If I had to guess by your moniker, I think we have our answer.


----------



## Fifth Element

Tortoise said:


> I'll cover everything above briefly. 1> I did not say your player's lacked intelligence, just that the choice to stand around doing nothing is on them, not the system.



No, it's a matter of meaning. You interpret "doing nothing" as literally doing nothing. Those making the argument actually mean "doing nothing of real consequence".


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Tortoise said:


> Wait, let me get this straight. You want the game to tell the player what their character does every round or for the character to have a "never-empty-gun"? So the game is broken unless either of those conditions are met?




No what I want is to have options that are not ultimate power at one end and 0 at the other. I want Cool and bad ass daily powers, but a few fall back weaker powers.

I would be fine with encounter or at will (or some mix).

I would love to see these cantrips look like 4e cantrips (Utilities) mixed with some f the combat at wills (Scorching burst, Magic missle,cloud of daggers and thunder wave)


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Tortoise said:


> Ah, now I see the communications issue. Equating doing nothing of consequence with doing nothing during a round.




correct, if my wizard spends a round casting a spell that effects the battle, then 2 rounds fireing off arrows that miss, then 2 rounds makeing rp moments and 1 round in tha bath room yelling pass, then I think I only did somethin 1 round.



> Even simple things are important. PC's do not have to be firing the BFG every round to matter. As long as they are making an effort to do something toward the party goal however minor they might see it at the moment, it adds up toward survival and/or a win.




ok, so if the goal is kill the necromacer and his death knight, and the last 2 fights of the night will be the death knight, an undead horse, and 6-10 skeletal warriors, and the last fight is the necromancer, a ghost dog, and 2 tomb guardians. 

so if the wizard starts the day at 13 spells per day, and when they get to that last 2 encounters he is down to 5, so if both fights last 5+ rounds what does he do in those last 2 fights that are not combat?



> When a player only considers what their character does in combat as important it indicates a couple possibilities. 1> playstyle is aimed at the tactical almost excusively, or 2> They don't really care about other elements of the game. If I had to guess by your moniker, I think we have our answer.



[/QUOTE]

we are only talking about combat, I have no need for spells or not to RP, or exploration... combat is the problem.



I HATE the idea of combat 1= 2 goblins, wizard makes a half hearted roll for cross bow
combat 2 7 goblins, wizard casts sleep 6 goblins go down
combat 3 goblin king and 2 hobgoblin mercs oh and the wizard is back to doing nothing of value


----------



## Dausuul

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I've been over this at length in other threads, but suffice it to say that it is entirely possible to balance spellcasters for infrequent spike effects when other characters can't -- it is one of the things that adventure-based design enables much more easily than encounter-based design.
> 
> The maths I applied kept wizards balanced with 3 spells/day at first level, and you could conceivably change that number, with tweaks to things like check results and damage maths.




I like the idea of balancing across the adventure, but no edition of D&D has yet done this. _"Adventure" and "day" are not synonymous._ Maybe you run mostly grueling dungeon crawls with a dozen encounters in a day, while I run overland quests where several days are apt to pass between encounters. Wizards in my campaign can blow a wad of spells on each battle, putting fighters in the shade. Wizards in your campaign must ration every casting and look with envy on the fighter's tireless sword arm.

I'd really like to have some "per-adventure" resources rather than daily ones, but it'd be venturing rather far afield from D&D as we know it.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Dausuul said:


> _"Adventure" and "day" are not synonymous._



I get the impression that, at first, in early D&D all dungeon trips AKA adventures, did indeed take one day. At some point players got the idea to rest in the dungeon, barricading the door against wandering monsters with iron spikes or a hold portal spell.

I've seen a quote from the 1970s about some DMs permitting the party to rest in the dungeon and others not. So it was definitely a thing, and a somewhat controversial one.


----------



## Elf Witch

RangerWickett said:


> If you are trying to stab someone and you get stabbed first, your sword won't explode because you failed to hold onto it properly.
> 
> But if I'm channeling the forces of the cosmos and I get stabbed, I might want to take a second to gather my focus before I try bending reality to my whim. My whim is very fickle, especially when I've just been stabbed.




No it won't explode but the pain can stun you. Have you ever been seriously injured? I have I broke my back and I was in shock and confused for a good five minutes before I could react. If a round is 6 seconds it would make sens that getting hurt could make you lose your focus for the brief amount of time. 

I would be okay with rules that mirrored this that taking x amount of damage requires a con check to act that round but it should be for all classes not just wizards.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Dausuul said:


> I like the idea of balancing across the adventure, but no edition of D&D has yet done this. _"Adventure" and "day" are not synonymous._ Maybe you run mostly grueling dungeon crawls with a dozen encounters in a day, while I run overland quests where several days are apt to pass between encounters. Wizards in my campaign can blow a wad of spells on each battle, putting fighters in the shade. Wizards in your campaign must ration every casting and look with envy on the fighter's tireless sword arm.
> 
> I'd really like to have some "per-adventure" resources rather than daily ones, but it'd be venturing rather far afield from D&D as we know it.




I think when most people talk about balancing out over adventure they mean things tend to balance out over the course of an adventure, not that they would be rigged to the adventure structure like a daily or encounter power is (in fact I suspect many people advocating it would be opposed to something like an Adventure Power).


----------



## Doug McCrae

Tortoise said:


> When a player only considers what their character does in combat as important it indicates a couple possibilities. 1> playstyle is aimed at the tactical almost excusively, or 2> They don't really care about other elements of the game.



Combat is the crucible in which a PC, and player, are tested. It's the part of the game in which a PC is most likely to die, which many players regard as losing, or, at least undesirable. Tension is at its highest. It's the most exciting part of the game.

For me, combat is where the gamist (challenge the players) segment of play most comfortably resides.

Other aspects of play, such as portraying character and experiencing the world, are important to me. But combat is where things get serious.


----------



## howandwhy99

Cantrips as At-Will Magic: 
I'd really prefer this to be optional. Perhaps it could be made to be backwards compatible rather than forwards? I mean, instead of casting a 1st level spell to be able to perform a particular magic for 1 day, Cantrips could be modularly dropped for more spell slots? I strongly disagree that a Magic-User without spells is powerless or that spell casting is all a M-U does.

Keep Spells Under Control: 
This sounds like "Balance spells by spell level and make sure they are balanced." I have suspicions it really means weaker spells and fewer effects. And I'm not even going to get into how skill systems are notorious at not working in conjunction with magic systems.

Reducing Total Spell Slots: 
Honestly this is a character level problem. I'm not sure what your particular sentence phrasing might suggest, but spells castable per preparation (by day normally) are already pretty few. And by the time the higher spells are gained the lower ones are not as applicable because the challenges are not as applicable.  One possible progression for a 10 level system:
1st = 1
2nd = 2
3rd = 2, 1
4th = 2, 2
5th = 3, 2, 1
6th = 3, 2, 2
7th = 3, 3, 2, 1
8th = 3, 3, 2, 2
9th = 3, 3, 3, 2, 1
10th = 3, 3, 3, 2, 2

Start a level later for clerics and we have a game that can handle 10 levels of play with 14 spells at once at most. Not too bad, and while spells never decrease in power it's the level of adventure that has increased to make them not overshadow other characters.

Count 2/level for learned spells and we get only 20 spells for certain in a M-U's spell book. Spells found as treasure, on scrolls, etc., % chance to learn, costs to copy, and everything else limits just how big that list can get. And it still is limited by the spell slots. Compare that to divine casters who cast fewer slots, but gain a set number of spells / spell level. Gaining spells from treasure means selecting others to to be unavailable (until bought back in). Not bad, especially when it's remembered that Clerics are never full spell casters.

Spells Don't Automatically Scale: 
This sounds reasonable and basically refers to variable stats by caster level, especially effects like fireball damage. I don't think it's necessary, but I can always rewrite spells to scale again. Scaling spells are not unbalanced.

Spell casting Is Dangerous: 
This sounds like DCC and games from the 80s. It's definitely possible, but wasn't really the default in D&D. It wasn't the act of casting the spell that was dangerous. It was the impossibility to know exactly what the results would be that were. Additionally interfering with a spell could disrupt it, optionally with a possible bad result. Overcasting from a scroll or spell book carried even more potential backfires. Spell casting wasn't ever guaranteed, but it was more about side cases and determining how that lightning bolt bounced or the volume of a fireball blast that mattered more. Perhaps a roll could be had for saving a spell being cast with variable failure too? Sounds like a decent house rule.

Keep Magic Items Under Control: 
It sounds like you're going with a daily balance rather than an encounter-based one. Fighters typically got better attacks (magical +1), while wizards got more due to magic. It doesn't have to be high level stuff, but that would still balance out. The wand deal sounds fine.

Keep Buff Spells Under Control: 
Invisibility is balanced more by tactics, like covering exits, attacking a wide area, throwing dust or flour about, and the like. I might just remove any nerfs as a house rule.

Haste made it impossible to cast, including psionics, iirc. So this really was for non-casters to show their stuff. If classes were already better at an action like speed or attack, now that benefit pays off doubly (or trebly, or quadruply, ...)

Stoneskin, Shield, and Blur (and there are many others) sound like they've always been.

Creativity, Not Dominance: 
Improvisation and number crunching are the same thing and both are supported when the "rules" are behind the screen, but you know this. Improvisation for some is exclusively feel good, impossible-to-achieve wishes. I see it more as quick thinking, especially when under duress. Still, this whole point is the best news yet for spell casters.


----------



## Fallstorm

I will just copy what I posted in the WOTC forums on this matter:

My concerns on this article are is that 1) by using "creative improvisation" it allows to much abuse from both a player and a DM perspective. Spells should have a set mechanic so that a player knows exactly what happens from a mechanistic perspective and the same goes for the DM. Otherwise you will get into situations where players are casting spells and DMS are making the spells negligble based upon some vague interpretation and the same goes for spells DMS may have the opponents throw at the PCs; clear, concise, accurate descriptions are the way to go. Secondly, and it is not fully addressed in this article but Mike M in the PAX interview constantly talks about damaging spells like fireball and buff spells and mentions zones and combos, but I also thought the purpose of this new edition (of any edition) was two reward smart play. I hope that the game will include status effect and battlefield control type spells that are actually effective so that all wizards who want to be offensive in nature are pigeonholed into the Blaster Caster model of wizard.

Also, we are talking about wizards losing spell slots, etc will they be more resilient in nature this edition. Having wizards lose an action when they talk damage is huge as DnD is a game that comes down to economy of actions. No other class actually waste a turn from taking damage and it seems unfair to me to have the most fragile class lose a turn from taking damage, especiall since this edition will not have roles therefore there will be (at least from what I have seen) no mechanic in place for the fgr to lock down opponents and give them incentive to attack him instead of more squishy characters like wizards, rogues, etc.

Lastly, I would like rituals to stay a part of the game. I do miss the utility aspect of the wizard sometimes but I really don't want to have to prepare spells like knock to open a door vs. spells like glitterdust and so forth.


----------



## JamesonCourage

I'm trying to figure out how they're going to deal with number of spell slots. Personally, I'd rather them go for something a little more abstract than "you get 2 spells of each level" or the like. Maybe something like "you can prepare a number of spells whose slots are no higher than twice your class level"?

So, if you're a Wizard at level 1, you can have two different level 1 spells. At level 2, you can have four level 1 spells. At level 3 (when you get your first level 2 spell), you can have up to six spell levels worth of spells. So, three level 2 spells, or two level 2s and two level 1s, or one level 2 and four level 1s.

At Wizard level 20, you can have up to forty spell levels worth of spells. So, up to four level 9 spells (36 spell levels) and a level 4 spell, or five level 8 spells (40 spell levels), or five level 6 spells (30 spell levels) and five level 2 spells (10 spell levels), etc.

That way, you can spend your resources on nothing but big spells, but you run out faster. Sure, you can spike higher, but at the cost of stamina. Or, you can opt for lower effects with more stamina in spellcasting, if you plan on spending some time in the dungeon instead of traveling on the road. Is it complicated? Sure, I guess, but in my mind it's less complicated than "prepare 40 spells" each day. Just a thought, at least.



GMforPowergamers said:


> correct, if my wizard spends a round casting a spell that effects the battle, then 2 rounds fireing off arrows that miss, then 2 rounds makeing rp moments and 1 round in tha bath room yelling pass, then I think I only did somethin 1 round.



A couple of things, here. First, none of my players are going to "spend two rounds making RP moments" and "one round in the bathroom yelling 'pass'" during play, so I'm not really worried about them willingly wasting their turns. At least, not if combat is on the line. If their character objects to helping fight, is trying to Negotiate, or the like, it's a different story, but it's not what you're implying here at all.

Secondly, you mentioned "two rounds firing off arrows that miss" and considering that a waste of action. The problem is, other people are okay wtih the following:







			
				DEFCON 1 said:
			
		

> ... you're doing 1d4+1 damage a round and it's fluffed as a "magic missile" instead of a "crossbow bolt"



In a system where you've basically changed the flavor from "crossbow bolt" to "spell" and you deal the same damage with the same attack bonus, then those spells would miss, too. So, having an "at will magic bolt" isn't any more useful than a "crossbow bolt" in the scenario you've described.

So, basically, if you don't positively affect things every round, you've wasted your turn. I can see that definition, but then _every_ edition is filled with wasted actions. I mean, you included missed attack rolls for your Wizard. The same should apply to every miss from every character. Does that "problem" need to be "fixed" in your mind?

I doubt that you think people should automatically hit and deal damage, but maybe you do. I'm not trying to claim I know what you're thinking is on this. But, just because you tried and failed to contribute _this round_, it doesn't mean you're wasting your time. I mean, it does in that you didn't succeed, but when the Fighter misses, he wastes his time, too. Can he hit more often? Sure, he can. And probably harder. But he can't spike as high. At least, I think that's the current theory. As always, play what you like


----------



## SkidAce

Fifth Element said:


> That's not an onus that should be put on the players, or the DM, by the system. If the systems gives your character abilities that, if used to their fullest extent, hurt the fun of other players, then that's a system problem, not a player problem.
> 
> Also, what [MENTION=6182]Incenjucar[/MENTION] said.




I think the onus is on system and players and DM, no one facet in isolation.  

And I do understand; a better system would make it easier for the DM and player not to worry about it, all for it.

I just don't feel we can rely on the system to solve all these problems that, IMO, also relies on the social contract among friends.

....everyone acts like the only tool we have is a hammer....and the systems the nail.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Dausuul said:
			
		

> I like the idea of balancing across the adventure, but no edition of D&D has yet done this. "Adventure" and "day" are not synonymous. Maybe you run mostly grueling dungeon crawls with a dozen encounters in a day, while I run overland quests where several days are apt to pass between encounters.




I don't want to go on too much about this in this thread, but this is mostly an issue of terminology. The important mechanic, gameplay-wise, is simply to embed the encounters in a broader context -- to get a bigger box the encounters can fit in, so that every encounter need not be the same. 

A lot of classic D&D powers (not just the wizard) rely on this, and I think it is a defining gameplay element of D&D -- the long-term strategic use of your most potent abilities when they matter the most. 

Though actually a lot of the specific issue you point out is more an issue of time-shifting your extended rests. The idea that "1 Day = Full Recovery" need not be true, and wasn't until 4e. 

It would be something like if, in 4e, a wizard had 3 weak encounter-strength powers that recharged at the end of the day, rather than 1 encounter power that they can use over and over again.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Doug McCrae said:


> But how does a mundane fighter compete with invisibility, fly, teleport, and wish? Or are you proposing a non-mundane, Cú Chulainn-style fighter?




Via magic items. Too many people forget that THAT is the D&D way. D&D doesn't expect naked fighters with a steel sword to be adventuring at 15th level. It expects fighters with rings of protection, boots of flying, a helm of brilliance, gem of seeing and sword of might smiting to be adventuring at 15th level.

D&D was never intended to be a low-magic item system, and that is probably why it sucks at that once you get above relatively low level!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

JamesonCourage said:


> A couple of things, here. First, none of my players are going to "spend two rounds making RP moments" and "one round in the bathroom yelling 'pass'" during play, so I'm not really worried about them willingly wasting their turns. At least, not if combat is on the line. If their character objects to helping fight, is trying to Negotiate, or the like, it's a different story, but it's not what you're implying here at all.
> 
> Secondly, you mentioned "two rounds firing off arrows that miss" and considering that a waste of action. The problem is, other people are okay wtih the following:In a system where you've basically changed the flavor from "crossbow bolt" to "spell" and you deal the same damage with the same attack bonus, then those spells would miss, too. So, having an "at will magic bolt" isn't any more useful than a "crossbow bolt" in the scenario you've described.
> 
> So, basically, if you don't positively affect things every round, you've wasted your turn. I can see that definition, but then _every_ edition is filled with wasted actions. I mean, you included missed attack rolls for your Wizard. The same should apply to every miss from every character. Does that "problem" need to be "fixed" in your mind?




1st the problem isn't that they missed, but that they miss most of the time.  and 4th edtion got it right... atleast for me, third at the end got pretty close.

*My perfect world would reskin 3,5 warlock as wizard, and warblade as fighter... but that is a dream.


----------



## Lwaxy

Gold Roger said:


> And how often did anyone use 1st-3rd level spells at high  level?





All the time.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Lwaxy said:


> All the time.




Magic missle (5d4+5 auto damage)
Mage Armor (+4 AC all day)
Sheild
comprehend lang


----------



## Lord Mhoram

One thing I am looking at - Wands hold spells. They don't seem to be implements. 
4th had Wizards roll to hit with spells. Earlier editions didn't do that for the most part (they had saves).

If magic is dangerous, but it causes a lost action, rather than loss of the spell, it really isn't all that different from a fighter whiffing his sword strike. Especially if it is for the bigger spells, and not at-wills.


Overall I like what I am seeing - and I am a huge Spellcaster fan - Wizards/Sorcerers are one of my two favorite classes (other being Monk). I don't mind the occasional loss of an action to damage, I played in 1st AD&D, so no issues for me. The limited spell slots for balance, I'm cool with. I love the idea of a wand (instead of a scroll) being a single spell auto prepared that you use your own spell slots to power. 
I love wizards, and I love playing them in 3.x (and Pathfinder) but that doesn't mean I am not aware of the abuses that can be done.

I hope some form of implements stay around (maybe adding to DC of save or however they are going to do that) - and I love Rituals. I really hope that implements and rituals see some form in D&DNext - they are two of my favorite things about 4E (the other being Dragonborn    )


----------



## Minigiant

Plane Sailing said:


> Via magic items. Too many people forget that THAT is the D&D way. D&D doesn't expect naked fighters with a steel sword to be adventuring at 15th level. It expects fighters with rings of protection, boots of flying, a helm of brilliance, gem of seeing and sword of might smiting to be adventuring at 15th level.
> 
> D&D was never intended to be a low-magic item system, and that is probably why it sucks at that once you get above relatively low level!




Pretty much.

I've seen most DMs pick one of two options.

1) Christmas trees and Scrolls

Casters quest for Scrolls.
Non-casters  quest for magic items.
Caster's can't use magic swords for some reason.

Scrolls, wands, and staves = Magic weapons, armors, rings, and equipment

OR 

2) 
Higher level noncaster don't glow
High level casters are starved for resources (spell slots, spell power, spell known, time, and HP)


----------



## I'm A Banana

Minigiant said:
			
		

> I've seen most DMs pick one of two options.




Those are the two most commonly used, but there is a third:

*Fighters gain magic items they select as part of their "class abilities" as they level up*.

5e doesn't seem to be going in this direction, but I think it's valid (and kind of interesting!).


----------



## JRRNeiklot

GMforPowergamers said:


> are you kidding?
> 
> 
> so lets say you are waking up from camp outside in the woods less then an hour from the dungeon. You are first level, and as such have 1 spell per day Plus 1 for a high Int. You have preped 2 1st level spells.
> 
> 5 kobolds ambush the party, the fight lasts 4 full combat rounds, and 1 suprise round (kobolds get the suprise) providing no PCs die from those 5 kobolds, you do what for those 4-5 rounds. Out of game that is like half hour to forty minites.




Wow.  In my game that would be about 5, maybe 10 minutes.  But why is the party being ambushed?  Did they fail to set a watch or take precautions?  If so, they deserve what they get.



> Lets say you do no spells, int hat fight.
> 
> you get to the dungeon and the first room are 2 goblin archers behind cover with a wolf. great sentrys. How ever this is another 3-5 round fight, and another half hour... then you go into the dungons get started.



  Well, here is where the rogue does his job, or the druid.  Or a volley of flaming oil.  Or perhaps this is a good place for a sleep spell.



> I bet more then half the wizards in D&D over the last 40 or so years would have been sitting out 7-10 combat rounds.




Not any that I'm familiar with.  What happened to throwing oil?


----------



## Lwaxy

Dausuul said:


> The ability to stick any and every spell (up to 4th level) into a wand was an aberration of 3E. No other edition has had it, and I see no need to bring it back in D&DN. 3E wands embodied everything I hated about 3E's handling of magic items--they were both utterly bland and very powerful.




I've kicked the 4th level limit and it is still not an issue. 

All you really need is making those items rarer and more exotic. In my view, there are too many magic items/scrolls/potions/enhanced weapons found in treasures, and usually very illogically placed, too. 

My Company of Chaos group played through the first PF adventures on Golarion and then we decided to lower the hauls of the adventures. By a lot. There was a whole long list of magic stuff even in the beginner adventure. And most of the D&D adventures have been worse than PF is. 

But I hope 5e will reign this part of the problem in.


----------



## Minigiant

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Those are the two most commonly used, but there is a third:
> 
> *Fighters gain magic items they select as part of their "class abilities" as they level up*.
> 
> 5e doesn't seem to be going in this direction, but I think it's valid (and kind of interesting!).




Like soulknives and scions?

Or

Your fighter is level 5. Here's a flametongue.


----------



## howandwhy99

What do you think about "Magic is Difficult"? Moreso than unpredictably dangerous? 
(This being a game and all)


----------



## JRRNeiklot

GMforPowergamers said:


> I guess they are all fighter Mages? or something? I know I can only remember 1 or 2 times that a straight wizard entered combat and made a diffrence. Infact I can think of only 1 time, and it was totaly badass BECUSE it was so rare.
> 
> If wizards got +1 to hit (or-1thac0) for the first 3 or 4 levels and d6's for those hp and leather armor (or like 4e int mod over dex) then I would agree, this class is meant to go into a fight with a weapon, and then at latter levels use spells




A first level wizard in AD&D has the exact same chance to hit as a first level fighter.  So yeah, he can make a difference.  Any person entering a dungeon where monsters lurk better damn well be prepared to swing a weapon.


----------



## Lwaxy

GMforPowergamers said:


> Magic missle (5d4+5 auto damage)
> Mage Armor (+4 AC all day)
> Sheild
> comprehend lang




Yeah, plus hold portal, protections, the already mentioned grease, unseen servant, obscuring mists, identify, invisibility... 

The few wizards I play/ed rather had a collection of low level spells than much of anything 4th and up.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

JRRNeiklot said:


> A first level wizard in AD&D has the exact same chance to hit as a first level fighter.  So yeah, he can make a difference.  Any person entering a dungeon where monsters lurk better damn well be prepared to swing a weapon.




um no, close, most likely your best case senero is a 2e wizard who rolled well for stats and a 2e fighter who did not.

The wizard has a base Thac0 of 20, a Base AC 10 (no armor) and a Base hp 4 Lets give him a +1 str, a high Int, a +1 dex and a +1 Con

that gives him an adjusted thac0 of 19 with both melee and range attacks, AC9 and 5hp.

Now lets give the fighter only a +2 str and +1 con, and no other positive modfires. He has weapon spec long sword. and an adjusted thax0 of 17 an AC of around 4 and 10hp they also get to attack 3 times every 2 rounds (and multi attaack is an accuracy increase.


so if we are fighting an AC 9 with an adjusted thac0 of 17 

then the fighter attacks once the first round and twice the second and needs 8 or better to hit. That monster hits him on a 13 or better


the wizard needs a 10 to hit and gets hit on a 10 as well.

that is most likly the closest you will ever get, by level 4 the diffrence is huge.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

DEFCON 1 said:


> If you're doing 1d4+1 damage a round and it's fluffed as a "magic missile" instead of a "crossbow bolt", and you consider that "playing a videogame"... then I'd wonder what video games you were playing.




Exactly. If you're going to call me a wizard then by god give me something 'magical' to do, even if it is just a fancy dart. The wizard in my 4e game has MM, and it is nice. It usually sees a use or two in any fight. There's always that pesky monster that isn't quite dead yet and is flanking the paladin, kapow. 

Anyway, my understanding is the wizard uses some kind of feat to get that currently. Seems OK, they'd probably need a feat to get a crossbow that is about equal to that. 

I don't see what the "at-will cantrips" thing is about. It is like the reference point is AD&D or something in Mearls head. 4e cantrips are all at-will and always have been. They're quite handy and properly exploiting them can do a lot for you. 

Honestly, playing the 4e wizard my impression is that if you're clever you're able to pull off a lot of stuff. There are a huge number of rituals for instance and many of them are actually pretty darn useful.


----------



## KidSnide

> Spellcasting Is Dangerous: This point ventures into the theoretical, since we still aren't 100% certain how we want to pursue it (so it's just the kind of thing that we want to gather feedback on in the playtest). The current proposal is that a wizard who takes damage has a chance to miscast his or her next spell. A wizard can always instead choose to do something else or use a cantrip without risk of failure. In addition, a miscast spell is never lost. The wizard can try again next round.
> 
> The idea here is to capture the feel of earlier editions, where wizards needed some amount of protection to unleash their most powerful abilities. In play, it means that a wizard has to be careful in a fight, lean on defensive magic, or otherwise stay out of harm's way.




I want to add that I really like this idea.  Because shifting and 5-foot-steps were so easy, I thought it was too difficult to spoil the casting of 3e and 4e characters with a melee assault.  Sure, you could back them into a corner, but 3e casters could cast defensively and 4e casters had close spells.  (Essentially, you were stuck readying an action.)

This rule creates a nice balance of spoiling a wizard's ability to be effective without putting the character into a situation where they can hardly do anything (because they always have the cantrip).  It also has the significant advantage of not needing a map, and anything that allows semi-tactical combat in theater of the mind is a big plus in my book.

-KS


----------



## n00bdragon

GMforPowergamers said:


> um no, close, most likely your best case senero is a 2e wizard who rolled well for stats and a 2e fighter who did not.
> 
> The wizard has a base Thac0 of 20, a Base AC 10 (no armor) and a Base hp 4 Lets give him a +1 str, a high Int, a +1 dex and a +1 Con
> 
> that gives him an adjusted thac0 of 19 with both melee and range attacks, AC9 and 5hp.
> 
> Now lets give the fighter only a +2 str and +1 con, and no other positive modfires. He has weapon spec long sword. and an adjusted thax0 of 17 an AC of around 4 and 10hp they also get to attack 3 times every 2 rounds (and multi attaack is an accuracy increase.
> 
> 
> so if we are fighting an AC 9 with an adjusted thac0 of 17
> 
> then the fighter attacks once the first round and twice the second and needs 8 or better to hit. That monster hits him on a 13 or better
> 
> 
> the wizard needs a 10 to hit and gets hit on a 10 as well.
> 
> that is most likly the closest you will ever get, by level 4 the diffrence is huge.




You know, stat modifiers didn't work back then like they do now. Back in 2e you needed a 16 strength just to get +1 damage. A 17 gave you +1 to hit AND +1 to damage and a whopping 18 gave you +1 to hit and +2 to damage. Now take into account that the standard method of rolling was 3d6 then as well. I know a good number of groups used 4d6 drop lowest so I'll be *generous* and allow that. Plus, since there was no core race that boosted strength you need to roll that 17 legit to get your measly +1 to hit. Suffice to say that in an entire adventuring group it's about 50/50 whether *someone* has a 17, and 18s are very rare special occasions.

So yes, very often fighters and wizards DO have the same chance to hit stuff at early levels.


----------



## I'm A Banana

KidSnide said:
			
		

> This rule creates a nice balance of spoiling a wizard's ability to be effective without putting the character into a situation where they can hardly do anything (because they always have the cantrip). It also has the significant advantage of not needing a map, and anything that allows semi-tactical combat in theater of the mind is a big plus in my book.




I'm a little afraid it will encourage the "the rest of the party is there to be the wizard's bodyguard" problem. If wizard spells are good, and the party wants the wizard to get off their spells, the encounter will, to an awkward degree, depend on everyone protecting the wizard. Not sure I like that.

It might not result in that, o'course, but it's part of the possible consequences I see.


----------



## Elf Witch

I have often played wizards and I never once just sat out combats when I ran out of spells which happened all the time in earlier editions.

I used to fire my crossbow, throw alchemical items, dart around dragging fallen comrades out of the fray and pouring healing potions down their throat to get them back up. 

I was even known to draw a weapon or use my quaterstaff to play whack a mole on someone's head. 

If you are going to say doing all that is nothing because it is not doing a lot of damage so does not count then the issue is not the wizard doing something it is the wizard is not doing as much damage as the rest of the party. 

Giving the wizard to fire a magic missile a round for 1D4+1 is no better then firing a crossbow.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

GMforPowergamers said:


> um no, close, most likely your best case senero is a 2e wizard who rolled well for stats and a 2e fighter who did not.




Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of the average fighter and wizard.  Which means neither has a strength bonus.  You are not guaranteed to roll a 16 or higher.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

n00bdragon said:


> You know, stat modifiers didn't work back then like they do now. Back in 2e you needed a 16 strength just to get +1 damage. A 17 gave you +1 to hit AND +1 to damage and a whopping 18 gave you +1 to hit and +2 to damage. Now take into account that the standard method of rolling was 3d6 then as well. I know a good number of groups used 4d6 drop lowest so I'll be *generous* and allow that. Plus, since there was no core race that boosted strength you need to roll that 17 legit to get your measly +1 to hit. Suffice to say that in an entire adventuring group it's about 50/50 whether *someone* has a 17, and 18s are very rare special occasions.
> 
> So yes, very often fighters and wizards DO have the same chance to hit stuff at early levels.




My books are in storage, but I will take your word for it (I thught when I typed that a 16 str gave +1 to hit.) but that hurts your side even more. Becuse I gave the wizard +1 from str, dex, con and a good Int. So lets go back and give them more realistic (from my point of view) stats...

    Fighter with a 16 str and weapon speclization weilding a long sword is doing Adj Thac0 19 with 3 attacks per 2 rounds for 1d8+3 damage
     Wizard with 9+ but less then 16 str has a 20 thac0 1 attack per round 1d4 damage.

     and that is the best you could hope for, but if dex was the same those ACs are way less too.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

JRRNeiklot said:


> Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of the average fighter and wizard.  Which means neither has a strength bonus.  You are not guaranteed to roll a 16 or higher.




I totaly most have been playing a diffrent game entriely then you guys. 

we almost never (and never for long) rolled 3d6.

We almost always (although not always) had atleast 1 player with an 18, and often most had atleast 1 16.

I have seen atleast 6 fighters with 18xx str, and 2 of them had 18/00 str (one awarded by dm, and one roled in advance but suposadly witnessed)


----------



## AngryMojo

While I really like the idea of magic being dangerous, the idea of potentially not casting a spell while taking damage is hardly such.  I'm far too accustomed to the idea of "dangerous" magic potentially killing the caster when things go awry.  I think there's plenty of things you could add in to make a good "dangerous magic" module rather than a "slightly more unreliable" module.

Imagine if fireball scattered when cast.  Not very far, but enough to potentially hit allies.  Or lightning bolts prioritizing targets in heavy armor, like the party fighter.  Things that have the chance of happening if the caster's aim is off, not just if the player's aim is off.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

GMforPowergamers said:


> I totaly most have been playing a diffrent game entriely then you guys.
> 
> we almost never (and never for long) rolled 3d6.
> 
> We almost always (although not always) had atleast 1 player with an 18, and often most had atleast 1 16.
> 
> I have seen atleast 6 fighters with 18xx str, and 2 of them had 18/00 str (one awarded by dm, and one roled in advance but suposadly witnessed)




We generally rolled 4d6 drop lowest, but an 18 is still rare.  And in over 30 years, I have never seen an 18 (00).  My current magic user has an 11 int, though he did start with a 12 before he got drained.  I would love to see a return to less dependency on stats.


----------



## BobTheNob

Elf Witch said:


> I have often played wizards and I never once just sat out combats when I ran out of spells which happened all the time in earlier editions.
> 
> I used to fire my crossbow, throw alchemical items, dart around dragging fallen comrades out of the fray and pouring healing potions down their throat to get them back up.
> 
> I was even known to draw a weapon or use my quaterstaff to play whack a mole on someone's head.
> 
> If you are going to say doing all that is nothing because it is not doing a lot of damage so does not count then the issue is not the wizard doing something it is the wizard is not doing as much damage as the rest of the party.
> 
> Giving the wizard to fire a magic missile a round for 1D4+1 is no better then firing a crossbow.




Bingo.

Really, if you equate usefulness in a fight to damage dealt, you really are looking at it with blinkers on.


----------



## Libramarian

Majoru Oakheart said:


> It IS too dangerous.  Mathematically, this is horrible.
> 
> I know that in 1e and 2e the math was so all over the place that most people paid very little attention to it....and most of the monsters were so easy to defeat that losing a spell wasn't even a big deal.  Unfortunately, when most enemies have 14 hitpoints and your fighter does that with one swing of his sword, the rest of the party isn't really needed to defeat that monster.
> 
> However, in both 3e and 4e when the math was a little closer(moreso in 4e, but 3e had the issue more the harder the monsters were) it was a big deal.  Often each party member was expected to output X damage during each of their turns on average.  So, if a monster had 200 hp, let's say you wanted to defeat it in 3 rounds(because in 4 rounds it could do enough damage to kill someone).  That means that each party member in a group of 5 was expected to do an average of 13.3 points of damage per round.
> 
> Maybe that meant you missed 2 of the rounds and hit for 40 damage in the third round...maybe that meant you did almost nothing for 2 rounds and cast a spell that did 40 damage in the 3rd round.
> 
> However, it was my experience that if a DM noticed that you could wait around for 2 rounds doing nothing and cast a spell in the 3rd round and win....then enemies got stronger to compensate.  After all, there was no risk to your life at all if you could just sit there for 2 rounds not doing anything.
> 
> So, if you could do 40 damage per round with a spell, you'd fight enemies that required that each party member do 120 damage in 3 rounds to defeat it.
> 
> So, a single round where you were not able to cast a spell could be the difference between life and death for at least one party member.
> 
> As far as the suggested solution...it seems alright to me.  You get a disadvantage for being hit(you can't cast your big spell) but your turn isn't completely ruined(you still get to use your less powerful at-will spell instead.



Well then clearly the solution is to go back to the math of 1e/2e.


----------



## Libramarian

DEFCON 1 said:


> If you're doing 1d4+1 damage a round and it's fluffed as a "magic missile" instead of a "crossbow bolt", and you consider that "playing a videogame"... then I'd wonder what video games you were playing.



If at-will cantrips are clearly just refluffed weapons, the first thing I'll be doing is banning them.

That would almost be like they were trying to water down the flavor of magic.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Libramarian said:


> If at-will cantrips are clearly just refluffed weapons, the first thing I'll be doing is banning them.
> 
> That would almost be like they were trying to water down the flavor of magic.



I think this is a good point. Magic, including magic that can be cast using only time and effort should _always _feel magical. It should do something that a normal weapon cannot, but that is not necessarily anymore powerful for that fact. Differentiating magic from the mundane is as crucial as ensuring one does not always trump the other.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Hussar

BobTheNob said:


> Bingo.
> 
> Really, if you equate usefulness in a fight to damage dealt, you really are looking at it with blinkers on.




So, I get to be a wizard a couple of rounds per day and the rest of the time I'm a glorified commoner with some shiny jewelry?

No thanks.  If I'm a wizard, I want to be a WIZARD.  Or, make me like Gandalf and actually let me fight.  Take your pick.  Because, "glorified commoner most of the time for the first four levels" is not my idea of fun.  There's a REASON a lot of us don't play AD&D anymore.

I want my wizard to look like this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwiLw4uJNp8&t=50s]legend of the seeker - zeddicus zu'l zorander - YouTube[/ame]

What do you want your wizard to look like?


----------



## patrick y.

Tom Servo said:


> My problem here is that using magic in this way takes the "magic" away from magic.  Magic just becomes another tool in the toolbox.  A glowing purple ray of energy is just another sledgehammer after the 20th time you've seen it in a day.




With respect, the vast majority of adventuring magic - whether it be spells or items - _is_ just another tool in the toolbox, and has been from the beginning. Whether from a player's standpoint, or from a character's standpoint in the average campaign setting, there's nothing particularly spectacular about a _magic missile_ spell, or a potion of _cure light wounds_, especially after you've seen it once or twice. The guy who wiggles his fingers and puts monsters to sleep once a day is consistently going to be that guy, every day, until he gains a bit of experience and becomes the guy who can also waggle his thumbs and shoot fire out of his palm. The guy who can brandish a symbol and cause a skeleton to run away might be an impressively holy man, but after he's cleared rooms of undead in a few successive crypts, using the exact same method every time, he's just a guy with a useful skill. 

The mechanics of player controlled magic, regardless of edition, have never lent themselves particularly well to feeling, well, magical. They're very codified, and a _fireball_ is a _fireball_ is a _fireball._ Only when you start getting into things like relics and artifacts, or oddball stuff like _wands of wonder_ is there much of a sense of magical wonder. 

To consistently find "magical" magic in D&D, you have to start looking at creatures and locations. I think D&D excels in those areas, and always has. Player controlled magic, though? Not so much.


----------



## Orius

Well, I don't know how this compares to 4e casting, because I've never played 4e, and also I wasn't fond of the idea of 4e dumping Vancian magic in the first place.  Anything that Mearls is working on comes from the experiences of 4e as well as prior editions, so there's elements I'm not aware of.  Mearls is good at analyzing the game and how things work, but I don't always like his approaches to fixing things.  It might be because sometime during 3e, the optimization approach started becoming popular and reduced a lot of the game to number-crunching.  This is where wizards and CoDzilla were considered the absolute best classes, while everything else was being seen as increasingly worse.  That's fine for something like a videogame, but in a tabletop setting, it shouldn't need to dominate, especially if the DM knows what he's doing and gives the non-optimized characters something to do.

Caster dominance doesn't bother me, but since wizard is my favored class, I could be a bit biased.  That doesn't matter to me though.  The issue here of course is of the quadratic wizard, and this has long been the case.  It doesn't bother me because I remember the old school wizard (M-U or mage if you prefer) well.  The wizard was a powerful class, but had to earn that power, it was weak at low levels, and had the slowest XP progression in early levels.  The eventual payoff had to be earned.  The good wizard players knew how to play at low levels, use oil or assist in non-combat ways, do what needed to be done while the fighters were fighting.  Of course combat was shorter in the past, monsters had less hp without Con bonuses kicking in, and there weren't things like powers and AoOs and feats and stuff going off.   That is when players risked combat, because the big xp payoff was in treasure, and not slain enemies.  Then again, the game really only assumed about 10 levels of play while 3e upped it to 20, and really most of the complaints about 3e is how stuff starts to break down in the mid teens.  Also, one bonus the fighter gained at high levels was the ability to attract followers.  That was in 3e too, but shifted off to the optional Leadership feat, which I'm sure a lot of optimizing number crunchers considered a waste.

At will cantrips sounds a bit over powered at first, but consider that 3e cantrips do only 1d3 damage.  That is comparable to the damage wizards could do with what few simple ranged weapons they had in the past.  Crossbows do better damage, but the wizard still has to make an attack roll.  So this doesn't bother me too much I guess.

Keeping spells under control I think gives a bad example.  Sure that cleric might be wearing full plate and have a big penalty to save against _grease_, but really at level 15 he should be able to dispel the effect anyway, so why is it a problem?

Dangerous spell casting is a misnomer.  This sounds a lot like how it's always been in the past.  In Basic and AD&D, taking damage fizzled the spell and it was lost.  In 3e it worked like this:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> If something interrupts your concentration while you’re casting, you must make a Concentration check or lose the spell. The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC is. If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect.




Oh look, it's fizzle and loss again, though any wizard who's built at all sensibly will have a decent chance to make the Concentration check.  Here the spell fizzles, but it isn't lost, so really it's more generous than the game was in the past.

Don't like the idea behind scrolls.  Again, I can't say what things were like in 4e, but if 3e wizards were cranking out too many of them, then why not do something like up the XP cost?  I remember that low level scrolls at least had a very trivial XP cost, like 1 XP for a first-level scroll.  That's not a huge sacrifice at all even at first level.  Wands sounds like it goes back to 2e and earlier wands, which weren't necessarily bad, but again I liked 3e wands.  Again if things need control, then make them more expensive so that a wizard isn't just cranking them out at will but must consider the cost.



Lanefan said:


> Buff spells got broken in 3e in part because there seemed to be way more of them than in 1e (can't speak for 2e here).  I find people don't tend to use buffs in 1e nearly as much, perhaps because of having to choose between buffing and blasting.




It might also be because monsters have more hp in 3e (again the Con bonuses kicking in), so blasting is considered inefficient.  A fireball in 1e and even 2e could clear out whole groups of monsters at once, particularly since 1e did not have a damage cap on it. 

Creative use of spells I'm somewhat cautious about, but then I'm also seeing it from an older point of view.  I remember how Skip Williams used to advise DMs heavily against this in Sage Advice and the High Level Campaigns book, because creative use of magic could easily lead to abuse.


----------



## Lanefan

JRRNeiklot said:


> A first level wizard in AD&D has the exact same chance to hit as a first level fighter.



Er, close.

Checking ye olde 1e DMG tells me that at 1st level everybody (MUs, Clerics, Thieves, etc.) has the same attack matrix except Fighter types, who are 1 point better.  Fighters at 0th level are the same as all the other 1st-level types, and as no other class lists a 0th-level attack matrix it's easy to see how that could be misread.

Your point is still more than valid, however: a low-level wizard who is out of spells can still be useful in a fight - provided he's willing to get on and do it.


			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> So, I get to be a wizard a couple of rounds per day and the rest of the time I'm a glorified commoner with some shiny jewelry?



You know, if the party was seen as an individual 4e character its wizard would represent its daily powers; the clerics might be the encounter powers, and the other guys are the at-wills.

There's only two ways to balance a wizard: give 'em lots of spells per day (a.k.a. at-wills) but minimize the effects of each one, or only give 'em a few spells per da but make those spells be potential win buttons.  4e did the former, 1e did the latter.  At the same time 1e spells had lots of risk involved while 4e spells are pretty safe.

You seem to prefer the 4e version, I prefer the 1e way.  5e designers, your challenge is to please us both. 


			
				Orius said:
			
		

> It might also be because monsters have more hp in 3e (again the Con bonuses kicking in), so blasting is considered inefficient. A fireball in 1e and even 2e could clear out whole groups of monsters at once, particularly since 1e did not have a damage cap on it.



Hmmm...quite true, and something I hadn't considered; and a fine argument for vastly reducing h.p. totals all round; because blasting *is* fun. It should always be a valid choice, but if your fireball only does 5d6* (save for half) and the opponents each have 75 h.p. then your so-called big blast spell is more like an area-effect popgun.  You're better off casting buffs and support spells, which may be efficient but are also kinda dull.

As far as I'm concerned the straight-up deadliest mages should be Evokers.  They should also be the riskiest to hang around with.

* - by the way, I really don't like damage caps on blast spells, makes 'em far too tame at uber-high level.

Lan-"getting hit by 'friendly' wizard fire too many times led me to purchase this fine Wizardslayer longsword"-efan


----------



## Tony Vargas

Lanefan said:


> There are only two ways to balance a wizard: give 'em lots of spells per day (a.k.a. at-wills) but minimize the effects of each one, or only give 'em a few spells per da but make those spells be potential win buttons.  4e did the former, 1e did the latter.  At the same time 1e spells had lots of risk involved while 4e spells are pretty safe.



There are really a lot of ways.  But, yes, that's part of how 1e tried to balance magic-users. They got very powerful spells, but couldn't use them often.  They also got very powerful spells, but had many restrictions on the circumstances under which they could be obtained and cast.  They also got very powerful spells and faced risks in trying to cast them in combat.  They also got very powerful spells at high level, but were horribly fragile at low level.

Some of those balancing factors fell apart, though.  Spell interruption was unclear and un-fun, and often got softened or thrown out.  Components were a pain to track, so were often hand-waved.   If vancian memorization wasn't replaced with 'mana points' or something, it was obviated as a meaningful limitation at higher levels as the magic-user got more and more spell slots every day.  Where an actual Jack Vance Dying Earth Vancian magician topped out a maybe half a dozen spells a day, a D&D 'vancian' magic-user hit that benchmark at level 5, and kept going up /faster/ from there.  

2e and 3e further softened all of those limitations, and hardly pulled back the power of spells at all.  3.x wizards were thus radically overpowered.  


But, yes, in a broader sense you can give a character basically unrestricted abilities of balanced power levels, or you can give a character unbalancing powers and try to restrict them enough to balance them out.

Doing one or the other in a system gives you a better chance of having a balanced system.  Combining the two creates a lot of potential for imbalance.  Heck, even using the former strategy, but having varied restrictions could be a bit dicey.


----------



## Tom Servo

patrick y. said:


> there's nothing particularly spectacular about a _magic missile_ spell, or a potion of _cure light wounds_, especially after you've seen it once or twice. The guy who wiggles his fingers and puts monsters to sleep once a day is consistently going to be that guy, every day, until he gains a bit of experience and becomes the guy who can also waggle his thumbs and shoot fire out of his palm. The guy who can brandish a symbol and cause a skeleton to run away might be an impressively holy man, but after he's cleared rooms of undead in a few successive crypts, using the exact same method every time, he's just a guy with a useful skill.




Sure, to your fellow companions in your adventuring party your tricks become predictable.  But the group of you are on the front lines against the forces of evil on a regular basis.  Extreme circumstances require everyone using their best abilities to survive.  

In that post I was responding to a wizard having unlimited uses of certain magic powers (at wills).  My main point was that older editions had a system in place where a wizard had to somewhat restrain themselves since their magic could only be used so often.  Casting a spell was like a trained warrior attacking with an intent to kill or like a priest calling upon the power of the gods themselves to castigate unholy abominations; these are the actions of trained professionals doing the things that make them so special and valuable.

I feel that by having "free" magic (at wills or whatever) you risk making it as mundane as swinging a sledgehammer or digging a ditch (both of which a wizard could do without magic anyways).  With no limits why not use your magic for every little thing you can?

Again, I'm not so much disagreeing as explaining why I wouldn't be a fan of such a set up.  I truly respect that others enjoy a different game style than me and that I could very well be in the minority on this topic.


----------



## Daztur

A few other things that kept early edition Wizards in check that were watered down later:
-The gap between basic combat stats (attack bonus, AC, HPs) between wizards and fighter is greater in early D&D than 3ed.
-You often get more fights per day in older D&D than in 3ed (because of wandering monsters and fights taking less time to run).
-As you gain levels in early D&D the critters will pass they're saves more and more often, unless you're really bad at dumping up your spell DC that doesn't happen in 3ed, generally the reverse in fact...
-Although there are abominations like Rope Trick in 1ed, it's generally harder to get back your spells in 1ed than in 3ed (takes longer, harder to magic up supplies needed to feed you while resting, most wandering monsters). 

What I'd go with personally as a balance mechanism is put more obstacles in front of wizards getting their spells back (and characters getting their healing surges back) so it's hard/impossible to do mid-adventure. Something like "extended rest in a safe and comfortable location, camping out for a few hours in a haunted tomb doesn't cut it."


----------



## Orius

Hussar said:


> I want my wizard to look like this:
> 
> legend of the seeker - zeddicus zu'l zorander - YouTube




Hehe. I was making cracks during the show's run about how Zedd was coming off as pro-low-magic:



Orius said:


> Remember that comment I made last week about the magic in the show having a king of D&D feel? This is all I could of in a certain scene during the episode:
> 
> Zedd:  Low magic is the best!  Too much is is unbalacing!.  Even _+1 swords_ should be rare!
> Josiah:  That's sooo old school.  I need to use my Brew Potion feat so I can have the appropriate wealth for my level.
> 
> Later....
> 
> Zedd: I'm glad 4e has made the low magic campaign viable again!  Sucks to be you!






Orius said:


> Zedd can be such a killjoy though.  That mirror could probably be very useful for Richard, and yet Zedd complains about too much magic again.  I think he doesn't like the competition.






Orius said:


> I've been making D&D cracks about the show all along, especially about Zedd being pro-low-magic.


----------



## Bluenose

Plane Sailing said:


> Via magic items. Too many people forget that THAT is the D&D way. D&D doesn't expect naked fighters with a steel sword to be adventuring at 15th level. It expects fighters with rings of protection, boots of flying, a helm of brilliance, gem of seeing and sword of might smiting to be adventuring at 15th level.
> 
> D&D was never intended to be a low-magic item system, and that is probably why it sucks at that once you get above relatively low level!




When I get home I'll have a look at some of my old modules, and see how the pre-generated characters were equipped. I don't remember many of them having all that bling, but maybe my memory is faulty.


----------



## pemerton

Tortoise said:


> Even simple things are important. PC's do not have to be firing the BFG every round to matter. As long as they are making an effort to do something toward the party goal however minor they might see it at the moment, it adds up toward survival and/or a win.



There are RPGs that support this. For example, Burning Wheel has the Assess action, which (i) can provide augmenting dice to your own and other PC's actions, and (ii) can allow the player to stipulate certain features of the local terrain/room contents (BW assumes a degree of player control over the fiction with certain knowledge and perception checks).

D&D does not have these sorts of mechanics. Looking around _can_ be helpful (eg in 4e it allows a Perception check against Stealth), but there is no mechanical framework to make it a smoothly integrated part of combat as Assess is in BW. It has strong elements of "mother may I". D&Dnext may move D&D in a different direction, but I think it is more likely to keep Percpetion as a minor (or free) action and give the wizard PC more wizardly things to do.



billd91 said:


> A player who feels blocked from doing anything worthwhile in previous editions is probably also the kind of player who would feel like he can't do anything in differently balanced systems like 4e.



I don't know of any empirical evidence for this. I have players who don't like the one-shot-wonder style of tradional low-level D&D magic-users, who are happy with 4e.

It's about engaging the game via your PC, and particularly via that feature of your PC (like magic use) that is, for you as a player, definitive of your PC.



billd91 said:


> I don't see it necessarily as a question of being smart. It's more a question of inflexibility to circumstances, I think, particularly negative or limiting circumstances.



Playing D&D is playing a game. Part of playing a game is _playing_.

I GM for a lot of tactical game players. At one stage my group consisted of two Australasian M:TG champions, two local PBM champions, and a fairly serious Bridge, Poker and Diplomacy player. (The first three are now out of the group for various reasons, the fourth still with us. Unsurprisingly, he has the most optimised PC.)

These players don't mind losing (which is not to say that they don't enjoy winning). And they are happy not to break the game. When exploits emerge, as they often do, we will work together to house rule it away, or reach a gentlemen's agreement not to go there.

But they want to _play the game with the PCs they've built_.

The time the PCs all got trapped in a cage and had to do sneaky stuff to get their weapons back before they could then break out and trounce the goblins? Fun.

The two or three times the dwarf fighter has had to pull out his longbow to plink away rather futiley at a target too far away or too high up to charge to? Amusing.

It being routine for a PC to have to engage the action resolution mechanics with some third-rate default option that is not part of the players' vision or schtick? A feature of no RPG that I'm aware of other than low-level MU play in classic D&D.


----------



## pemerton

JRRNeiklot said:


> A first level wizard in AD&D has the exact same chance to hit as a first level fighter.



This is true in Basic D&D but not AD&D. In AD&D the fighter and cleric hit AC 10 on a 10, while the MU and thief hit AC 10 on an 11 (same as a 0-level human or halfling).



n00bdragon said:


> Back in 2e you needed a 16 strength just to get +1 damage. A 17 gave you +1 to hit AND +1 to damage and a whopping 18 gave you +1 to hit and +2 to damage. Now take into account that the standard method of rolling was 3d6 then as well. I know a good number of groups used 4d6 drop lowest so I'll be *generous* and allow that.



I don't know about 2nd ed AD&D, but in 1st ed AD&D 3d6 is not the standard method. The DMG suggests a range of standard methods, with I think 4d6 drop the lowest as the default.

In B/X 3d6 _is_ the standard but (i) there are stat-swapping rules, and (ii) the bonuses are much more generous than AD&D: 13-15 +1, 16-17 +2, 18 +3. It's pretty easy for a fighter to have a +1 or +2 to hit and damage (although B/X doesn't have weapon specialisation or multiple attacks).


----------



## pemerton

Dausuul said:


> I like the idea of balancing across the adventure, but no edition of D&D has yet done this. _"Adventure" and "day" are not synonymous._
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'd really like to have some "per-adventure" resources rather than daily ones, but it'd be venturing rather far afield from D&D as we know it.



I think I saw somewhere - maybe in a Rule of 3? - that they're not planning on metagame style recharge periods, but prefer ingame time (minutes, hours, days) as the measure for recharge periods.


----------



## steeldragons

Coulpa things that have already been said and argued and said and aruged s'more...

Cantrips as At-wills: I don't really have a big problem with this, but not with a slew of "cantrips" that are, essentially, "Magic missile" or "mini-fireball" (with various energy types applied). The cantrips, as makes sense, are the "tricks of the trade"...the MINOR magics that all mages learn before getting into working their own crafts...the way a "master wizard" and his/her apprentice could live in a tower, all by themselves, and get things done...cleaning, cooking, lighting candles, inscribing and transcribing written documents or diagrams, reading and detecting magic. The Light spell as a cantrip was, I thought, a great idea! Produce flame was the only, potentially, damage causing thing in the list...moreso if whatever you used it on caught fire and burned for itself than the cantrip itself. Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Open/Close were all very handy and, if used creatively, could be very "magic vibey," even in combat. But rays/bursts/daggers/javelins of fire and ice? Not really "cantrips"...to my mind/in my book. 

The idea of a spell getting disrupted with a hit gives me no pause whatsoever. The idea that then, after deciding to cast X spell and having it disrupted, you can still use a cantrip that round? Again, doesn't really sit well with my "makes sense"/flavor sensibilities.

The Scrolls taking up a spell slot to read/cast off? No thank you very much. I understand the reasoning/desire to minimize scrolls as an endless supply of "other spells"...but the idea that it requires the mage's own energies to cast off of a scroll just doesn't fly, flavor-wise, for me. Besides, as others have pointed out, the idea of a rogue attempting one or a fighter pulling out that "Protection from Undead" scroll he was gifted (or bought!) from the local Temple of Light are...or rather, I feel, should be...valid possibilities for scrolls in the game...as well as making them more useful as "treasure" as opposed to something of a toss away, "Oh, we found another scroll in the giant's hoard. Here ya go mage-guy." 

In fact, I might suggest...and see as a possibility, that clerics and druids (warlocks and bards and just about any other "spell caster" character), should be able to access scroll-spells even if those spells are not their own "type of magic." Mage casting cleric/divine spells, Druids (Nature-casters) reading mage/arcane spells, etc. Not "above their available spell level", of course...or even with some kind of limitation...the Druid who can cast 3rd level druid spells is able to parse out a 1st level mage or cleric spell from a scroll, etc.

The other thing, as has been brought up hereabouts is...how ARE spell levels/slots/availability going to work? Do we have any definite info on that? Is "2 spell slots per level" going to be it? Intelligence bonuses applied...or applied where/to what? Is that for mages/wizards only or all spell casters? 

Are we going to have a set table of spell slots per spell level per caster level...even per class, as in Basic-2e? Or is it going to be something like "Int bonus +1 (or 2) per PC level with the next spell level being achievable every other PC level? Or "minimum caster levels per spell, then prepare this in any slot you want (more or less powerful), but you may not be able to do/chances of failure increase it if its too high/beyond you? "Max spell level = Double caster level"? And/Or any other of a dozen different ways?

"Full casters [mages, druids, "priest style clerics", etc.] use this table...Partial casters [bards, warlocks, "fighting clerics", paladins or rangers who use spells, etc...] use this other one with lesser numbers/slower progression."? That works for me, though I'm sure wouldn't for everyone...but, the point is, just tell me what it's going to be!

Seems a lot of concern here (and in other threads), be it "Magic is Difficult/Dangerous", "Cantrips as At Wills", Scroll or Wand use, et al. might be greatly calmed (or inflamed!) once we know what the actual spell progression is going to look like...and who/what classes it will actually apply to.

I probably don't need to worry (much) about "At will Cantrips" if the mages are gettign 4-6 "real" spell slots at first level. I don't need to worry (much) about Magic being dangerous/reading spells off of Scrolls/casters trying spells "above their ability" if they have suitable slots in a "safe/easily castable" zone, etc...

Perhaps a bit of a departure from this thread. A new thread on that specific last topic might be warranted.

Personally, just give me a spell table and be done with it. I (indeed,_ any_ DM) can certainly add to or subtract from the possibilities ("+ Int bonus spell levels/day", as I've been applying since 1e, or whatever) on my own once we have a set number.

--Steel Dragons


----------



## Minigiant

One thing missed in the at will wizard talk.

At Will Utility

One thing that ALWAYS BUGGED ME was that a D&D wizard could not have a conversation while flaunting magic all over the place like a major show off.  Floating your teacup in the air. Mage handing your kettle. Heating the tea while you magically flip pages of your spellbook nonchalantly while across the room brushing you familiar's fur and poofing up biscuits. Oops, candle went out. Foom! Someone is at the door. Wave a hand and Open it. "Why hello there. Have a seat." Telekinesis a chair over. "Cheese?" Poof. Cheese.  "It is too quiet in here. You, Violin. Play thyself." Zip zap. "I adore the violin. Don't you? No the cheese is good." Detect poison. "Nope. No poison. Eat up. Now what was the purpose of your visit? Oh Lady Sweetbuns. Should we off that harlot tomorrow or not?" 


But spell slots. And Prestidigitation is so limited.


----------



## Sadras

Dragonblade said:


> I don't want "miscast" or "dangerous" magic except for rituals. No other class gets class abilities that can randomly screw them or the party, nor should there be for any class. It should be an option for those who want it, but not default.
> 
> If plot breaking magic is confined to rituals then having dangerous rituals is ok.
> 
> I also want 4e style implements. Wands and staves that you channel your magic through to help you cast better. Thats how most fantasy fiction works, especially big popular ones like Harry Potter.




1stly) I'm gonna come across a little arrogant/obnoxious here (my apologies) or perhaps old, but did you seriously use Harry Potter as your basis for D&D Wizard design?
2nd) Since you want to stick to most fantasy fiction, including the popular ones, I have to inform you that "miscast" and "dangerous" magic is quite the norm - and it is not relegated to rituals only.

For the best possible result I sincerely believe that the basic Wizard should be just that - purely a simple wizard who casts spells - that does not fit in one particular play style. 
a) At-will spells should be an option
b) Implements necessary to cast spells should be a feature, not the norm. It may depend on the type of setting. 

Spell-casting might be an esoteric skill, it might be the norm, it might be incredibly dangerous to use, perhaps due to some historic incident everybody in the land knows at least a cantrip or two...etc
The options to use spell-casting failures tables, spell casting durations, mishaps and the likes should be available. 

I'm not sure what the best method is to incorporate all of the above and more (to cater for everyone's desires) which in addition must allow for the balancing of classes, which is very important to some. 

This is why in my personal opinion the more I ponder about all of this, the more I think our greatest problem in reaching an agreement amongst us all, lies in this endless debate of class balance. I believe most of our problems stem from there. 
The older editions had a simple system with tables and tables of options available. True class balance (specifically in combat) was not something the designers strived for. Their goals were different. You can see that from the books they put out. 
They gave endless support for various options that players/DMs would be interested in. Realism, High Fantasy, Gritty, Loose, Stream-Lining, Low Magic, Supernatural, Enviromental, Dark, Horror. It seemed like they were more concerned with settings and styles of play than Class Balance.

I have played 2E all the way through to 4E and have enjoyed each system for what it is. I think if 5E is to succeed - their core mechanics should really be simple, and not necessarily focussed on Class Balance, because if they do, I'm afraid their core will firstly, not appeal to the older system players and secondly, might enforce a particular style of play which will not suit everyone. 

Class balance became more of an issue in the later editions - so I therefore propose that some sort of guidance or system be in place which provides advice how to balance all the dial ups/options available for each class.
The people interested in the core basic - wont worry about class balance, they will take whatever suits their style of play/setting/DM preference. They will have a mix and match. (I presume this would be appeal mostly to oldschoolers)
The 3.fivers (pathfinders) and the 4thers will have their dial-ups which when options are taken will balance the classes. There might also be options within the dial-ups i.e. Perhaps to balance the wizard with the Fighter he might have to take 2 negatives from a list: Casting Times for Spells, Miscast Spell, Implement Required to Cast, Spell Memory Loss...etc.

Anyways. Thats the way I see it. I didnt intend this to be so long.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Orius said:


> Well, I don't know how this compares to 4e casting, because I've never played 4e, and also I wasn't fond of the idea of 4e dumping Vancian magic in the first place.  Anything that Mearls is working on comes from the experiences of 4e as well as prior editions, so there's elements I'm not aware of.  Mearls is good at analyzing the game and how things work, but I don't always like his approaches to fixing things.  It might be because sometime during 3e, the optimization approach started becoming popular and reduced a lot of the game to number-crunching.  This is where wizards and CoDzilla were considered the absolute best classes, while everything else was being seen as increasingly worse.  That's fine for something like a videogame, but in a tabletop setting, it shouldn't need to dominate, especially if the DM knows what he's doing and gives the non-optimized characters something to do.



It is the whole notion that the DM HAS to 'give the non-optimized characters' something to do, and that the only logical optimization path is to be a caster. This was true even in AD&D much beyond 3rd level. 

4e wizards are really not as much different from pre-4e wizards as many people have tried to make out. They have generally weaker defenses, lower hit points, less surges, etc. While magic is not strictly 'Vancian' by pre-4e standards it is not really that much different. A level 1 4e wizard has one powerful daily (basically this works exactly like pre-4e spells), an encounter spell (you could still consider this 'Vancian' but just requires only a couple minutes to re-memorize). Beyond that you have 2 at-will powers and several cantrips (all at-will but none of them do any damage). Then you start with 2 rituals, which cost gold (components) to cast and mostly have 5-10 minute casting times. You also have Arcana replacing Identify and Detect Magic, so you can use those pretty much whenever but it requires passing a check for Detect Magic to work.

4e scrolls simply allow anyone to cast a ritual from the scroll (at 50% normal casting time). Any ritual caster can make them for a modest fee. Casting most rituals requires some sort of skill check, so any PC can try to use one, but in many cases won't get great results. Their main use is carting around a spare Raise Dead in case your ritual caster buys it. 

4e wands can carry any at-will or encounter attack power, besides being an implement that grants a to-hit bonus if it is magical, which it almost always is. At-will powers become encounter item powers on a wand, and encounter powers become daily wand powers. There are also many other implement enchantments which are often better than a power, but a caster could invest in a couple. There's no real point in making a quiver full because the cost would be too high. You could do it, but the enhancement bonuses would be so low they wouldn't really be useful unless you're playing with a Monty Haul DM...

Other consumables in 4e are generally limited in utility. Alchemical stuff (oil flasks and such basically) have mediocre to-hit and don't do enough damage to be super options. Potions are quite handy and not hard to make, but they tend to all be defensive/protective in nature (no flying or invisibility, more like healing or resistance). Crafting items is fairly non-restrictive, but it is harder to make really exciting items and the idea is that the DM keeps it in check by not giving out a megaton of treasure as costs are relatively high.


> Caster dominance doesn't bother me, but since wizard is my favored class, I could be a bit biased.  That doesn't matter to me though.  The issue here of course is of the quadratic wizard, and this has long been the case.  It doesn't bother me because I remember the old school wizard (M-U or mage if you prefer) well.  The wizard was a powerful class, but had to earn that power, it was weak at low levels, and had the slowest XP progression in early levels.  The eventual payoff had to be earned.  The good wizard players knew how to play at low levels, use oil or assist in non-combat ways, do what needed to be done while the fighters were fighting.  Of course combat was shorter in the past, monsters had less hp without Con bonuses kicking in, and there weren't things like powers and AoOs and feats and stuff going off.   That is when players risked combat, because the big xp payoff was in treasure, and not slain enemies.  Then again, the game really only assumed about 10 levels of play while 3e upped it to 20, and really most of the complaints about 3e is how stuff starts to break down in the mid teens.  Also, one bonus the fighter gained at high levels was the ability to attract followers.  That was in 3e too, but shifted off to the optional Leadership feat, which I'm sure a lot of optimizing number crunchers considered a waste.



The problem, if you consider it one, is that "weak at low level, strong at high level" is a kind of a dorky way to do things. For instance we played AD&D for about 20 years. Our campaigns went up to high level a couple times, but the VAST majority of play was always in low to mid levels. The wizard is always in that "paying for what I'll never get" mode, or else in the mid levels where he's still really the most vital PC in the group (really, consider adventuring without a wizard, possible but highly unfavorable to the party). If you then DO happen to get to high level you're even better off and frankly a party of all casters is probably the best option past 6th level. An MC thief to cover those skills is quite handy, but you can live without it. The whole followers thing was dubious. Basically the fighter can PAY and work to build a stronghold and get a bunch of considerably lower level (mostly 0 level) followers. ANY PC can spend a few gold and get a henchman that is basically as good as the 'captain' you get. The 0 level guys are pretty useless to a level 9 fighter. On top of that clerics get better followers than fighters do!



> At will cantrips sounds a bit over powered at first, but consider that 3e cantrips do only 1d3 damage.  That is comparable to the damage wizards could do with what few simple ranged weapons they had in the past.  Crossbows do better damage, but the wizard still has to make an attack roll.  So this doesn't bother me too much I guess.



4e cantrips are at-will but can do no damage at all. It is hard to tell exactly what Mike is referring to when he talks about cantrips.


> Keeping spells under control I think gives a bad example.  Sure that cleric might be wearing full plate and have a big penalty to save against _grease_, but really at level 15 he should be able to dispel the effect anyway, so why is it a problem?



The problem is that you have a fighter who can admittedly do nice damage, but as soon as any situation is actually dangerous (IE when it really matters at all) the wizard steps in and poofs the threat out of existence or provides some spell to totally bypass it. This leaves the non-casters feeling like the ditch diggers. They do all the uninteresting minion slaying and the important stuff is handled by someone else. Also, there's really nothing clever about casting Grease or whatever. It is just all rote past a certain point.



> Dangerous spell casting is a misnomer.  This sounds a lot like how it's always been in the past.  In Basic and AD&D, taking damage fizzled the spell and it was lost.  In 3e it worked like this:
> 
> Oh look, it's fizzle and loss again, though any wizard who's built at all sensibly will have a decent chance to make the Concentration check.  Here the spell fizzles, but it isn't lost, so really it's more generous than the game was in the past.



Yeah, but there's nothing WRONG with having spells fizzle. It certainly isn't 'dangerous' as described. I got the impression they were considering something more like a misfire chance, but he didn't delve into that. 



> Don't like the idea behind scrolls.  Again, I can't say what things were like in 4e, but if 3e wizards were cranking out too many of them, then why not do something like up the XP cost?  I remember that low level scrolls at least had a very trivial XP cost, like 1 XP for a first-level scroll.  That's not a huge sacrifice at all even at first level.  Wands sounds like it goes back to 2e and earlier wands, which weren't necessarily bad, but again I liked 3e wands.  Again if things need control, then make them more expensive so that a wizard isn't just cranking them out at will but must consider the cost.



Because the XP cost thing was a royal PITA and made no sense. In 4e you just kept the amount of treasure in check and the monetary costs created the limitation. This allowed it to be fun to make items (vs the AD&D "walk through hell to make a potion, forget it" solution) and yet kept crafting them in check. Again, the 4e wand solution (once per encounter/day use, attack spells only) worked pretty well. OTOH consuming slots to cast from wands/scrolls sounds feasible to me.



> It might also be because monsters have more hp in 3e (again the Con bonuses kicking in), so blasting is considered inefficient.  A fireball in 1e and even 2e could clear out whole groups of monsters at once, particularly since 1e did not have a damage cap on it.



My experience in AD&D is that now and then a fireball or lightning bolt was pretty handy but they weren't the best use of a wizard's spell slots. By high level direct spell attacks were pretty hard to pull off. Half damage from attack spells wasn't really enough to justify them. My 14th level wizard had one fireball memorized. It could do pretty decent damage, but was mostly handy as an emergency way to clear out some mooks. 



> Creative use of spells I'm somewhat cautious about, but then I'm also seeing it from an older point of view.  I remember how Skip Williams used to advise DMs heavily against this in Sage Advice and the High Level Campaigns book, because creative use of magic could easily lead to abuse.




Truly creative use of spells is nice, but most clever uses were pretty much rote by year 3 of AD&D (like 1981 basically). Outside of combat there were more interesting and creative uses of magic. Of course 4e's ritual magic is exactly designed to recreate that. You can whip out any of your rituals and use them whenever you need, but they aren't cheap to cast. So you aren't going to be constantly trotting them out for routine situations, but OTOH when you come up with a really clever use for one you don't have to lament the fact that you didn't happen to memorize it. 

Depending on what else 5e's casting system has in it, it could be good. Seems to me that the whole thing can be reasonably pleasing to all.


----------



## Steely_Dan

Sadras said:


> The older editions had a simple system with tables and tables of options available. True class balance (specifically in combat) was not something the designers strived for. Their goals were different. You can see that from the books they put out.
> They gave endless support for various options that players/DMs would be interested in. Realism, High Fantasy, Gritty, Loose, Stream-Lining, Low Magic, Supernatural, Enviromental, Dark, Horror. It seemed like they were more concerned with settings and styles of play than Class Balance.




Yes, never heard any of this balance/broken etc shenanigans in pre-3rd Ed, it seems like once the whole Magic the Gathering mindset immersed itself in much of the gaming community that this really became an issue (I did have my black lotus, 4 dark rituals, 4 juzam djinns deck and what-have-you, so I understand, but this strive for "balance", like many things, has gone too far).


----------



## Doug McCrae

AbdulAlhazred said:


> The problem, if you consider it one, is that "weak at low level, strong at high level" is a kind of a dorky way to do things.



Yes. It makes game balance fragile, because it relies upon campaigns starting at 1st level, progressing up to 10th or so, and then stopping. If there is any deviation from this model, such as continuing to 20th, or stopping at 6th, or just playing short campaigns and oneoff sessions, then the game becomes unbalanced.

This is also the problem with D&D-style Vancian casting. There have to be many encounters over the course of a single day, as per the traditional D&D dungeon, in order to balance casters versus non-casters.

Take these two factors together and it's an extremely fragile game design.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Also, there's really nothing clever about casting Grease or whatever. It is just all rote past a certain point.



Agreed. The guy who first noticed its power twelve years ago was clever, but it's well known now.


----------



## steeldragons

Minigiant said:


> One thing missed in the at will wizard talk.
> 
> At Will Utility
> 
> One thing that ALWAYS BUGGED ME was that a D&D wizard could not have a conversation while flaunting magic all over the place like a major show off.  Floating your teacup in the air. Mage handing your kettle. Heating the tea while you magically flip pages of your spellbook nonchalantly while across brushing you familiar's fur and looting up biscuits. Oops, candle went out. Foom! Someone is at the door. Wave a hand and Open it. "Why hello there. Have a seat." Telekinesis a chair over. "Cheese?" Poof. Cheese.  "It is too quiet in here. You, Violin. Play thyself." Zip zap. "I adore the violin. Don't you? No the cheese is good." Detect poison. "Nope. No poison. Eat up. Now what was the purpose of your visit? Oh Lady Sweetbuns. Should we oil that harlot tomorrow or not?"
> 
> 
> But spell slots. And Prestidigitation is so limited.




While I've never seen a player use "magic" to such an extent, I've had a few NPCs do...just about everything (maybe not all at once! haha) you describe.

Those non-combat/flavor sorts of enchantments that don't really "do" anything than set/add to a scene...no problem. Not "at will" (least, not the system I play in), but easily doable.

I see no reason the "show off wizard" wouldn't be able to do just about everything you describe (maybe not the "Poof. Cheese", that seems to require a "Create Food") between Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Open/Close, Produce Flame...even just a cantrip_ called_ "Cantrip" for those minor things that don't have a specific 0level spell of their own, this is all easily accomplished.

[I, personally did away with the litany of individual cantrips a long time ago and basically said, "If you want to do something minor, it uses one of your cantrip/0 level slots." easy peasy.]

And any mage, who wants to be a show off, worth their salt is going to have at least ONE Unseen Servant floating around the house to pull up those chairs and prepare/pour that tea for them...or bring them some cheese ...as opposed to conjure it.

So, for my games/two coppers, a 1st level wizard ought to be able to appear as this "master of magic" with a few cantrips and 1 1st level spell (unseen servant).

I don't know...or really think...that the game needs to be overly specific with [rules for] these kinds of flavorful effects.
--SD


----------



## Mattachine

Still, myself and my players find the fluff of "magic bolts" that may or may not hit much more satisfying than "wizard with a crossbow" (or, for AD&D, "wizard with darts"). The difference seems minor, but it matters greatly to a great many players.

There is also the implication that a caster will have a better chance to hit with "magic bolts" than with that crossbow.


----------



## wrecan

A couple comments

*Noncasters using scrolls*
I think it's unfair to make any conclusions about this from the article since the discussion of scrolls was a small part of a larger discussion about how scrolls would not constitute extra spell slots.  There may be rules for a noncaster being able to use magic scrolls.  It could be a Charisma check with a high DC.  It could require the PC to sacrifice HP.  Or it could be part of some 6th level Theme called "Spellthief" that lets the character invoke scrolls and wands without using spell slots, use items normally restricted to other classes, and perhaps even "steal" memorized spells from rival casters.  But since that was beyond the scope of the article, we cant' make any conclusion from its absence.

*Cantrips vs. Weapons*
I don't see how cantrips will feel like reflavored weapons.  First of all, damage-dealing spells almost always have a damage type like cold damage (_ray of frost_) or acid damage (_acid splash_).  To the extent that a roll is required (whether an attack or saving throw) it will be modified by the spellcaster's primary ability (Int, Wis, or Cha), not his melee ability (Str or Dex).  It won't feel like a weapon, even if it lacks unique mechanics like autohit (_magic missile_), area blast effects (_burning hands_), or extra damage against armored foes (_shocking grasp_) or undead (_disrupt undead_).


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> But they want to _play the game with the PCs they've built_.
> 
> The time the PCs all got trapped in a cage and had to do sneaky stuff to get their weapons back before they could then break out and trounce the goblins? Fun.
> 
> The two or three times the dwarf fighter has had to pull out his longbow to plink away rather futiley at a target too far away or too high up to charge to? Amusing.




I can see we're running into some serious style issues here. Yes, players want to play with the PCs they've built, but they can also push the issue too far in expecting everything to cater to how they've built their PCs. There's a balancing point between a GM adapting the campaign to his players and the player adapting to the challenges of the campaign. Different styles of play obviously put that balance points in different places. For example, from my perspective on style, any dwarf fighter who plinks away at a flying target with futility because he can't charge has overspecialized. Sucks to be him. Will he learn from the experience?



pemerton said:


> It being routine for a PC to have to engage the action resolution mechanics with some third-rate default option that is not part of the players' vision or schtick? A feature of no RPG that I'm aware of other than low-level MU play in classic D&D.




I think the question remains whether it really is a 3rd rate option. In 1e, when those magic-users were out of spells, they were often still fairly effective tossing darts at a high rate of speed. Their attack tables were pretty much right in the thick of things with every other class. As they leveled up and fell behind, they got more spells as well. So I wouldn't call that a third rate default option at all. 

3e isn't really that much different, in part, because wizards have a better attack progression than in 1e and can invest in feats like PB shot and Precise shot, which also help their rays as well as firing with a crossbow. Again, I don't call that a 3rd rate default option. I've seen it used fairly effectively. 

Granted, I think the mix Paizo took with PF is an even better one since you can use selected cantrips all day. They typically don't do as much damage as the crossbow, but they afford the PC more mobility since they don't have to keep reloading and they hit with a touch AC rather than full AC.

But with this in mind, I think Lanefan's observation is a good one. To balance magic, you can make it tough to cast and comparatively rare but powerful or you can make it more common and a lot weaker. Those are legitimate tradeoffs in the art of the game's design. I naturally prefer the former because the latter generally makes magic less, well, magic and intrinsically interesting as something different from the mundane ways of putting the hurt on your target. If there aren't potential encounter modifiers (including enders), just more hp attrition, what's the good of doing things magically in the first place? Every tool increasingly resembles a hammer.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Elf Witch said:


> Giving the wizard to fire a magic missile a round for 1D4+1 is no better then firing a crossbow.




Uh... yes it is.  Because I'm doing MAGIC.  And as I'm a magic-user... DOING  MAGIC is preferable to NOT DOING MAGIC.  If I wanted to fire a crossbow... I'd be a crossbowman.  Why is throwing a vial of flaming oil _in any way_ better than just being able to cast a small bursting fire spell?  As far as I'm concerned... it ain't.


----------



## steeldragons

DEFCON 1 said:


> Uh... yes it is.  Because I'm doing MAGIC.  And as I'm a magic-user... DOING  MAGIC is preferable to NOT DOING MAGIC.  If I wanted to fire a crossbow... I'd be a crossbowman.  Why is throwing a vial of flaming oil _in any way_ better than just being able to cast a small bursting fire spell?  As far as I'm concerned... it ain't.




Ok...I see that. I get that. That makes sense. The magic-user/wizard/mage SHOULD have magic available all (or most) of the time...but for a variety of situations.

At the same time, I think maybe it's a matter of preferred flavor and playstyle. 

In other words, how specific can or should the system be that working "minor magics"[0 level/cantrips], that may not be effective in combat, is still flavorful and "doing magic", and should appeal to the player as such, while not being "as powerful as" 1st level spells that actually do damage? 

You were casting Sleep you got interrupted. No worries, you didn't lose the spell...AND you can throw fire in his face anyway? 

Is the ability to do "less damage" than a 1st level spell, at will/all the time, really all that wizards need to be/do...is that what/all playing a D&D mage has come to?...in a game that claims it is taking the focus off "combat only" and including exploration and interaction, as well?

I am inclined to say no. Being able to Detect Magic, provide Light, fool a foe or enhance an interactive encounter with some minor illusions...or Detect same...maybe Detect Poison or Cure Minor Wounds [for the non-arcane caster] can make one just as "magical", more flavorful (to my mind), and allow one to "contribute" just as much as (if not moreso) being able to throw "acid splashes" or "rays of frost" all day.

I get the "I'm a magic-user. If I can't use magic then I'm not contributing" mentality. But being able to/needing to use "attack magic" _every_ round in any combat _all_ day does not strike me as necessary for one to be a colorful/flavorful/interesting or mysterious magical/magic-using character.

Somehow, it seems to a large number of folks it has become/is synonymous with it...if not "necessary."

My knowledge/language/history skills should be able to make me useful. My -whatever feats- from my Theme should make me useful. And, push comes to shove, a stab of my dagger or thwap of my staff [gods save me from the "crossbow-wizard" ] makes me useful also...though potentially quite dangerous to my person.

Shouting "Take cover! She's casting a fireball" [assuming Spellcraft exists in some fashion] allowing my companions to attempt to protect themselves from the "incoming!", or make a last ditch attempt to interrupt it with a bow or charge or something, is useful. It didn't require my using magic...but a rogue or fighter in the party wouldn't have known that. That's "Arcana". That's my [the wizard's] shtick.

Seems I've floated over to the character contribution thread...lol. But I think the topics/debates occurring here (at least in the at-will/cantrip arena) are somewhat connected.

As JamesonCourage is so fond of saying, play what/as/how you like...I just think that the arguments for allowing...no, _necessitating_...damage-dealing cantrips (that do all of 1 or 2 hp less than first level spells) all day are not the end all be all of making a "good/flavorful" magic-user...and "duh rulz" ought not to mandate or even encourage that.

--SD


----------



## DEFCON 1

steeldragons said:


> I just think that the arguments for allowing...no, _necessitating_...damage-dealing cantrips (that do all of 1 or 2 hp less than first level spells) all day are not the end all be all of making a "good/flavorful" magic-user...and "duh rulz" ought not to mandate or even encourage that.




Last we heard on the matter on _how we acquire_ at-will attack cantrips was that they required you to spend a feat to get it.  Nothing has been said since then that appears to have changed that rule (and I'm not saying that it hasn't changed... only that we have not been told yet if it did).  So at least at this moment in time... it appears the game isn't _necessitating_ damage-dealing cantrips for all wizards... only that they are available for those who want them.

And that's all I care about.  That the option is there to take.  Some players don't want the option available at all, because it seems as though they feel that anything that appears in the book is implied to _have_ to be allowed.  And rather than just say 'No' to their use... they instead don't want it to appear.  The exact same argument some players have why they hyperbolically say they will never touch 5E if it dares to have dragonborn in the first book.  And I say to them to learn a little bit of compromise.


----------



## Hussar

Steel Dragons said:
			
		

> I am inclined to say no. Being able to Detect Magic, provide Light, fool a foe or enhance an interactive encounter with some minor illusions...or Detect same...maybe Detect Poison or Cure Minor Wounds [for the non-arcane caster] can make one just as "magical", more flavorful (to my mind), and allow one to "contribute" just as much as (if not moreso) being able to throw "acid splashes" or "rays of frost" all day.
> 
> I get the "I'm a magic-user. If I can't use magic then I'm not contributing" mentality. But being able to/needing to use "attack magic" every round in any combat all day does not strike me as necessary for one to be a colorful/flavorful/interesting or mysterious magical/magic-using character.




But, that's the crux of the issue right there.  Sure, being able to do all of those things is great.  But, with a low level caster, you can't actually do all that.  You can do one of those, maybe two, per day.  That's it.  It's not about being able to attack with magic every round, it's about being able to use magic whenever it would be appropriate for a wizard to use magic.

"Hey, I'd be able to read this funky writing if I didn't read that last funky writing a couple of hours ago" does not say "wizard" to me.  "Hey, I know that I lit the dark corridor this morning, but, I can't do it again until tomorrow morning" doesn't say "wizard" to me.

I want the wizard to be able to "Detect Magic, provide Light, fool a foe or enhance an interactive encounter with some minor illusions...or Detect same" any time he wants to.  The rogue fools you with cunning.  The warrior impresses you with skill.  The wizard doesn't impress anyone with, "sorry guys, can't do that today, can we wait until tomorrow morning?"


----------



## Mattachine

Steely_Dan said:


> Yes, never heard any of this balance/broken etc shenanigans in pre-3rd Ed, it seems like once the whole Magic the Gathering mindset immersed itself in much of the gaming community that this really became an issue (I did have my black lotus, 4 dark rituals, 4 juzam djinns deck and what-have-you, so I understand, but this strive for "balance", like many things, has gone too far).




I suppose you didn't subscribe to Dragon Magazine in the 1980s. Questions of balance, of Monty Haul campaigns, of wizards being too powerful, of broken spells . . . these were frequently letters in Dragon, sometimes with official changes or rulings being made in the "Sage Advice" column.


----------



## Andor

I think the key is that the "cantrips" (terrible name) or at-will spell feats should not be quite so simple minded as "ray of pain."

To my mind the near ideal at-will spell is produce flame. This gives you a little ball of fire in your hand. You can hold it up as a torch, you can light your cigarette, you can boil a cup of tea, you can throw it at a bad guy, you can roll it down the corridor to set off the oil, you can threaten that punk kid who ratted you out to the docksiders. 

It's not a whole lot more than mere short range and modest damage, but it's enough to feel magical.


----------



## wrecan

steeldragons said:


> Is the ability to do "less damage" than a 1st level spell, at will/all the time, really all that wizards need to be/do...is that what/all playing a D&D mage has come to?...in a game that claims it is taking the focus off "combat only" and including exploration and interaction, as well?



Whoa, whoa, whoa!  Just because people want to be able to cast a spell instead of using a crossbow or darts does not mean they are implying anything about other things a mage should do.  What you just wrote is not only a straw man, but an insult to the people with whom you are having a discussion.

That's clearly not "all that wizards need to be/do".  

Really, here's the difference as I see it.  There are three visions of a low-level wizard:

1.  The wizard has almost no magic.  He can fire a crossbow or throw darts as well as a member of the town militia, and he can create one or two magical effects a day.

2. The wizard can create a variety of minor harmless magical effects at will, can create one or two more involved magical effects per day, and he can fire a crossbow or throw darts as well as a member of the town militia.

3. The wizard can create a variety of minor magical effects at will, some of which can even do damage that comes close to the deadliness of a town militiaman.  He can also create one or two more involved magical effects per day.  Because he relies on magic, he may not even carry a weapon other than a ceremonial dagger.

All are valid choices.  The first choice requires a wizard with no cantrips.  The second requires the wizard to select no cantrips that inflict damage.  The third allows the wizard to select some cantrips that inflict damage.

The only reason there is a "focus" on combat is because the folks in categories 2 and 3 agree on the noncombat stuff.  If you want to disagree with someone on the noncombat stuff, find someone in category 1 and ask them why they don't think wizards should have at-will cantrips at all.


----------



## Dausuul

My hope is that a wizard using an attack cantrip will be roughly comparable to a wizard using a weapon--perhaps with greater accuracy but lower damage. Then those who want to throw spells every round can do that, and those who like the "crossbow wizard" can learn utility cantrips instead.


----------



## wrecan

Andor said:


> I think the key is that the "cantrips" (terrible name)



Why is that a terrible name?  It's been used in D&D since March 1982 to denote minor arcane magical effects and it actually means a magical trick.


----------



## Tortoise

BobTheNob said:


> Bingo.
> 
> Really, if you equate usefulness in a fight to damage dealt, you really are looking at it with blinkers on.




You nailed the point. What if the fighter and cleric are holding off the lead group of goblins while the wizard and rogue are stringing a line to hoist the dangling rope bridge over a chasm so that before the main enemy force arrives, they can make their escape? Is that nothing of consequence?


----------



## Andor

wrecan said:


> Why is that a terrible name?  It's been used in D&D since March 1982 to denote minor arcane magical effects and it actually means a magical trick.




Because, as you say, historically it means a minor magical trick. But for 5e it sounds like they are intending the feat-magic to be more in line with 4e's at-will magics. And that it fine with me. But those spells tend to be about as a effective as a heavy crossbow. 

Put it another way: I do not consider something equivilent to a .45 ACP to be a minor effect.


----------



## wrecan

Tortoise said:


> You nailed the point. What if the fighter and cleric are holding off the lead group of goblins while the wizard and rogue are stringing a line to hoist the dangling rope bridge over a chasm so that before the main enemy force arrives, they can make their escape? Is that nothing of consequence?



All characters -- including the fighter and cleric -- have the ability to string a line to hoist a dangling rope bridge over a chasm.  That doesn't exonerate a game from giving a class something class-appropriate to do.


----------



## wrecan

Andor said:


> or 5e it sounds like they are intending the feat-magic to be more in line with 4e's at-will magics.



Actually, it sounds more like 3e zero-level magics, but to be performed at will.  3e had zero-level spells like acid splash and ray of frost that did minor damage (1d3) slightly less than a crossbow (1d8).  (Even Gygax' original cantrip article and a cantrip called "exterminate" which was ideal for destroying rot grubs.)  The difference is that, instead of being able to pick five and cast them once, you pick two each morning and cast them at will.


----------



## steeldragons

DEFCON 1 said:


> Last we heard on the matter on _how we acquire_ at-will attack cantrips was that they required you to spend a feat to get it.  Nothing has been said since then that appears to have changed that rule (and I'm not saying that it hasn't changed... only that we have not been told yet if it did).  So at least at this moment in time... it appears the game isn't _necessitating_ damage-dealing cantrips for all wizards... only that they are available for those who want them.




AH! Well ok then. 



DEFCON 1 said:


> And that's all I care about.  That the option is there to take.




I am right on that same page wit'cha. Offering options hurts noone and benefits everyone. Viva les OpTIONS!



DEFCON 1 said:


> Some players don't want the option available at all, because it seems as though they feel that anything that appears in the book is implied to _have_ to be allowed.  And rather than just say 'No' to their use... they instead don't want it to appear.




Yes. That is unfortunate. It also seems like it _could_ be easily avoided with a single sentence or two in both the PHB and DMG stipulating that everything presented are "options" or "guidelines" or "dependent on your DM's choice" or some such. Hopefully that happens.

Of course, then you get the "DM Fiat- and Rules-lawyers'" panties all in a bunch that "DM choice/option/decision" ought not be encouraged or even offered for the game. The "How can I play [manipulate] a game that's not set in stone? I shouldn't have to and DM's ought not be allowed to think outside the box" and/or "I want a videogame experience from my table-top RPG" contingent.

I confess...I have absolutely no comprehension of their reasoning in that avenue. Bad/Unfair/Random/RBDM experiences, I suppose....which obviously, logically, the game can not possibly attempt to account for.



DEFCON 1 said:


> The exact same argument some players have why they hyperbolically say they will never touch 5E if it dares to have dragonborn in the first book.  And I say to them to learn a little bit of compromise.




Most definitely. I am...or attempt to be...a thorough advocate for the 5e "unifying edition" proposed mission. Offering options is, from my perspective, at the heart of that mission. Inclusive, by nature. Stipulating "rules" for every little thing, by its very nature, is exclusive. It says "no you can't! Cuz the book says so!" Because, as you say, they'll see (or want to see) it in print as a "rule" and not tolerate it being bent or ignored or treated like anything but carved in stone.

I have no love of Dragonborn...but I see no reason for them to not be included. I believe it to be adequately revered as part, by a certain element, of the D&D experience.

For my ideal, I expect to see a base presentation of the races to include the "traditional 4", the additionally "traditional 3" (half-elf, half-orc, gnome), and then the more modern/newly traditional "dragonborn, tiefling..." and I would expect one other.

I am the "burning hate for the unnecessary Eladrin/Elf split" kind...and I despiiiise Drow as PCs, but their place in the D&D historical record cannot be denied (thanks Salvatore!). But, yeah, "dragonborn, tieflings and something else"...and have those 10 as the "core races."

I can easily say, "you can't be this race as a PC" for my games...or "you might encounter these as an NPC race...after that, you can make these characters."...or "they don't exist in this world at all"...or a hundred other variations.

But, it seems, that level of creativity and option has fallen from the D&D consciousness...of a certain level/age/experience of players...and DMs seem, to me from what I've read, are ever more reticent and feel their hands tied to they_ must_ "give the players everything they want."

I don't know when or how this came about. AND I have no desire to "screw" my players. This is foremost a GAME and should be FUN...but it needs to be fun for the DMs as well...and part of taking on the mantle of DM, as it were, is the prerogative to say "No."...or "Not now" if not "Not ever."...not "Yes to everything cuz it's in X book."

Hmmm. How many topics/threads in the 5e forum did I just cross?  lol.

Anywho, yes, Defcon1, we are in agreement. 
--SD


----------



## Remathilis

Hey, a bunch of cantrips you can use at will...

Where have I seen that before... 

[Yes, I know 4e did it first with mage-hand/prestidigitation/light]


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Tortoise said:


> You nailed the point. What if the fighter and cleric are holding off the lead group of goblins while the wizard and rogue are stringing a line to hoist the dangling rope bridge over a chasm so that before the main enemy force arrives, they can make their escape? Is that nothing of consequence?




That is. Awesome, and I mean that not sarcastic or anything.

Infact that is a great encounter...

But the next one, and the one after that...

I bet if we tried we could make a rather large list of great encounter like it... But how many is enough? 3-4 per dungeon for the first 5 levels and 1-2 for the next 3 levels. Oh then the roles switch... And you don't want the same encounter in every campaign...


One awesome encounter proves nothing


----------



## steeldragons

wrecan said:


> Whoa, whoa, whoa!  Just because people want to be able to cast a spell instead of using a crossbow or darts does not mean they are implying anything about other things a mage should do.  What you just wrote is not only a straw man, but an insult to the people with whom you are having a discussion.




Well, that was certainly not the intention! Apologies for any and all that took it as such.



wrecan said:


> That's clearly not "all that wizards need to be/do".
> 
> Really, here's the difference as I see it.  There are three visions of a low-level wizard:




I...hang on...so I'm insulting and straw-manning because of how _you_ see it...with 3 options?



wrecan said:


> 1.  The wizard has almost no magic.  He can fire a crossbow or throw darts as well as a member of the town militia, and he can create one or two magical effects a day.
> 
> 2. The wizard can create a variety of minor harmless magical effects at will, can create one or two more involved magical effects per day, and he can fire a crossbow or throw darts as well as a member of the town militia.
> 
> 3. The wizard can create a variety of minor magical effects at will, some of which can even do damage that comes close to the deadliness of a town militiaman.  He can also create one or two more involved magical effects per day.  Because he relies on magic, he may not even carry a weapon other than a ceremonial dagger.
> 
> All are valid choices.  The first choice requires a wizard with no cantrips.  The second requires the wizard to select no cantrips that inflict damage.  The third allows the wizard to select some cantrips that inflict damage.
> 
> The only reason there is a "focus" on combat is because the folks in categories 2 and 3 agree on the noncombat stuff.




Huh?



wrecan said:


> If you want to disagree with someone on the noncombat stuff, find someone in category 1 and ask them why they don't think wizards should have at-will cantrips at all.




When did I disagree with anyone on the non-combat stuff?  Or the "at will" element?

Not important. It's rhetorical (don't feel the need to answer).

Will do. Though I don't expect I will bother. I would expect that those in the 1 or 2 camps wouldn't argue with me very much...the 3 camp...I don't really know, but don't see a need to argue with them...and I don't come here to argue in any event.

Again, apologies for the perceived "insult."

--SD


----------



## Doug McCrae

Has anyone mentioned the paladin's magic ability to detect evil at will yet?

At-will magical abilities in editions printed when I was 12: Part of D&D's holy canon. As it was written so must it be.
At-will magical abilities in editions printed when I was 42: Those idiots are ruining D&D!!!


----------



## Minigiant

[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]
Unseen Servant is just a hour per level. Kydios the Great is up for longer than 10 hours a day! Who will open all those doors dirtied by goblin and muggle hands? Who will clear Mr. Meow Meow? Or hold his tea kettle and cup during the dungeon crawl?

---

But to the crossbows, cantrips, and contribution discussion.

The differences of editions and character flavor is the heart of it.

When I played 1e and 2e, PCs were squishy. Monsters were squishy.fights were short and deadly for both sides. So the wizard and his "poor" attack (not really poor though) was a great help.

Plus low level was SO swingy that the DM levels the party quickly as 1 too many fights or traps is a TPK.

But if you actually do 10 rooms of monsters and traps, during the 20-30 action of fighting, lockpicking, and trap dealing, the wizard casts 1 or 2 spells. It doesn't feel wizard once you look at it that way. 

Then it is worse in 3E where monsters and traps are tougher so your wizard can't even do much with his crossbow and darts. In fact, your wizard become a liability as everyone attempts to protect the wizard so they can live to wipe an encounter, lock, or trap.


This is why I hope therefore are themes that handle this

One old school wizard them that gives the wizard a decent crossbow shot.

And one canteip caster them that at wills cantrips and does EVERYTHING with magic.


----------



## wrecan

steeldragons said:


> Well, that was certainly not the intention! Apologies for any and all that took it as such.
> 
> I...hang on...so I'm insulting and straw-manning because of how _you_ see it...with 3 options?




No, you were insulting because of what you wrote.  My three categories are a separate point.



> Huh?



Which words were unclear?



> When did I disagree with anyone on the non-combat stuff?  Or the "at will" element?



Here (I bolded the relevant points for emphasis):


steeldragons said:


> *Is* the ability to do "less damage" than a 1st level spell, *at will/all  the time, really all that wizards need to be*/do...is that what/*all  playing a D&D mage has come to*?...in a game that claims it is taking  the focus off "combat only" and *including exploration and interaction*,  as well?



You felt that somebody (presumably DFCON1, whom you quoted), was saying that at-will spells is really all that wizards need to do, and that you disagreed because there are noncombat aspects like exploration and interaction.

Except that DEFCON1 didn't say that.  nobody has said that wizards don't need ot have noncombat things to do and nobody said that all a wizard needs to feel wizardy are at-will attack spells.

That's why what you wrote came across as insulting.


----------



## RPG_Tweaker

I liked most of what Mearls is considering... except...

Wands: I'd make an inbued spell be just a template. It would allow the Wizard to convert prepared spells of equal level to wand spells. Thus a wand becomes a flexibility device and not something like a magic missile machine gun.

Scrolls: I'd keep them as a full spell, but make them *much* slower (retreieve from scroll storage location, unfurl, and read) and easier to interrupt (reading during a commotion is ridiculously more difficult than recalling something commited to memory). 

Also I'd include a limit to the amount of scrolls one can have "at-the-ready".


----------



## I'm A Banana

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> At-will magical abilities in editions printed when I was 12: Part of D&D's holy canon. As it was written so must it be.
> At-will magical abilities in editions printed when I was 42: Those idiots are ruining D&D!!!




You're missing the point, there.

The play experience of a wizard or cleric has been a distinct experience from the play experience of a fighter or rogue because of one big game-mechanical trick: They can do more, less often. 

If you give them abilities where they can do the same thing, just as often, you're ruining that play experience.

Paladins have offered a different play experience than wizards, and one element of that has been _detect evil_ at will.

It's not about at-will magic in general, I think. It's specifically about at-will magic being hard-coded into the Wizard class. A lot of people looking to play the Wizard aren't looking for a play experience that is always-on magic.

I think that play experience of easy, fast magic should exist, but warlocks and sorcerers are better for that. 

Wizards have been a swingy class. That swing is part of their in-play appeal. The idea of using a single spell very strategically to great effect is part of what playing the role of a wizard is about for D&D. 

Taking away that swing hurts the playstyle that many are fond of in wizards.

And pre-emptively: no, the swing doesn't mean it's inherently unbalanced.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Tortoise said:


> You nailed the point. What if the fighter and cleric are holding off the lead group of goblins while the wizard and rogue are stringing a line to hoist the dangling rope bridge over a chasm so that before the main enemy force arrives, they can make their escape? Is that nothing of consequence?



I guess it's all down to whether setting up the rope bridge is a skilled job. If your PC could be replaced by a 1st level commoner/0th level laborer (on greatly reduced pay!) then, maybe what you're doing is important, but you're not.


----------



## ExploderWizard

GMforPowergamers said:


> correct, if my wizard spends a round casting a spell that effects the battle, then 2 rounds fireing off arrows that miss, then 2 rounds makeing rp moments and 1 round in tha bath room yelling pass, then I think I only did somethin 1 round.






Ok being in the bathroom yelling pass is a gimmie. If I interpret the rest of your statement correctly then each round a target saves vs a spell and is not affected, or a fighter fails to land a hit then these characters did nothing for the round? 

So basically the prevailing attitude is either success or you did nothing? 

Please clarify if this isn't what you mean.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The play experience of a wizard or cleric has been a distinct experience from the play experience of a fighter or rogue because of one big game-mechanical trick: They can do more, less often.



In some respects the experience was distinct, but in some it was identical. Most rounds, both casters and non-casters are using a mundane weapon, whether it's a sword, mace or dagger. This problem of too much same-ness is what magical at-wills solve.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's not about at-will magic in general, I think.



 I believe, though I've not got the quote, that the complaint was that magic is being cheapened. It wasn't specific to the wizard.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Wizards have been a swingy class. That swing is part of their in-play appeal. The idea of using a single spell very strategically to great effect is part of what playing the role of a wizard is about for D&D.
> 
> Taking away that swing hurts the playstyle that many are fond of in wizards



You can keep that swing, if daily magic is much more powerful than at-will magic.


----------



## steeldragons

wrecan said:


> No, you were insulting because of what you wrote.  My three categories are a separate point.




As I addressed them, as separate points. Again, I don't see how or why what I wrote was "insulting." But I apologize for it nonetheless. My intent was not to insult anyone.



wrecan said:


> Which words were unclear?




Pretty much all of them. But, again, I didn't come here to argue with anyone. So, sorry for insulting you or presenting, what you feel to be, a "strawman."



wrecan said:


> Here (I bolded the relevant points for emphasis):




Yeah...I read it...read it again..paid attention to the boldy bits...and I'm still at a loss. Just obtuse, I suppose.



wrecan said:


> You felt that somebody (presumably DFCON1, whom you quoted), was saying that at-will spells is really all that wizards need to do, and that you disagreed because there are noncombat aspects like exploration and interaction.




O...K...? I don't think I was saying that...I was _trying_ to say, I _think_ (and, admittedly, I didn't go back and check), that allowing damage-dealing cantrips that could be done at will was not a way to make one's wizard a worthy contributor or more "magicky" than others.



wrecan said:


> Except that DEFCON1 didn't say that.  nobody has said that wizards don't need ot have noncombat things to do and nobody said that all a wizard needs to feel wizardy are at-will attack spells.
> 
> That's why what you wrote came across as insulting.




Well then, again,...I apologize. It was not the intent to insult...merely disagree with what I had read, throughout the thread, that the idea of "damage dealing cantrips...at will"...was it in the original L&L post?...as being something that a wizard "needs" to have to be more "magicky."

As my previous post has ascribed, for all of ENworld to see, Defcon1 and I are in agreement. The option should be there, for those that want their mages that have that, to cast "at will" damage-dealing cantrips all day. I, for one, am not one of those people who feels that necessary for a wizard character...hence, not something I feel the "rules" need to allow or stipulate. The options, though, I have no problem with being there.

I MUCH prefer Minigiant's portrayal of a wizard who uses their cantrips to "appear" magical to those around him/make his life easier...out of combat.

OR, as I presented, a wizard who uses an array of "explorative" and "interactive" magics/spells OR SKILLS to make themselves "useful" AND magicky at the same time...without a flurry of darts or crossbow bolts.

I don't believe I have or intentionally entered into any "argument" here...nor, from what I've seen/received, insulted anyone but you. And for that, again, I apologize.

--SD


----------



## GMforPowergamers

ExploderWizard said:


> Ok being in the bathroom yelling pass is a gimmie. If I interpret the rest of your statement correctly then each round a target saves vs a spell and is not affected, or a fighter fails to land a hit then these characters did nothing for the round?
> 
> So basically the prevailing attitude is either success or you did nothing?
> 
> Please clarify if this isn't what you mean.




Ok that is not how I ment it. Let me try again:

If my fighter swings 4 attacks at +22/+17/+15/+10 against an AC 33 then I need a 11/16/20/20 to hit, around round 2 alll that reall matters is roll 1 is x roll 2 is y , and my last two are not a 20 and not a 20.

Missing on the first one is a miss, same with the second, the third and 4 are mostly time wasting 

If the Mage has combat skills with a weapon (like gandaulf) then it is not a wast if on the other hand you are rastalin caughing up your lung and wildly shooting 5ft left of the Orc, then it is a wast.

The idea of having magic missle at will is awesome, but I will take the ability to pick up the swordmage feat int blade master, and wear leather instead...


----------



## Plane Sailing

I'm not sure if someone has already said this and I missed it, but something I'd quite like to see for controlling scrolls.

What if use of scrolls was always a ritual use? 

It always seemed a little odd to me, the idea of a wizard wrestling a scroll out of a tube, unrolling it and chanting it in the middle of combat with as much efficiency as they would cast an ordinary spell.

I could be quite happy with all scrolls as rituals (and even rituals essentially being scrolls too, even)


----------



## Lwaxy

I'd rather scrolls would be created with a ritual.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Plane Sailing said:


> I'm not sure if someone has already said this and I missed it, but something I'd quite like to see for controlling scrolls.
> 
> What if use of scrolls was always a ritual use?
> 
> It always seemed a little odd to me, the idea of a wizard wrestling a scroll out of a tube, unrolling it and chanting it in the middle of combat with as much efficiency as they would cast an ordinary spell.
> 
> I could be quite happy with all scrolls as rituals (and even rituals essentially being scrolls too, even)




Don't think anyone said that yet, though a few tangents did get me wondering last night if that was a possibility.  

I like the idea a lot from a flavor perspective.  My one doubt is that it might not accomplish what they are trying to accomplish mechanically, which is stop the wizard loading up with a ton of utility scrolls so as to:

Cover every situation
Not need to put those spells in normal "slots" (whatever those are in this edition)
Of course, given the other changes, those might not be as big an objection as they would be in earlier editions using scrolls that way as a house rule.  Certainly, a scroll with slow, ritual _knock_ is not the same thing as a rogue getting you through the door in a hurry or a wizard dedicating a precious, scarce regular spell slot to doing the same.  

I also like that thought for some ritual healing by the cleric or other healer.  It becomes a way to recover from really nasty fights, but the time and gold invested could become considerable, thus not making it a common thing.  

It's a shame that the flavor doesn't really work for wand charges.  CLW wands would be a much smaller issue if each charge took five or ten minutes to use.


----------



## wrecan

steeldragons said:


> It was not the intent to insult...merely disagree with what I had read, throughout the thread, that the idea of "damage dealing cantrips...at will"...was it in the original L&L post?...as being something that a wizard "needs" to have to be more "magicky."



I don't believe anybody said "needs".  It's not in Mearls' L&L article.  (That's what makes it a "strawman" by the way.)  You've invented a position for people and then you criticize this imagined position.  


> nor, from what I've seen/received, insulted anyone but you. And for that, again, I apologize.



I don't see how someone can apologize for something they don't think was insulting.  Even if I'm the only one insulted by what you wrote, was it necessary for you to tell me that you don't think I should be insulted and then apologize that I'm too thin-skinned to handle what you wrote?

Wrecan, I'm a bit concerned by your behaviour here. If someone apologises, accept it in good grace and move on. It looks like you're attempting to pick a fight. I hope you are not, because that won't be tolerated - Plane Sailing, enworld admin


----------



## Elf Witch

DEFCON 1 said:


> Uh... yes it is.  Because I'm doing MAGIC.  And as I'm a magic-user... DOING  MAGIC is preferable to NOT DOING MAGIC.  If I wanted to fire a crossbow... I'd be a crossbowman.  Why is throwing a vial of flaming oil _in any way_ better than just being able to cast a small bursting fire spell?  As far as I'm concerned... it ain't.




Then allow your casters in your game to have at will spells simple I have played in several 3E games where the DM did this. 

I found it no different in the amount of damage I did sometimes shooting a crossbow was better or I often play elves and take feats that make me good at shooting rays and long bows. 

I prefer a game where magic users can run out of spells. You don't. But this is actually an easy thing to modify to satisfy both of us.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Elf Witch said:


> I prefer a game where magic users can run out of spells. You don't. But this is actually an easy thing to modify to satisfy both of us.




Then so long as both versions are options within the rules, we're good.


----------



## Tom Servo

DEFCON 1 said:


> Then so long as both versions are options within the rules, we're good.




Yeah, but unless I am reading the latest L&L wrong, both versions are not going to be options within the rules.  Your preference definitely looks to be the default.  Great for you (I don't say that in a begrudging way), not so much for some of us.


----------



## steeldragons

wrecan said:


> I don't believe anybody said "needs".  It's not in Mearls' L&L article.  (That's what makes it a "strawman" by the way.)  You've invented a position for people and then you criticize this imagined position.




I see. I've never really been able to remember what a "straw man" is. So you are, obviously correct in this point. Apoglogies, again. This time for using language that was too exact to my reading, not what was actually said. A true hazard, to be sure, of the interwebs. 



wrecan said:


> I don't see how someone can apologize for something they don't think was insulting.  Even if I'm the only one insulted by what you wrote, was it necessary for you to tell me that you don't think I should be insulted and then apologize that I'm too thin-skinned to handle what you wrote?




1) I didn't think I was apologizeing to your "thin skin". 2) Obviously, I thought it was...apparently, it wasn't.(?) hmmmm . No worries then? Your skin is adequately thick. confused:?) 

Take my apology or don't. It's no sweat off my back. Again, I'm not here to argue with you. Find someone else.

--SD


----------



## I'm A Banana

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I prefer a game where magic users can run out of spells. You don't. But this is actually an easy thing to modify to satisfy both of us.




That's really true, which is part of why this L&L is so odd to me. They don't HAVE to have a wizard with at-will magic, mechanically, so it's a stylistic choice. Someone at WotC loves at-will magic and is unwilling to accept a wizard without it? That's very weird.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Lanefan said:


> Er, close.
> 
> Checking ye olde 1e DMG tells me that at 1st level everybody (MUs, Clerics, Thieves, etc.) has the same attack matrix except Fighter types, who are 1 point better.  Fighters at 0th level are the same as all the other 1st-level types, and as no other class lists a 0th-level attack matrix it's easy to see how that could be misread.




Actually, every class hits ac 0 on a 20.  The only difference is a fighter can hit ac -5 on a 20, wheras a magic user needs a 21.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Tony Vargas said:


> Some of those balancing factors fell apart, though.  Spell interruption was unclear and un-fun, and often got softened or thrown out.




Citation, please.  After over 30 years of playing in dozens of groups, I've never seen anyone not use the initiative system, or at least casting times.  It's hardly a wonder people think magic is overpowered if spell interruption is not used.  As far as unfun, OF COURSE it's not fun.  And to use my oft overused baseball analogy, striking out in baseball is not fun either, but I don't see anyone lobbying to remove strikes from the game.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

wrecan said:


> Really, here's the difference as I see it.  There are three visions of a low-level wizard:
> 
> 1.  The wizard has almost no magic.  He can fire a crossbow or throw darts as well as a member of the town militia, and he can create one or two magical effects a day.
> 
> 2. The wizard can create a variety of minor harmless magical effects at will, can create one or two more involved magical effects per day, and he can fire a crossbow or throw darts as well as a member of the town militia.
> 
> 3. The wizard can create a variety of minor magical effects at will, some of which can even do damage that comes close to the deadliness of a town militiaman.  He can also create one or two more involved magical effects per day.  Because he relies on magic, he may not even carry a weapon other than a ceremonial dagger.




I'd be fine with either one or two.  Three is right out.


----------



## I'm A Banana

I see this mostly as something that can be handled with classes.

Wizard = You know 6 spells. Choose 3 to cast that day. That is all you get.
Sorcerer = You know 1 spell. You can cast it 3 times a day. That is all you get.
Warlock = Every spell you know you can cast at will. You don't get strong spells, but you can cast all day long if you want. 
Anyone = With a feat, you can learn a spell from someone else's class (wizards can learn a warlock at-will; warlocks can learn a wizard or sorcerer daily; etc.)

You can have at-will magic without mandating that the wizard class does it.


----------



## wrecan

JRRNeiklot said:


> I'd be fine with either one or two.  Three is right out.



What do you mean "is right out"?  You mean you wouldn't play the game that has 3 as an option?  You mean you wouldn't play in a game in which the DM allowed such an option? Or you mean that's just not an option you would ever choose?


----------



## JRRNeiklot

wrecan said:


> What do you mean "is right out"?  You mean you wouldn't play the game that has 3 as an option?  You mean you wouldn't play in a game in which the DM allowed such an option? Or you mean that's just not an option you would ever choose?




Yes.


----------



## Cybit

JRRNeiklot said:


> Yes.




Hope you don't play 3rd Edition, because the reserve feats let spellcasters do just that.


----------



## wrecan

JRRNeiklot said:


> Yes.



That's sad.  I mean to not want to play in a game that had it as an option that you didn't even have to use.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

wrecan said:


> That's sad. I mean to not want to play in a game that had it as an option that you didn't even have to use.




Well, to be fair, if they happen to make a game that caves to his demands, I'm not going to buy it, no matter how good it is.  I don't believe in rewarding companies that pay inordinate attention to "squeaky wheels".


----------



## JRRNeiklot

wrecan said:


> That's sad.  I mean to not want to play in a game that had it as an option that you didn't even have to use.




If it's going on at the table, it will break my immersion significantly enough to ruin my fun.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Crazy Jerome said:


> Well, to be fair, if they happen to make a game that caves to his demands, I'm not going to buy it, no matter how good it is.  I don't believe in rewarding companies that pay inordinate attention to "squeaky wheels".




And, to be fair, if they happen to make a game that caves to the demands of people who can't stand not to be able to spam magic at will, I'm not going to buy it, no matter how good it is.  I don't believe in rewarding companies that pay inordinate attention to "squeaky wheels".


----------



## Cybit

JRRNeiklot said:


> And, to be fair, if they happen to make a game that caves to the demands of people who can't stand not to be able to spam magic at will, I'm not going to buy it, no matter how good it is.  I don't believe in rewarding companies that pay inordinate attention to "squeaky wheels".




We will have to agree to disagree then.  I think it's pretty immersion breaking that someone who can summon creatures from other dimensions can't figure out a way to create some kind of small magical effect repeatedly.


----------



## Minigiant

I just want Kydios the Great to never have to touch a doorknob, read a book, or drink tea... like a filthy commoner. Kydios is better than people who cannot warp time and space. Why doesn't his teapot stay afloat and heated all day. Killing goblins makes him thirsty. He need hot tea At All Times. Candles are for commoners. 24hr light duration at level 1! He's a wizard for Corellon's sake. Why is a wizard moving a chair with his hands?


----------



## eamon

Cybit said:


> We will have to agree to disagree then.  I think it's pretty immersion breaking that someone who can summon creatures from other dimensions can't figure out a way to create some kind of small magical effect repeatedly.



I can understand your preference for at-will magic, but I can't understand how it's immersion breaking.  Magic might well be very strenuous, hard, dangerous, uncomfortable, painful, unreliable, or otherwise impractical such that nobody would bother to use it where a simpler tool suffices.

I.e., it's easily imaginable to have a world where noone goes around casting all the time, and instead just uses a bow or a club for low-risk mundane activity.  I'd love to see that kind of setting enabled by the rules; it'd be a natural fit for something like dark sun, for instance.

Indeed, there's _lots_ of fantasy where magic is highly rare and unusual and anything _but_ an everyday activity.

This kind of thing doesn't have to be a deal-breaker for anyone; just have two different variants: one in which the wizard has middling proficiency with weapons, and other where at-will magic exists.  It shouldn't be too hard to balance these too options; and if preferred, the group can settle on using only one or the other for setting consistency.


----------



## grimslade

*When the thread is over... turn out the lights*

Ahh we have discussed the topic enough to get to the WRONGBADFUN exchange. Sigh.

At-will cantrips are not immersion breaking for me. Let me repeat: fro me. Access to a night light and the ability to spice my food at-will is not so magical to my modern ears, but preferences are preferences. There will be an easy fix to it that requires little page space. A magical rare campaign will curtail it to max slots per level per day or something. Maybe you limit it to X/day and you gain another cantrip like Hairy or Ghost Step.

I hope the at-will damage spells are acquired via feat. If warlocks are allowed to go all day long with the pact pew pew, wizards will find a way via research to emulate it. So Jimmy the Cormyrean War Wizard learns to throw out Purple Dragon Lances at-will, while Mordy the Sea Wizard from Gradsul learned to summon Croaker, his Axiomatic raven familiar.


----------



## Wulfgar76

JRRNeiklot said:


> If it's going on at the table, it will break my immersion significantly enough to ruin my fun.




Oh good grief. 

SO snapping your fingers to perform universe-altering magic; gating in demons, teleporting across planes and raining meteors from the sky is perfectly awesome.

But shooting little bolts of magic energy once per round - that just sucks the fun right out of the game?


----------



## thalmin

How about waiting until we have been able to playtest a bit so we know what we are arguing about, and then provide playtest feedback to Wizards of the Coast?


----------



## Tom Servo

Wulfgar76 said:


> But shooting little bolts of magic energy once per round - that just sucks the fun right out of the game?




I think a couple of us have expressed this, in different ways, throughout this thread.  It is not to some people's taste.  Do you not believe us?


----------



## wrecan

JRRNeiklot said:


> If it's going on at the table, it will break my immersion significantly enough to ruin my fun.



One of the options I offered was that it was in the game as an option that your table could reject!  Go back and read the post.


----------



## wrecan

I understand that some people don't like crossbow wizards.  I understand that some people don't like cantrip-attack wizards.  I don't understand people who can't abide a game who has crossbow wizards or cantrip-attack wizards as an option in the game.

(Alternately, I don't understand why people would not bother to read a very short post that offers that as a suggestion before responding to it in a way to indicate they wouldn't want such an option to even be available.  A discussion forum where people won't even read the posts to which they respond is useless.  You might as well have a blog or stand on a street corner and shout at passersby.)


----------



## Incenjucar

wrecan said:


> One of the options I offered was that it was in the game as an option that your table could reject!  Go back and read the post.




Some people do not want other people to actually have those options.

Modules are wrongbadfun.


----------



## billd91

Wulfgar76 said:


> Oh good grief.
> 
> SO snapping your fingers to perform universe-altering magic; gating in demons, teleporting across planes and raining meteors from the sky is perfectly awesome.
> 
> But shooting little bolts of magic energy once per round - that just sucks the fun right out of the game?




Who are you to judge? Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Incenjucar said:


> Some people do not want other people to actually have those options.
> 
> Modules are wrongbadfun.




That's really a difference.  I want other people to have their badwrongfun so that I have a better chance of having my badwrongfun.  Especially since my badwrongfun changes from time to time, and has sometimes been a minority taste.


----------



## Libramarian

Wulfgar76 said:


> Oh good grief.
> 
> SO snapping your fingers to perform universe-altering magic; gating in demons, teleporting across planes and raining meteors from the sky is perfectly awesome.
> 
> But shooting little bolts of magic energy once per round - that just sucks the fun right out of the game?



Let me try to explain why I'm not really into at-will blasty magic.

I don't like the idea of the Wizard doing everything in a wizardly way. I  like each class having a distinctive and useful shtick, but I also like  a significant portion of the game to treat all the classes as kind of the  same -- as "adventurers". The first thing distinguishing PCs from  commoners is that they're adventurers.

If I may draw an analogy with a imaginary modern military class-based  game, I want all PCs to first be distinguished from commoners as  soldiers are from civilians. Then you have a Fighter class with an assault  rifle and a handgun, and a Wizard class with some grenades and a  handgun. When they run out of grenades, they use their handgun. That  establishes some sort of basic connection with the Fighter class that I  find pleasing. I don't like the idea of a Wizard class that, when they  run out of hand grenades, they start flicking little pea-sized grenades  that appear to have a very similar if not identical effect to the  handgun. And they have grenades on their uniform and their helmet is in  the shape of a grenade, etc. That plays up the superficial aspect of  their class flavor too much. It's goofy.

That is to say, in a rambling way, that for me the wizard's flavor comes  mostly from the structural/gamist aspect of having a limited resource  that when used has a dramatic impact. It's not so much the superficial  aspect of their attacks "looking" magical. So for me, giving them  at-will magical abilities muddles their class flavor more than  reinforces it.


----------



## Lanefan

Crazy Jerome said:


> That's really a difference.  I want other people to have their badwrongfun so that I have a better chance of having my badwrongfun.  Especially since my badwrongfun changes from time to time, and has sometimes been a minority taste.



Whereas my badwrongfun is still exactly what it's always been: bad, wrong, and fun! 

Lan-"but leave me out of the doubleplusungoodfun"-efan


----------



## hafrogman

Libramarian said:


> If I may draw an analogy with a imaginary modern military class-based  game, I want all PCs to first be distinguished from commoners as  soldiers are from civilians. Then you have a Fighter class with an assault  rifle and a handgun, and a Wizard class with some grenades and a  handgun. When they run out of grenades, they use their handgun. That  establishes some sort of basic connection with the Fighter class that I  find pleasing. I don't like the idea of a Wizard class that, when they  run out of hand grenades, they start flicking little pea-sized grenades  that appear to have a very similar if not identical effect to the  handgun. And they have grenades on their uniform and their helmet is in  the shape of a grenade, etc. That plays up the superficial aspect of  their class flavor too much. It's goofy.



And I guess the place where this falls apart for the rest of us is that wizards are pretty much defined by their inability to use a gun correctly.  That is to say, they are just as bad at ranged and melee combat as any untrained commoner/civilian.  Once they're out of hand grenades, they don't have a handgun . . . they have a slingshot.


----------



## Elf Witch

The reason I don't like at will for wizards is because of the nature of wizards in DnD. Wizards are not magical they learn formulas and then wield those formulas into arcane might.

I like the fact that wizards can in the right circumstances learn every spell in the universe and even make more. They do this because they are intelligent. Not because they have magic flowing through them. 

I don't have an issue with wizards having little cantrips like prestidigitation or light non assault magics at will.  

Now sorcerers and warlocks do have magic flowing their veins and and are more the candidates for at wills then the wizard. 

Someone brought up Zed from Legend of the Seeker they call him a wizard but he is not a DnD wizard he is more like a DnD sorcerer the same with Gandalf he is a sorcerer not a DnD wizard he does not need a spellbook to throw magic around.


----------



## Fifth Element

Elf Witch said:


> Someone brought up Zed from Legend of the Seeker they call him a wizard but he is not a DnD wizard he is more like a DnD sorcerer the same with Gandalf he is a sorcerer not a DnD wizard he does not need a spellbook to throw magic around.



Sorry, Gandalf is a 5th-level magic-user. Everyone knows that.


----------



## Elf Witch

hafrogman said:


> And I guess the place where this falls apart for the rest of us is that wizards are pretty much defined by their inability to use a gun correctly.  That is to say, they are just as bad at ranged and melee combat as any untrained commoner/civilian.  Once they're out of hand grenades, they don't have a handgun . . . they have a slingshot.




These threads are confusing me on one hand people are complaining that wizards get to many spells and they rule the game and on the other hand they are complaining that it sucks to be them if they run out of spells.


----------



## dd.stevenson

Elf Witch said:


> These threads are confusing me on one hand people are complaining that wizards get to many spells and they rule the game and on the other hand they are complaining that it sucks to be them if they run out of spells.




Arcane magic is one of those things that has changed considerably from edition to edition.  Personally I don't hold out much hope that WotC will be able to pitch their "big tent" without offering GMs several different versions of the class to choose from.

Questions of wizard class design are bigger than PC balance, too.  Many (most?) d&d style stories are driven by the machinations of wizards, and the (im)balance of arcane magic heavily drives the implied setting.


----------



## Hussar

Tom Servo said:


> I think a couple of us have expressed this, in different ways, throughout this thread.  It is not to some people's taste.  Do you not believe us?




That you don't want to play it is 100% groovy.  That you're imposing your tastes on the rest of us is not.  Everyone in this thread has agreed that either way should be an OPTION.  You get the once a day wizzie and the other guy gets the all day wizzie.  

What blows my mind is people like JRRNeikalot telling other players at the same table that they cannot play a given class because it hurts his suspension of disbelief.  He doesn't want to play that character?  Groovy.  Telling me not to because of his own hangups?  Not bloody likely.

As a DM, you get to do that because you get to set the campaign parameters.  Fair enough.  I can choose to play or not.  But, as a fellow player?  Please worry about your character and I'll take care of mine, thankyouverymuch.


----------



## Hussar

Fifth Element said:


> Sorry, Gandalf is a 5th-level magic-user. Everyone knows that.




I thought he was a druid.


----------



## Hussar

Elf Witch said:


> These threads are confusing me on one hand people are complaining that wizards get to many spells and they rule the game and on the other hand they are complaining that it sucks to be them if they run out of spells.




The part you're ignoring is level.  

Low level wizard = running out of spells.  High level wizard = campaign domination.  

What's being advocated is a more balanced approach where the low level guy has something magical to do most of the time and the high level guy is reined in somewhat so he isn't completely changing the nature of the campaign.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Tom Servo said:


> Yeah, but unless I am reading the latest L&L wrong, both versions are not going to be options within the rules.  Your preference definitely looks to be the default.  Great for you (I don't say that in a begrudging way), not so much for some of us.




Well, as I've mentioned in some other threads... the L&L article didn't really specify _how_ at-will cantrips would be acquired (just that we'd have them).  The last time it had been mentioned by WotC on at-will acquisition, what we were told was that you'd have to spend a feat to get it.  I do not know if that rule has changed since then... but as far as what that most up-to-date info gave us... the default was actually no at-wills, and spending feats was the option.

Now maybe this L&L is meant to imply that at-wills are default, but I would rather have thought they'd specifically mention changing their previous stance on the subject if it did.

But on the bright side... having a 'no at-will' option in the game is something that can easily be mentioned during playtesting and thus quite easily achieved.


----------



## I'm A Banana

The problem being that the L&L article doesn't imply this will be an option, it implies that _this is the way Wizards work_.

Look, people have their own preferences and they can be as arbitrary or insane as they really want. No one here can tell anyone else that their preferences for the way they like to pretend to be a magical elf are _wrong_. 

That's not really at issue, here. Even if some folks detest it as an option, that's something they're free to do. 

At issue is that there is a playstyle that the old-school "a few powerful spells is all you get" embodies that isn't embodied by this vision of a 5e wizard.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Low level wizard = running out of spells. High level wizard = campaign domination.
> 
> What's being advocated is a more balanced approach where the low level guy has something magical to do most of the time and the high level guy is reined in somewhat so he isn't completely changing the nature of the campaign.




But that's the thing: this isn't necessary for balance. You can balance even "Vancian" wizards by giving them a hard limit on spells per day. You don't need to add cantrips to low-level casters.

Wizards don't need to have at-will magic powers to be balanced. It's unnecessary. Some folks like having that, and that's cool, and I think they should have that option, but this column doesn't describe it as an option, it describes it as the way things are. 

If that is the case, then this is 5e failing on modularity, failing on replicating the feel of early editions, and possibly failing to understand player psychology on a pretty fundamental level. 

It's a playtest, so we can certainly tell them that and see them change it. But it's a legit beef to have.

And I think that, as petty as some players can be about stuff like this, if it's presented in the right way, the vast majority can find it acceptable -- as an option. 

Not-the-right-way includes not really understanding the gameplay effects of the game you're designing, but it's also not even a playstest yet, so making mistakes is forgivable. 

Anyway, folks need to calm the frig down.


----------



## Elf Witch

Hussar said:


> The part you're ignoring is level.
> 
> Low level wizard = running out of spells.  High level wizard = campaign domination.
> 
> What's being advocated is a more balanced approach where the low level guy has something magical to do most of the time and the high level guy is reined in somewhat so he isn't completely changing the nature of the campaign.




What seems to be advocated is the mages have something magical to do all the time. 

DnD needs to decide just how magical magic is and what it can it do. Is magic powerful enough at high levels to reorder time and allow mages to reign destruction down on entire armies or is less strong more mundane in its uses.

More Gandalf or Merlin like less  Eliminster. 

In all the threads I read it not just the complaint that mages have so many spells it is that they can do things like teleport or polymorph. 

I read complaints that I want my fighter to be more like Hercules or Conan and they can't. And people tend to blame the magic system for that. But even if magic is nerfed it is still hard to play Hercules or Conan with a straight fighter. 

I don't think any edition has gotten it right yet. So here is hoping 5E can.


----------



## Tom Servo

Hussar said:


> That you don't want to play it is 100% groovy.  That you're imposing your tastes on the rest of us is not.  Everyone in this thread has agreed that either way should be an OPTION.  You get the once a day wizzie and the other guy gets the all day wizzie.




I don't believe I was trying to impose my tastes on anyone, I was simply stating them.  But, I don't believe you were actually trying to single me out, so I take your point.  Options are a good thing.  The original L&L article didn't make at-will offensive magic sound very optional though, in fact it sounded like an important prerequisite to everything that followed, but that's a side point to all of this.



> What blows my mind is people like JRRNeikalot telling other players at the same table that they cannot play a given class because it hurts his suspension of disbelief.  He doesn't want to play that character?  Groovy.  Telling me not to because of his own hangups?  Not bloody likely.



Actually, if I read it correctly, the options offered by wrecan involved everyone at the same table playing in the same style.  I don't think he was suggesting having a "crossbow wizard" and a "cantrip wizard" sitting at the same table at the same time.  It is a decision the group must make.  I think that is a wise way of offering the options.  There is an important shared aspect to tabletop rpgs, it can't be everything for everyone at the same time.



> As a DM, you get to do that because you get to set the campaign parameters.  Fair enough.  I can choose to play or not.  But, as a fellow player?  Please worry about your character and I'll take care of mine, thankyouverymuch.



Absolutely, like it or leave it.  In this hobby there is no reason to play something your not having fun with.  I'm sure most of us will find a happy arrangement in our groups despite various tastes and preferences.


----------



## Incenjucar

Elf Witch said:


> DnD needs to decide just how magical magic is and what it can it do.




I disagree.

Given the whole "module" concept, What D&D needs to do is establish a workable baseline that can be most easily modified by the players to fit what THEY want magic to be, and for them to provide tools and guidelines to allow this.

Default D&D needs to be balanced, but there's no reason they cannot reintroduce the old imbalances through options, or even make a crazier range of them than ever before.


----------



## Hussar

KM said:
			
		

> But that's the thing: this isn't necessary for balance. You can balance even "Vancian" wizards by giving them a hard limit on spells per day. You don't need to add cantrips to low-level casters.




But, then you have the issue at the low end where you have so few spells that most of the time you are not doing anything directly related to your class.

I suppose the hard limit could be high enough that that doesn't happen, but, then you have the issue on the other end where the high level caster changes the nature of the campaign.

I'm really having a problem seeing the issue with the wizard having a combination of the two systems.  You have a magical power that is analogous to a regular attack/skill check/mundane action that is at will and a sharply limited list of fire and forget magic for the big guns.



Elf Witch said:


> What seems to be advocated is the mages have something magical to do all the time.




Yup.


> DnD needs to decide just how magical magic is and what it can it do. Is magic powerful enough at high levels to reorder time and allow mages to reign destruction down on entire armies or is less strong more mundane in its uses.
> 
> More Gandalf or Merlin like less  Eliminster.




So a D&D wizard should not be like the iconic D&D wizard?  Really?  And, which Merlin are we talking about?  That's a kinda like invoking Batman - do you mean the Caped Crusader or the Dark Knight?



> In all the threads I read it not just the complaint that mages have so many spells it is that they can do things like teleport or polymorph.




Well, I'd say it's a bit of option A and option B.  

You have a large number of spells per day and each spell can be extremely versatile.  Polymorph can be a very, very powerful spell, particularly in 3e, but in earlier editions too, for its level.  Polymorph self into a Behir, attack and grapple a medium target (with your size and strength bonuses, you're almost never going to lose a grapple check) and shred the target with impunity.  Pin and rake until it dies, or, for more fun, just swallow it and it dies.

Teleport is an issue because it's entirely campaign changing.  Or it can be.  Want to do "Explore the Jungle" campaigns?  Well, when the party hits teleport, then can just Bamf home, resupply and come back.  Suddenly survival isn't an issue.  Need to buy some magical item (or have it made)?  Teleport to a major city and get it.  On and on.  And the AD&D limitations aren't that hard to get around by that level.  A simple levitate spell first and then teleporting into the air above your landing point and you're good to go.



> I read complaints that I want my fighter to be more like Hercules or Conan and they can't. And people tend to blame the magic system for that. But even if magic is nerfed it is still hard to play Hercules or Conan with a straight fighter.
> 
> I don't think any edition has gotten it right yet. So here is hoping 5E can.




Well, this is something of a separate issue.  I'd say Conan isn't really too hard to do in D&D.  Hercules needs some magical item help but it's doable too.  But this is a somewhat orthagonal issue to the caster one.


----------



## Minigiant

I would be happy with a wizard that gets like... 10 spells a day... for level 1 to level 20.

Enough that they can actually use magic at low levels but not fill up their throwaway spell slot with the most powerful spells at high level.

Then the warlock could be the at-will spellcaster and the sorcerer could be some sort of a spontaneous recharge/encounter/mana spellcaster.


----------



## hafrogman

Elf Witch said:


> These threads are confusing me on one hand people are complaining that wizards get to many spells and they rule the game and on the other hand they are complaining that it sucks to be them if they run out of spells.



Different people have different views?  There aren't two sides to this issue, there are many sides.  *shrug*  But as pointed out by others, they're also talking about different parts of the game.  

In OD&D this was a clearly stated design goal.  Wizards were impossible to level, but gods once they did.  But from the descriptions I've read of Gygax's early sessions, they also had a very different approach to game play.  It was (ironically) much more like a modern MMORPG with a persistent world.  You played a fighter and dragged your friend's wizard through a few levels.  Then you rolled up a mage, and your friend did the same for you.  Then you soloed high level dungeons as a magic-user, acquiring wealth and fame in the world.

It wasn't a campaign, your old fighter wasn't dead or retired, he was just on a shelf for when you felt like pulling him out.  Balance wasn't a design goal because the idea of sustained campaigns with one character per player came much later.  

So moving forward, gaming changed, the game changed, but wizards, by and large didn't.  

So personally I can reconcile the two seemingly contradictory ideas you mention above.  I want a wizard that functions well with a party at every level of play.  There could be a lot of different ways to accomplish this.  But Libramarian was actually onto something with his soldier analogy.  Adventurers are adventurers, not commoners with hand grenades.  I could play in a game where wizards could only cast one or two or whatever spells per day, but then I would want that wizard to be more competent when not spell casting, an adventurer who happens to know some magic.  Oddly enough, 4e put at-will magic in core, but also did the most to make wizards competent when they couldn't cast.

But if a wizard is only magic, the older wizened scholar who has wasted away his youth devoted to studying magic and nothing else, 1d4 hp, no armor, then magic should be their thing.  They should not feel like a commoner, because nobody takes commoners into dungeons.  Instead they should feel like they live, eat and breathe magic.  

*shrug* So yeah, I want my characters to be competent, either because they're well rounded or because they're focused and skilled.  And as they level I'd like a well rounded character to become more focused, and a skilled character to become more well rounded, so at the end you aren't left with any gods deigning to walk among mortals.

But in the end, what I most want is a system that can work with lots of different solutions.  Because if I want a character who knows cantrips, and someone else decides to play a character who doesn't, that won't actually bother me, or ruin my immersion, or make me storm away in disgust.


----------



## Elf Witch

Incenjucar said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Given the whole "module" concept, What D&D needs to do is establish a workable baseline that can be most easily modified by the players to fit what THEY want magic to be, and for them to provide tools and guidelines to allow this.
> 
> Default D&D needs to be balanced, but there's no reason they cannot reintroduce the old imbalances through options, or even make a crazier range of them than ever before.




I am all for dials and options. And it is my wish that with 5E I can have a closer to 3 style game then 4. And people who want a more 4 than 3 can have it as well. 

This last article is kind of making me go umm. Instead of discussing at will as an option it sounds like it is going to be how standard wizards are made. 

We will know more when we play test it.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, then you have the issue at the low end where you have so few spells that most of the time you are not doing anything directly related to your class.




...and when you DO do something related to your class, everyone knows it.

That's the wizard's bag: all or nothing, go big or go home, one-perfect-tool, "I know his weakness!", swing from BOOM to (peep). 

That's the play experience some folks who play the wizard _want_: that swing that solves all of your problems once or twice, but then doesn't do much else.

You don't need to have a high hard limit. 

Look, when a druid is at the king's dinner table, the druid isn't really using their class abilities. He doesn't need to be able to use druid magic at all opportunities to do everything. Presumably, he has a Charisma score he should be using.

A wizard out of spells doesn't need to be using low-rent magic. It's OK if a wizard can't cast spells all day long. Presumably, they have a Dexterity score they should be using. 

Your class doesn't need to give you 24-7 ability use to be relevant and effective.



> I'm really having a problem seeing the issue with the wizard having a combination of the two systems. You have a magical power that is analogous to a regular attack/skill check/mundane action that is at will and a sharply limited list of fire and forget magic for the big guns.




The problem is that for a lot of players, that's not the experience they want out of playing the wizard.

See, having to rely on the crossbow every once in a while...that's not a bug, that's a feature. It keeps magic rare and special. Magic's not something that can replace a sword, not a tool you can rely on, not a known quantity. It's something that you can occasionally, with great effort, _unleash_, to great effect. At-will magic sours that effect.

Again, that's not to say that there's not probably room in the game for that. As an option, or linked to a non-wizard class (like Warlock), it would probably be fine. But for a lot of folks, it's not possible to use magic to replicate mundane actions, because _it's magic, so it's not mundane_. The gameplay element of rationing your few magical resources until just the right moment and otherwise just being a very clever person is a desired element.


----------



## Elf Witch

hafrogman said:


> Different people have different views?  There aren't two sides to this issue, there are many sides.  *shrug*  But as pointed out by others, they're also talking about different parts of the game.
> 
> In OD&D this was a clearly stated design goal.  Wizards were impossible to level, but gods once they did.  But from the descriptions I've read of Gygax's early sessions, they also had a very different approach to game play.  It was (ironically) much more like a modern MMORPG with a persistent world.  You played a fighter and dragged your friend's wizard through a few levels.  Then you rolled up a mage, and your friend did the same for you.  Then you soloed high level dungeons as a magic-user, acquiring wealth and fame in the world.
> 
> It wasn't a campaign, your old fighter wasn't dead or retired, he was just on a shelf for when you felt like pulling him out.  Balance wasn't a design goal because the idea of sustained campaigns with one character per player came much later.
> 
> So moving forward, gaming changed, the game changed, but wizards, by and large didn't.
> 
> So personally I can reconcile the two seemingly contradictory ideas you mention above.  I want a wizard that functions well with a party at every level of play.  There could be a lot of different ways to accomplish this.  But Libramarian was actually onto something with his soldier analogy.  Adventurers are adventurers, not commoners with hand grenades.  I could play in a game where wizards could only cast one or two or whatever spells per day, but then I would want that wizard to be more competent when not spell casting, an adventurer who happens to know some magic.  Oddly enough, 4e put at-will magic in core, but also did the most to make wizards competent when they couldn't cast.
> 
> But if a wizard is only magic, the older wizened scholar who has wasted away his youth devoted to studying magic and nothing else, 1d4 hp, no armor, then magic should be their thing.  They should not feel like a commoner, because nobody takes commoners into dungeons.  Instead they should feel like they live, eat and breathe magic.
> 
> *shrug* So yeah, I want my characters to be competent, either because they're well rounded or because they're focused and skilled.  And as they level I'd like a well rounded character to become more focused, and a skilled character to become more well rounded, so at the end you aren't left with any gods deigning to walk among mortals.
> 
> But in the end, what I most want is a system that can work with lots of different solutions.  Because if I want a character who knows cantrips, and someone else decides to play a character who doesn't, that won't actually bother me, or ruin my immersion, or make me storm away in disgust.




Believe it or not this last thing is what I want to. The ability to fit the game for the style you want.

There are rimes I want a real low magic gritty game and then there are times I want a high magic where magic is more like technology.

I do think there is an issue where a commoner and a wizard have the same exact BAB. The wizard should be better than that when it comes to fighting with some kind of weapon. 

I play Shadowrun as a hermaeric mage there are times I can't use my magic because it is to flashy and will attract unwanted attention or I have already cast and taken to much drain and I don't want to pass out. So I pull out by trusty Ares Predator which is a big ole hand gun. I slap on my non cybered targeting system and I am almost as good as the street sam when it comes to shooting. The big difference is that since they have cyber reflexes they are going more than once in a round while my mage who chose to keep her body pure is going only once. 

So I would like to see wizards be able to run out of spells but because they know that can happen they have bothered to learn some other fighting skills.


----------



## Elf Witch

Hussar said:


> Yup.
> 
> 
> So a D&D wizard should not be like the iconic D&D wizard?  Really?  And, which Merlin are we talking about?  That's a kinda like invoking Batman - do you mean the Caped Crusader or the Dark Knight?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'd say it's a bit of option A and option B.
> 
> You have a large number of spells per day and each spell can be extremely versatile.  Polymorph can be a very, very powerful spell, particularly in 3e, but in earlier editions too, for its level.  Polymorph self into a Behir, attack and grapple a medium target (with your size and strength bonuses, you're almost never going to lose a grapple check) and shred the target with impunity.  Pin and rake until it dies, or, for more fun, just swallow it and it dies.
> 
> Teleport is an issue because it's entirely campaign changing.  Or it can be.  Want to do "Explore the Jungle" campaigns?  Well, when the party hits teleport, then can just Bamf home, resupply and come back.  Suddenly survival isn't an issue.  Need to buy some magical item (or have it made)?  Teleport to a major city and get it.  On and on.  And the AD&D limitations aren't that hard to get around by that level.  A simple levitate spell first and then teleporting into the air above your landing point and you're good to go.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is something of a separate issue.  I'd say Conan isn't really too hard to do in D&D.  Hercules needs some magical item help but it's doable too.  But this is a somewhat orthagonal issue to the caster one.




I view iconic wizards as the ones who can run out of spells. As I said in an earlier thread I don't see them as creatures of magic but more the scientist of the magical world who learn to wield magic through complex formulas. Anyone with a high enough intelligence can become a wizard. Because of this I personally don't like the idea of at will combat spells. 

Warlock and sorcerers have magic in their bodies so for me I would rather see them with the at wills.

Arthurian literature is a hobby of mine and for the most part Merlin is more a sage who has some magic, he advises Arthur but it is Arthur out there winning the battles with the rest of the knights. In most of the literature his power is no where near a DnD wizard.  Personally I think Merlin would be closer to a bard than a wizard. 

I do think teleport can be a pain in the butt and it is a spell that I would like to see cost a lot to do so that is much more rare than it becomes in some games.


----------



## Sunseeker

Kamikaze Midget said:


> But that's the thing: this isn't necessary for balance. You can balance even "Vancian" wizards by giving them a hard limit on spells per day. You don't need to add cantrips to low-level casters.



Hard caps limit the high-level wizard, but don't do anything to lift up the lower level one.





> Wizards don't need to have at-will magic powers to be balanced. It's unnecessary. Some folks like having that, and that's cool, and I think they should have that option, but this column doesn't describe it as an option, it describes it as the way things are.
> 
> If that is the case, then this is 5e failing on modularity, failing on replicating the feel of early editions, and possibly failing to understand player psychology on a pretty fundamental level.



Woah, logic FAIL.  

First off, we all know there's going to be a "core" to 5e, which ideally will be rather unique in it's own right and not simply a retroclone of some given edition's first few books.  Any modularity will be to swing the game more in one direction of another, but no matter which way things go, they will be built upon 4e's CORE, which will likely be some form of compromise and learning from multiple editions.

Second, 5e's goal is not to replicate 1e's play.  5e's goal is to provide the ability to play in a style similar to older editions.  Style of play and play replication are two totally different goals.  _Feeling_ like you're playing in a 1e game is great

Third, there are so many players who want so many things, anyone who attempts to claim they "know what players want" is flat out BSing, so I call shenanigans.  Players want good material.  If they want a retroclone, there's plenty of those out there.


----------



## Andor

I think that's a good point, Wizards are NOT going to be the only spellcasting option out the gate. 

We know Sorcerers and Warlocks are in the mix too. So even if they rip at-will entirely away from the wizard (something I do not advocate, I like options) then there will still be at-will magical types for those who need to feel mana oozing from their pores like glowey stripper glitter.


----------



## Hautamaki

Seems to me like more posters than not are forgetting or ignoring the fact that 1st level wizards in 1-3 were practically unplayably bad characters.  Aside from 1 or 2 weak spells that aren't even as powerful as basically any weapon and a higher will save they were equivalent in every way to a peasant.  Wizards did not catch up to the other classes until level 5 at the soonest and even then they were underpowered. Wizards did not become more powerful than mundane classes until you hit level 13-15.  And they were never really more powerful than Clerics or Druids anyways tbh.  

No it was the underpowered and frankly unfun low level wizard that I've had the biggest problem with in my nearly 20-year D&D playing career.

I understand the gripe with at-will cantrips though.  It waters down the point of the wizard, which is to be able to not only tactically manage options but to strategically manage resources over the course of whole adventuring day.  The problem was that the wizard had far too few resources at level 1 and far too many by level 15.

So why not just figure out how many spells total you want the wizard to cast in a day.  Could be 10, could be 20, could be 30, playtest it and figure it out.  And then give all wizards from level 1 to level (30?) that number of spells.  Gaining levels doesn't gain you more total spells; it just allows you to cast more high level spells.  Like so:

lvl 1 wizard: 2 level 1 spells, 18 cantrips
lvl 2 wizard: 3 level 1 spells, 17 cantrips
lvl 3 wizard: 1 level 2 spell, 3 level 1 spells, 16 cantrips
...
lvl 30 wizard: 3/3/3/3/3/3/3/3/3/+3 cantrips

*cantrips could always be cast without being prepared using a higher level spell slot if you wish, and after a certain level this could also apply to level 1 spells or even higher.


----------



## The Shadow

Let me just put in a word for those players like me (who, while a minority, are I think not a tiny one) who played the 1e low-level wizard - sorry, Magic-User - and chafed at its limitations.

I'm all for some at-will magic for the wizard.  I think it will be a welcome addition to the class, and will help replicate many fantasy tropes as well.

For those who enjoy the low-level M-U experience, more power to you - don't take at-wills.  I'm quite confident there will be some way to trade them out.


----------



## DMKastmaria

Hautamaki said:


> Seems to me like more posters than not are forgetting or ignoring the fact that 1st level wizards in 1-3 were practically unplayably bad characters.




I think you're forgetting that not everyone is going to agree with your opinion. A lot of people have fun playing low level MU's with earlier editions. 

There _were _ also a lot of people who _did_ complain, rather loudly, about 1e and 2e wizards. Alas, the 3e design team listened to those complaints, removing many of the restrictions on casters. Thus, creating more complaints. Which were listened to, as well. Thus, creating more complaints...


----------



## Hautamaki

DMKastmaria said:


> I think you're forgetting that not everyone is going to agree with your opinion. A lot of people have fun playing low level MU's with earlier editions.
> 
> There _were _ also a lot of people who _did_ complain, rather loudly, about 1e and 2e wizards. Alas, the 3e design team listened to those complaints, removing many of the restrictions on casters. Thus, creating more complaints. Which were listened to, as well. Thus, creating more complaints...




The problem with 3e is that they removed the wrong restrictions.  Wizards at level 1 were still garbage; the restrictions they removed were the things that kept high level wizards somewhat at bay.

Your problem as a level 1 wizard wasn't that it's too hard to cast magic missile.  It was that it's impossible to cast it more than a couple times a day.


----------



## DMKastmaria

Hautamaki said:


> Your problem as a level 1 wizard wasn't that it's too hard to cast magic missile.  It was that it's impossible to cast it more than a couple times a day.




No. That was _*Your *_problem. And its ok that it was _*Your problem*_.

*My* 1st level MU's, tackled wererats, threw flaming oil, ran from monsters, smashed people over the head with beer mugs, or did whatever else a thinking, resourceful person might do, when out of spells. And it was fun!

It's ok that it was _*Your *_problem. I only take issue with your claiming it was mine.


----------



## drothgery

Really, I don't think mechanics for interrupting spellcasting belong in D&D (they have been, prior to 4e, but that didn't mean they were a good fit, just there at first and maintained due to inertia more than anything else). They belong in the kind of game where melee has active parrying rules.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> Polymorph can be a very, very powerful spell, particularly in 3e, but in earlier editions too, for its level.  Polymorph self into a Behir, attack and grapple a medium target (with your size and strength bonuses, you're almost never going to lose a grapple check) and shred the target with impunity.  Pin and rake until it dies, or, for more fun, just swallow it and it dies.



Simplest limit I ever found for this: you can only change into a mundane non-magical creature.  Polymorph into an eagle?  Fine. A rat?  Fine.  A horse?  Fine.  A Unicorn or Centaur or Behir?  Not so much...


			
				shidaku said:
			
		

> First off, we all know there's going to be a "core" to 5e, which ideally will be rather unique in it's own right and not simply a retroclone of some given edition's first few books. Any modularity will be to swing the game more in one direction of another, *but no matter which way things go, they will be built upon 4e's CORE*, which will likely be some form of compromise and learning from multiple editions.



Are you sure about this bit I bolded, or are you merely hoping?


			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> Really, I don't think mechanics for interrupting spellcasting belong in D&D (they have been, prior to 4e, but that didn't mean they were a good fit, just there at first and maintained due to inertia more than anything else). They belong in the kind of game where melee has active parrying rules.



Removing spell interruption takes away one of the balance mechanisms working against not just wizards but all casters.  And as the focus seems to be on in one way or another reining them all in, why would you do this?

Lanefan


----------



## Stalker0

Crazy Jerome said:


> Certainly, a scroll with slow, ritual _knock_ is not the same thing as a rogue getting you through the door in a hurry or a wizard dedicating a precious, scarce regular spell slot to doing the same.




The 3 of them stared at the wrought iron door laid before them. The scratches on the door mirrored the axe in the fighter's hand, his chest heaving with fatigue at the recent series of heavy blows that had eluded success.

The rogue flittered with the broken pieces of his favorite lockpick, frustrated by failure and by the future loss of coin its replacement would require.

The billowing cloak strode past them both, a hood swept away revealing ancient looking eyes that gazed at the door with purpose.

A slight hand gesture, an invisible nudge, and the sound of paper against leather case the only sound echoing through the forgotten hallway.

The rolled paper slid into hand, a pale white, forged by a ghost rather than a man one might say.

With a heavy sigh, the wizard unrolled his prize upon the door. The paper fought him as any rolled paper would, but an inaudible word held it fast, and it greeted the door's iron as a good friend long separated.

The wizard turned to his compatriots, noticing right away the words forming on the rogues lips. He smiled knowingly, placed his hand upon the halfling's shoulders, and said "an hour". He pushed the hood back upon his head once more, and retreated down the corridor. With a look to each other, the fighter and rogue joined their friend...


Time enough passed, and the trio returned to the iron door. Yet did iron remain? For now the door was as white as the paper placed upon it.

The wizard once again walked smoothly to the door, raised his hand and pulled off his glove. He placed his hand upon the parchment, and each fingertip glowed in turn. He pulled the hand back, and curled each finger slowly into his palm. The glow of colors mixed with each other, until a shining white emerged as pure as any light known.

With a strong motion, he set his knuckles to their task, a single rap that echoed around and through the barred entranceway.

With a groan, like an old man awakening from slumber, the door moved away and back, opening and revealing another corridor...and further possibilities.

The wizard folded his arms and leaned against the entranceway. Another smile, he opened the hand again. Now covered in what appeared to be black soot, the hand was open, welcoming....as the arm stretched into the doorway.

He looked to his friends, and then both gave the same sigh long before his words were spoken. But speak them he did, speak them he always would....

"After you".


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> As a DM, you get to do that because you get to set the campaign parameters.  Fair enough.  I can choose to play or not.  But, as a fellow player?  Please worry about your character and I'll take care of mine, thankyouverymuch.




It's a group endeavor. If I'm trying to play in a reasonably immersive LOtR manner I don't necessarily want Bugs Bunny, Buddy Weiser, or Doctor Strange sitting at the same table. We should work toward being on the same wavelength as far as style.

This is why I think the idea of different players _at the same table_ on different rule modules will face stiff challenges.


----------



## Falling Icicle

Overall I'm pleased with what I read in this article. The greater emphasis on at-will cantrips and attacks, with fewer spell slots for the really big spells, makes vancian casting much more palatable for me. They seem to really understand both sides of pre-4e wizard's problems: that wizards were far too weak at low levels (solved by adding at-will spells) and far too powerful at high levels (solved by reducing the number of spell slots at high levels and not having spells scale with level). I'm very encouraged by most of what Mearls had to say here.

I do have a few concerns though. First of all, if Wizards are going to be relying on at-will cantrips for so much of their power, I really hope they they are at least equivalent in damage per round to a fighter or other class making their at-will attacks. I have no interest whatsoever in playing a wizard who does insignificant damage compared to everyone else except for the scarce few times a day I can afford to do something "big." And no, I don't think it's unbalanced at all for wizards at-will spells to keep up with fighter damage on top of having a few powerful daily attacks, because wizards have many drawbacks that fighters do not, and I fully expect most of those drawbacks to be in 5e (such as having lower hit points, not being able to wear armor by default, having powers that can be countered or dispelled by other magic users, etc).

Also, I think the idea of scrolls using a spell slot is a terrible idea, IMO. How are non-magic using classes like rogues supposed to use scrolls? I also am very concerned by the hint that we're going to be regressing to wands as spell-storage devices instead of implements. That was one of the things that 4e did right! Sure, let wands contain a daily use of a spell or some such, but their primary purpose should be to serve as a focus to a caster's spells, not as "50 scrolls rolled up in a disposable stick."

I was also puzzled by the "Spellcasting is Dangerous" part. Casting always was dangerous, or is this a hint that maybe attacks of opportunity are going to be gone in this edition? And why should my spell screw up because I was hit by an attack earlier in the round? In reality, any type of action can be interrupted by hitting someone or inflicting enough pain. Fighters will get knocked off balance and be unable to complete their next sword swing, for example. Watch any real fight, or even dramatic ones in movies, and you'll see that this is a huge part of combat. If you aren't going to have rules for interrupting a fighter's attacks, it's silly to do it to wizards, especially when you've already addressed the issues that made them unbalanced before.

And (to add to the chorus of other people who have already asked this question), what about rituals?


----------



## Lwaxy

Tom Servo said:


> Actually, if I read it correctly, the options offered by wrecan involved everyone at the same table playing in the same style.  I don't think he was suggesting having a "crossbow wizard" and a "cantrip wizard" sitting at the same table at the same time.




And why not? I use different magic styles for different players and it works fine. Why should 5e suddenly limit that?


----------



## Bluenose

Elf Witch said:


> Arthurian literature is a hobby of mine and for the most part Merlin is more a sage who has some magic, he advises Arthur but it is Arthur out there winning the battles with the rest of the knights. In most of the literature his power is no where near a DnD wizard.  Personally I think Merlin would be closer to a bard than a wizard.




This would be Merlin, who defeated the druids of Ireland in spell battle and then flew back over the Irish Sea riding Stonehenge. Who created another stone circle by turning a group of Saxon magicians who attacked him into stones. Merlin had significant limits, far more than a D&D magic-user, but he's not just a sage by any means.


----------



## Doug McCrae

hafrogman said:


> In OD&D this was a clearly stated design goal.  Wizards were impossible to level, but gods once they did.  But from the descriptions I've read of Gygax's early sessions, they also had a very different approach to game play.  It was (ironically) much more like a modern MMORPG with a persistent world.  You played a fighter and dragged your friend's wizard through a few levels.  Then you rolled up a mage, and your friend did the same for you.  Then you soloed high level dungeons as a magic-user, acquiring wealth and fame in the world.



This is a very good point regarding OD&D's similarity to WoW.

1. Main aim of play is the acquisition of power - level ups, treasure and magic items.
2. Game world makes very little sense, as its main purpose is to support gamist play.
3. Players can play almost any time they want, not just once a week/once every two weeks, etc.
4. Solo play is common.
5. A large number of players, all playing in the same world.
6. Each player has lots of different characters.
7. Characters in the same campaign span a wide range of levels, and don't necessarily adventure together. Lowbies are more likely to adventure with other lowbies, high levels with others of their ilk.


----------



## Hautamaki

DMKastmaria said:


> No. That was _*Your *_problem. And its ok that it was _*Your problem*_.
> 
> *My* 1st level MU's, tackled wererats, threw flaming oil, ran from monsters, smashed people over the head with beer mugs, or did whatever else a thinking, resourceful person might do, when out of spells. And it was fun!
> 
> It's ok that it was _*Your *_problem. I only take issue with your claiming it was mine.




Obviously I meant the general 'your' not the specific YOUR.

But semantic silliness aside are you honestly saying that you happier playing as a handicapped character compared to the others in the group than you would have been if you were able to contribute at least somewhat on par with others?  That you were happier trying to make improvised attacks with beer mugs doing d2 or d3 damage at best and dying in one hit afterwards?  You wouldn't have preferred to have been able to cast at least a couple spells per encounter instead?


----------



## Hautamaki

Lanefan said:


> Simplest limit I ever found for this: you can only change into a mundane non-magical creature.  Polymorph into an eagle?  Fine. A rat?  Fine.  A horse?  Fine.  A Unicorn or Centaur or Behir?  Not so much...
> 
> Removing spell interruption takes away one of the balance mechanisms working against not just wizards but all casters.  And as the focus seems to be on in one way or another reining them all in, why would you do this?
> 
> Lanefan




Agreed with all your points but I went even further.

Polymorph only works on inanimate objects weighing 50 lbs or less, and then only for 12 seconds (2 rounds) per caster level.  Is it useless now?  Not when you can turn the BBEG's powerful magic weapon into a bouquet and his armour into a frilly dress for basically the entirety of the fight.  Obviously it loses some of its utility against enemies that don't use equipment but still you can get creative with it.  You could try fooling the dragon with a false 50 lb diamond for example--that's no joke even for a red Great Wyrm.

And spell interruption isn't only a balancing feature; it's also a distinguishing mechanical feature.  It's one of the things that makes playing a MU different from any other class, and that's a great thing for the fun and replayability of the game apart and above balance alone.


----------



## pemerton

Tortoise said:


> What if the fighter and cleric are holding off the lead group of goblins while the wizard and rogue are stringing a line to hoist the dangling rope bridge over a chasm so that before the main enemy force arrives, they can make their escape? Is that nothing of consequence?



What proportion of encounters have this character:

*in published D&D modules?
*in example of play in D&D ruleboosk?
*in your home game?

I am not expecting that D&Dnext will radically change the basic dynamics of the typical D&D encounter.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> You can balance even "Vancian" wizards by giving them a hard limit on spells per day. You don't need to add cantrips to low-level casters.



But you need to make the wizard more robust.

The problem with the low level B/X or AD&D wizard is that they have almost no physical prowess, _and_ almost no offence.

It's true that they are perhaps the most learned in the party (although those editions don't really have the mechanics to express this), but that learning is typically not relevant to the resolution of more than a handful of the situations that the PCs encounter.

Again, I am not expecting D&Dnext to radically change this feature of typical D&D play.

Examples of meaningful contributions given upthread include lurking in doorways looking out for reinforcement, dragging fallen allies out of the fray, etc. What does this add to play that another fighter or rogue would not?

I agree that the mostly functionally incapable wizard is something of an established D&D trope. It also seems that those who like it won't just implement it via roleplay. It seems they want it to be mechanically mandated. But those mechanics cause notorious and well known problems for a large group of players.

(Did any new player of Basic D&D, who had the stats to make an Elf, ever start as an MU instead?)


----------



## Sadras

Incenjucar said:


> Given the whole "module" concept, What D&D needs to do is establish a workable baseline that can be most easily modified by the players to fit what THEY want magic to be, and for them to provide tools and guidelines to allow this.
> 
> Default D&D needs to be balanced, but there's no reason they cannot reintroduce the old imbalances through options, or even make a crazier range of them than ever before.




Yes and no, but you're very very close ! Hint: The Reverse works much better.


----------



## Dausuul

Sadras said:


> Yes and no, but you're very very close ! Hint: The Reverse works much better.




Um. No. No, it really doesn't. It's much easier to take a balanced core and unbalance it than vice versa.


----------



## wrecan

Tom Servo said:


> Actually, if I read it correctly, the options offered by wrecan involved everyone at the same table playing in the same style.  I don't think he was suggesting having a "crossbow wizard" and a "cantrip wizard" sitting at the same table at the same time.



I was offering three options.
Crossbow wizards only; cantrip wizards banned from table
Cantrip and crossbow wizards sitting at table together
Cantrip wizards only; crossbow wizards banned from table.

The group still decides which of these three options to take.  It baffles me that there are people who can't abide there being all three options, even though they don't have to take them.


----------



## I'm A Banana

shidaku said:


> Hard caps limit the high-level wizard, but don't do anything to lift up the lower level one.




It's not necessary, mechanically, to lift up the lower level one, either.

It's entirely reasonable to chafe under the restrictions of a limited number of spells per day and somewhere out there, you should absolutely have the option of having common, easy magic that you can apply, maybe to ANY character, from the Wizard to the Fighter to the Barbarian. As a series of feats, it seems to make a great theme. Even if not a theme, it's exactly what the Warlock was originally designed to do in 3e, so it seems like a great fit for that class. 

As [MENTION=6678082]DMKastmaria[/MENTION] said above: "It's ok that it was your problem. I only take issue with your claiming it was mine."

It's not something you need to hard-code into the Wizard class.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> But you need to make the wizard more robust.




Need? No.

Might want? Sure. That's why the option should be there, just not hard-coded into the Wizard's DNA. 



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> The problem with the low level B/X or AD&D wizard is that they have almost no physical prowess, and almost no offence.




Flatter math helps this problem immeasurably. Everyone's got some basic contribution to make. 



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Examples of meaningful contributions given upthread include lurking in doorways looking out for reinforcement, dragging fallen allies out of the fray, etc. What does this add to play that another fighter or rogue would not?




What does your ranger contribute to a fancy court dinner to impress the king that your druid or barbarian does not?

That is, the class need not be a crutch you lean on at all times. Someone who wants this play experience is _looking_ to have the wizard they play occasionally be no more than a clever normal person. 



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I agree that the mostly functionally incapable wizard is something of an established D&D trope. It also seems that those who like it won't just implement it via roleplay. It seems they want it to be mechanically mandated. But those mechanics cause notorious and well known problems for a large group of players.




Which is why modularity solves the problem...if it's implemented. If all wizards have at-will cantrips, that's not modular, and it doesn't address the needs of that first group of players.


----------



## Sadras

Dausuul said:


> Um. No. No, it really doesn't. It's much easier to take a balanced core and unbalance it than vice versa.




I am going to disagree at this point only because I have never seen THAT kind of class-balance in D&D without infringing on someones play-style. I admit 5E may prove me wrong, but so far D&D historically, is easier to design if it comes from an unbalanced class-system and modifications/options are available (1st-3.5E) to make it a class-balanced game (4E).

I think most of us can agree 4E is the most class-balanced edition of D&D we have, but it infringes on quite a few play-styles by enforcing its own styles of play, whereas the earlier editions although not-class balanced could easily be modified/adjusted for any playstyle and/or to have the classes balanced.
I better also add, that I'm not for or against any edition - I have played all.

To make the above simpler: The oldschoolers, prefer the way things were, with maybe a few tweaks. So if 5E is to cater for all - we have to start with a minimalist basis, which of course by 4thers standards is unbalanced. However as the modular approach kicks in we start balancing and satisfying the 3-fivers until we come full circle and please 4thers. So the FULL game is only reached once all/most modules have kicked in which eventually gives you class-balance. Therefore the basic core, which serves a particular set of players, will not necessarily be perceived as a class-balanced system by fans of later editions. They (later edition fans) will add the modules to balance the classes from their perspective and to suit their game style!

And its easier to start "non-balanced" because 90% of the work has already been done with the earlier editions. No need to reinvent the wheel - figure out whats core, what needs to remain and then add-on...


----------



## DMKastmaria

Hautamaki said:


> Obviously I meant the general 'your' not the specific YOUR.
> 
> But semantic silliness aside are you honestly saying that you happier playing as a handicapped character compared to the others in the group than you would have been if you were able to contribute at least somewhat on par with others?  That you were happier trying to make improvised attacks with beer mugs doing d2 or d3 damage at best and dying in one hit afterwards?  You wouldn't have preferred to have been able to cast at least a couple spells per encounter instead?




Playing a low level MU in AD&D is _supposed_ to be a challenge. And since I don't think with my character sheet, I'm able to contribute just fine! Though, I rarely run PC's anymore, myself and have primarily DM'ed for the past 25 years.

A low level MU_ isn't_ solely reliant upon spells memorized. It's up to the player to step-up, be creative, resourceful and do something besides just hiding under a rock, when he's out of spells and the encounter is anything more than just a nuisance.  

So, no. I wouldn't prefer it any other way. One of the reasons I run TSR era D&D and retro-clones.


----------



## Hautamaki

DMKastmaria said:


> Playing a low level MU in AD&D is _supposed_ to be a challenge. And since I don't think with my character sheet, I'm able to contribute just fine! Though, I rarely run PC's anymore, myself and have primarily DM'ed for the past 25 years.
> 
> A low level MU_ isn't_ solely reliant upon spells memorized. It's up to the player to step-up, be creative, resourceful and do something besides just hiding under a rock, when he's out of spells and the encounter is anything more than just a nuisance.
> 
> So, no. I wouldn't prefer it any other way. One of the reasons I run TSR era D&D and retro-clones.




Alright fair enough if it's actually your preference to play the weakest character in the group just for the challenge of it then that's pretty cool.

But as a fellow DM, how would you handle my situation where I've moved to a new country, made new friends who never played D&D in their lives, but want to give it a shot?  Do you just disallow the MU?  Hope that whoever gets stuck with the MU enjoys the challenge of being the weakest character?  Start at mid level where it's more balanced, but multiply the complexity and time required of character creation by 5?  I recall my own first time playing, being stuck with the magic user, and not liking it at all that I could only cast an offensive spell twice in a whole day.  If the DM had not taken pity on me and given me a panther familiar that could fight pretty well I'd probably have quit after 1 session.

Ultimately I house-ruled so much stuff to make my game suitable for complete newcomers to the game that I had a whole new system by the time I was done.  It would be nice if 5e precluded that necessity.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

It got lost around the discussion, but what about this:

Give wizards there choice of leather armor or Int bonus to AC
Give the wizard the choice of melee or ranged attacks working off int instead of str.

Give 3-5 cantrips that are utility only, at will.

Then giveing more hp like 5e looks like should make a melee or crossbow wizard more stomicable


----------



## Minigiant

The more I read this topic, the more I think you wont be able to say "I'm playing a wizard" in 5E. 

You'll have to say that you are playing a 5C wizard. Or 5.3 wizard. Or a 5.4 wizard. Or a 5.D wizard.


----------



## pemerton

Kamikaze Midget said:


> What does your ranger contribute to a fancy court dinner to impress the king that your druid or barbarian does not?
> 
> That is, the class need not be a crutch you lean on at all times. Someone who wants this play experience is _looking_ to have the wizard they play occasionally be no more than a clever normal person.



I still think that is very unlikely that D&Dnext will involve, as central to typical gameplay, as many court dinners as combats.



Sadras said:


> the earlier editions although not-class balanced could easily be modified/adjusted for any playstyle and/or to have the classes balanced.



I don't think this is true at all - either with respect to playstyle, or balance.

Balancing MUs in classic D&D or 3E is particularly challenging, in the experience of many players at least.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Which is why modularity solves the problem...if it's implemented. If all wizards have at-will cantrips, that's not modular, and it doesn't address the needs of that first group of players.




So the question I would ask, KM... is what needs to appear in the book for it to be considered a "module"?

For the sake of argument... if we say that in 5E the spells _Prestidigitation, Open/Close, Mend, Light, Mage Hand_, and _Magic Missile_ are all at-will... when does the book then need to say to make them "modular" that would be satisfactory?

Could it be as simple as a single sentence stating "For a more classic spellcasting feel, these spells are not considered at-will, but that you can cast any of them as many times equal to the number of Level 1 spells slots you have per day"?  Or does there need to be a Level 0 line in the spell slot chart and a more detailed paragraph about how cantrips get used and how often?

Would either of these actually work, or does there need to be something more to it than that?  (And to be completely fair about it... we can also look at it the other way, which has those spells _not_ at-will as baseline, and instead includes a sentence in the wizard section that states that for a more magical wizard those Level 0 cantrips can be changed to "at-will" upon agreement with the DM.)


----------



## hafrogman

Minigiant said:


> The more I read this topic, the more I think you wont be able to say "I'm playing a wizard" in 5E.
> 
> You'll have to say that you are playing a 5C wizard. Or 5.3 wizard. Or a 5.4 wizard. Or a 5.D wizard.



Why?  In the end, a wizard is someone who

a) focuses on their intelligence
b) casts Arcane magic
b) learned to cast magic through study as opposed to an inborn talent or diabolic bargain.

If he can cast light once, five times or a thousand, it doesn't change those things.  If you're talking to a non-gamer, or someone who doesn't play 5e, then one word is enough to fill their mind with pretty much what your character is.


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> It's a group endeavor. If I'm trying to play in a reasonably immersive LOtR manner I don't necessarily want Bugs Bunny, Buddy Weiser, or Doctor Strange sitting at the same table. We should work toward being on the same wavelength as far as style.
> 
> This is why I think the idea of different players _at the same table_ on different rule modules will face stiff challenges.




This is a bit of a strawman though.  I'm not talking about dropping a completely genre breaking character on the table, like Bugs Bunny.  I'm talking about dropping a pretty well established genre character into a D&D game.  

I have no problems with someone saying that they won't play X because they don't like it.  I DO have problems with players telling other players they can't play X because the first player doesn't like it.

As a DM, I'd tell player number one to either suck it up or leave.  Sorry, only one person gets to dictate limits at my table and that's me.  If I'm groovy with Bob's character, then you have the choice of either playing or not playing.  You could, politely, inquire whether Bob REALLY wants to play that character or not.  But, ultimatums like, "I won't play this game if X is there" is a quick recipe for being shown the door.


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> I don't think this is true at all - either with respect to playstyle, or balance.
> Balancing MUs in classic D&D or 3E is particularly challenging, in the experience of many players at least.




Balancing MU
I would agree with u back then, it would be a challenge, but now with all that we know, our experience and the multitude of ideas to draw from (various editions and other roleplaying game) I personally believe we can balance them.
The largest problem is agreeing upon the balancing technique so as not to infringe on anyones game style. Its easier between a group of 5 or 6, but for the entire D&D fanbase - its a little more trickier. But that is a far cry from saying balance cannot be attained. 

Playstyle
Not sure what adjustments could not be made to the system to suit your playstyle with earlier editions. Could you give me an example?


----------



## Minigiant

hafrogman said:


> Why?  In the end, a wizard is someone who
> 
> a) focuses on their intelligence
> b) casts Arcane magic
> b) learned to cast magic through study as opposed to an inborn talent or diabolic bargain.
> 
> If he can cast light once, five times or a thousand, it doesn't change those things.  If you're talking to a non-gamer, or someone who doesn't play 5e, then one word is enough to fill their mind with pretty much what your character is.




You are talking to a non-D&D gamer, of course you will have to describe the wizard a bit as they could use the stereotype. Or they could pick visions like Potter, Dresden, Ixidor etc.

But I predict in a 5E discussion, you might not be able to just say the the phase as there will be some many modules and houserules as a base assumption.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

steeldragons said:


> While I've never seen a player use "magic" to such an extent, I've had a few NPCs do...just about everything (maybe not all at once! haha) you describe.
> 
> Those non-combat/flavor sorts of enchantments that don't really "do" anything than set/add to a scene...no problem. Not "at will" (least, not the system I play in), but easily doable.
> 
> I see no reason the "show off wizard" wouldn't be able to do just about everything you describe (maybe not the "Poof. Cheese", that seems to require a "Create Food") between Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Open/Close, Produce Flame...even just a cantrip_ called_ "Cantrip" for those minor things that don't have a specific 0level spell of their own, this is all easily accomplished.
> 
> [I, personally did away with the litany of individual cantrips a long time ago and basically said, "If you want to do something minor, it uses one of your cantrip/0 level slots." easy peasy.]
> 
> And any mage, who wants to be a show off, worth their salt is going to have at least ONE Unseen Servant floating around the house to pull up those chairs and prepare/pour that tea for them...or bring them some cheese ...as opposed to conjure it.
> 
> So, for my games/two coppers, a 1st level wizard ought to be able to appear as this "master of magic" with a few cantrips and 1 1st level spell (unseen servant).
> 
> I don't know...or really think...that the game needs to be overly specific with [rules for] these kinds of flavorful effects.
> --SD




You mean like "Make an Arcana Check to do that"  Maybe you offer a feat that lets people do this kind of stuff. Heck, it doesn't have to be restricted to wizards. If you feel like training Arcana then you can acquire this sort of minor casting. All wizards would probably have access to it as a class feature in that case. The main use would be making it possible to say use Arcana to impress someone, etc. While 4e has cantrips I never thought they were really all THAT needed.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

AbdulAlhazred said:


> You mean like "Make an Arcana Check to do that"  Maybe you offer a feat that lets people do this kind of stuff. Heck, it doesn't have to be restricted to wizards. If you feel like training Arcana then you can acquire this sort of minor casting. All wizards would probably have access to it as a class feature in that case. The main use would be making it possible to say use Arcana to impress someone, etc. While 4e has cantrips I never thought they were really all THAT needed.




Back in 2e there was a dragon article on non weap prof one for each school with int-2 or so and each had a cantrip like effect


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

billd91 said:


> But with this in mind, I think Lanefan's observation is a good one. To balance magic, you can make it tough to cast and comparatively rare but powerful or you can make it more common and a lot weaker. Those are legitimate tradeoffs in the art of the game's design. I naturally prefer the former because the latter generally makes magic less, well, magic and intrinsically interesting as something different from the mundane ways of putting the hurt on your target. If there aren't potential encounter modifiers (including enders), just more hp attrition, what's the good of doing things magically in the first place? Every tool increasingly resembles a hammer.




Eh, not really so much. IME with designing games 'powerful but hard to use' or 'powerful but limited availability' don't work that well. The wizard with one awesome spell will be the go-to guy in the critical situation. He'll be the one pulling the fat out of the fire and putting paid to the BBEG. He's a scene stealing AND he gets to sit on his hands the rest of the time. It isn't really the best solution in either direction. 

As others have said it is also a real constraint on adventure structure because the wizard is way powerful in a one encounter day. The players have a strong incentive to have 5 minute days and are demotivated from pressing on. 

For all these reasons the design isn't that great, AND then there's the inevitable pressure to simply break it down. The wizard is bored? OK, lets give him some more 'medium strength' spells, and all of a sudden he's 90% as good all the time and 300% as good the other 10% of the time. Alternatively 'hard to use' gets eroded either by player inventiveness (which is OK until the whole thrust of the game turns to 'make it easy for the wizard' and the DM's whole thrust turns to "make it hard for the wizard"). Otherwise the system itself eventually creates ways around the difficulty because certainly any player will see such an option as highly desirable. 

As for the 'every thing is a hammer', well, that already existed. It will always exist. Why is it ok for a fighter to have nothing but a hammer but if the wizard has a hammer it is bad just because it is a magic hammer? Magic means different things to different people anyway. It just isn't really a very strong position for a game designer.


----------



## drothgery

Lanefan said:


> Removing spell interruption takes away one of the balance mechanisms working against not just wizards but all casters. And as the focus seems to be on in one way or another reining them all in, why would you do this?



Because it's not a good balancing mechanism. It makes the wizard's turn take longer (when with pre-4e style spells, it already is taking a long time), and means that the wizard has to succeed on multiple checks to do what he does, while the fighter has to succeed at one (for much the same reason, I hate the 3.x SR mechanic, or as I call it, making a saving throw to be able to make a saving throw). Generally, I don't think 'able to do more cool stuff, but be far less reliable' is how wizards should work.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

drothgery said:


> Because it's not a good balancing mechanism. It makes the wizard's turn take longer (when with pre-4e style spells, it already is taking a long time), and means that the wizard has to succeed on multiple checks to do what he does, while the fighter has to succeed at one (for much the same reason, I hate the 3.x SR mechanic, or as I call it, making a saving throw to be able to make a saving throw). Generally, I don't think 'able to do more cool stuff, but be far less reliable' is how wizards should work.




I still think the key is the action economy.  And thus their recent suggestion that taking damage stops the big guns without costing them is on the right track, but clunky, as I believe Lanefan indicated when he talked about the wizard dredging up all that magic energy to cast, but if hit he ... starts over.  

The only real cost that matters *all* the time once the fight starts is actions.  All the stuff about gold and danger and limited slots and so forth helps around the edges, but it doesn't solve the ultimate issue.  So if we want to let the wizard hit hard, make him take multiple actions to do so, but neither overly nail him nor boost him via circumstance.

This has the not inconsiderable side effect of heightening excitement while making the rest of the party feel more important.  In round 4, the wizard finally got off his mega fireball of death, toasting half the remaining elite orcs completely and giving the rest pause.  Into this hesitation charged the fighter and cleric, which sent the rest of the orcs running, their morale broken.  By round 4 or so, that's fine.  

I think such a system can be designed to acknowledge a fairly decent balance (not perfect, but enough so that gold, danger, etc. can handle the rest well enough), while still handling the flavor objection.  A powerful spell builds over time.  Attacking or hitting the wizard doesn't kill it, but it *does* cost him actions.  He doesn't drop the spell and start over, but suspends it while he dodges the worst of that axe blow.  Maybe you need a 3E-style concentration check (with the mods not allowed to go berserk) in order to not lose an action when hit.

Or some better variation on that.  All we really need is that powerful magic can't be cast in less than 2 rounds, and if monsters are allowed to get in the wizard's face, *no one* knows exactly how long the powerful magic will take.  It's eventually going to go off and do something spectacular, but not knowing when, we don't know the shape of the fight until we get there.  If the fight is essentially won by the time the wizard finally gets the spell out, it's still gone--released in frustation or allowed to fizzle away.


----------



## Tortoise

Hautamaki said:


> Ultimately I house-ruled so much stuff to make my game suitable for complete newcomers to the game that I had a whole new system by the time I was done.  It would be nice if 5e precluded that necessity.




Based on the stated goals of 5e, until we see the final version, it should be considered to preclude the necessity.

We have the open playtest coming up on the 24th of this month, 8 days from now. While that really will not tell us what the final version will look like, it will give participants a chance to give input and maybe influence the outcome.


----------



## Dour-n-Taciturn

Crazy Jerome said:


> I still think the key is the action economy.  And thus their recent suggestion that taking damage stops the big guns without costing them is on the right track, but clunky, as I believe Lanefan indicated when he talked about the wizard dredging up all that magic energy to cast, but if hit he ... starts over.




This is an interesting notion, but would be limited to the more potent spells.  Another thing, Dispel Magic for older editions was too potent, the 3rd Ed version could target a single caster and potentially knock off several buffs; perhaps it could function more like an interrupt versus 1 spell.

Moreover, divinations that work automatically, such as Detect Alignment or Detect Magic, would better served if they tied into skills (such as Perception or Insight) rather than supercede them.


----------



## DMKastmaria

Hautamaki said:


> But as a fellow DM, how would you handle my situation where I've moved to a new country, made new friends who never played D&D in their lives, but want to give it a shot?  Do you just disallow the MU?  Hope that whoever gets stuck with the MU enjoys the challenge of being the weakest character?  Start at mid level where it's more balanced, but multiply the complexity and time required of character creation by 5?  I recall my own first time playing, being stuck with the magic user, and not liking it at all that I could only cast an offensive spell twice in a whole day.  If the DM had not taken pity on me and given me a panther familiar that could fight pretty well I'd probably have quit after 1 session.




Somehow, we all managed, for decades, to play D&D without this grinding the game to a halt. 

_Someone_ always wants to play the MU. Just like _someone_ always wants to play the Fighter. _Someone_ always wants to play a thief. _Someone _always...

Allright, the Cleric can be a tough sell. 

Once upon a time, in the late 90's and near the end of 2e's reign, rpg boards would be rife with ridicule, at the suggestion that anyone, but anyone approach PC creation from a min/max, powergaming, optimization perspective. 

"How dare you not put roleplaying first!" 

Now, I've never had an issue with someone being a little powergamey. And my gaming aesthetics are far and away closer to 1e than 2e. 

But, thanks to 3.x, Character Optimization is Game #1, for many people. And heaven help their group, if someone 's PC isn't as _Baaaaaaad _as their buddies'. 

For most of the gamers I've met and played with, from my own age group, this whole "single spell" thing was never an issue. It's a game. This is part of the game and part of the challenge. It makes for some interesting, intriguing situations. Handicaps, by their nature, make things more difficult. But they exist for a reason and skilled players don't shirk from a handicap in any game, merely because it exists. 

Arguably, the weakest AD&D class is the Thief. Yet, I've had players *who'll play nothing else*. Because they enjoy it. Because they bloody well know how to play the class and play it _effectively!_ 

And this is why so-called "Old Schoolers" tend not to get all in a tizzy about "balance." Because in the face of player skill, that balance just doesn't mean as much as it does in other versions of the game. 

Now, I'm sure that WotC will address as many 3.x and 4e players' concerns about the Wizard, as they can. I suspect they'll put out a game that at least _some_ 3.x and 4e players like. As each L&L column makes clearer and clearer, it's highly unlikely to be a game *I *want to run. Which, is what I expected and which, is perfectly ok by me. 

As I've said on more than one occasion, I think WotC should stick with 4e and not shove their fan-base under the bus. 

Again!


----------



## Plane Sailing

I wonder if the issue here could be resolved by considering wizards, sorcerers and warlocks not in terms of the flavour of the magical source, but the style in which they cast?

Limited spells but some big show stoppers? You're a wizard. Cast magic all the time! You're a warlock. Something in between? You're a sorcerer. 

In other words, could frequency of casting be a job demarcation thing 

Also, I wonder how people here who will find a wizard casting magic spells "at will" bad, feel about a sorcerer or warlock?

Genuinely curious whether it is a "wizard" thing and those classes are OK or a "campaign" thing and those classes would be disallowed. 

Cheers


----------



## Elf Witch

Bluenose said:


> This would be Merlin, who defeated the druids of Ireland in spell battle and then flew back over the Irish Sea riding Stonehenge. Who created another stone circle by turning a group of Saxon magicians who attacked him into stones. Merlin had significant limits, far more than a D&D magic-user, but he's not just a sage by any means.




It really depends on which legend you are reading. Mallory romanticized a lot of earlier versions including adding the whole Lancelot, Gwen and Arthur triangle as being one of the downfalls of Camelot. 

In earlier versions and later versions after Mallory, Merlin is more of a sage. It was Arthur who untied the warring kingdoms under one king. If Merlin was so uber powerful he and Arthur would not have needed an army of knights to force the capitulation of the other kings.

And it is this version Merlin I was talking about when describing wizards. The things Merlin did in the uber magic version was done without a spellbound so that would make either a powerful sorcerer with some levels in druid.


----------



## Eric Tolle

DMKastmaria said:


> Playing a low level MU in AD&D is _supposed_ to be a challenge. And since I don't think with my character sheet, I'm able to contribute just fine!




I'll see the 1-2 spell mage and raise you. The best mage I ran was a commoner pretending to be a mage. And he was always useful; he threw darts and used crossbows- and missed. He threw burning oil- and set the forest on fire. He did all kind of stuff, and every so often he wiggled his fingers and said some nonsense words  and "Oh dear, we're in a no magic zone" or "someone countermagicked me".

See, you don't need magic at all to have an effective magic user. I support your making all wizards commoners, because nothing makes magic magical like not being able to do it at all.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Plane Sailing said:


> Genuinely curious whether it is a "wizard" thing and those classes are OK or a "campaign" thing and those classes would be disallowed.




Doesn't matter to me in the slightest, since I'm one of those people for which the class "wizard" is just a label for a game mechanic, and bears only a tenuous relation to "wizards" in the game world. 

So if it's a clean design (and thus not just done for this one flavor reason) to make wizards one type of caster and warlocks or sorcerers another, then I'm fine with that.  If it's a clean design, it will have other benefits that I'll also appreciate.  If it's not a clean design, then I'm not for it, no matter what side benefits it may possess.


----------



## Cybit

Relevant info from the chat a bit ago...


Comment From Andrew  
Can  you comment on adventure pacing versus the wonder of magic? In 3e, PCs  were often required to rest after the cleric/wizard were out of spells,  regardless of the state of the rest of the party. In 4e, everyone can  keep going until out of surges, but there was less "magical pizazz"  across the classes -- a sword being a magic missile being a druid's  claw. 
 11:49

Jeremy Crawford: 
We  have been striving to connect pacing to concrete things in the game  world: magical resources, such as spells; hit points; and various  options that might rely on a character expending some of his or her  vitality. 

 11:49

Mearls: 
That's  a great question. We want magical to feel magical yet rooted in the  world. The cantrip thing ties into this. Cantrips aren't specifically  made to blast people, but a cantrip you use to create a small amount of  acid as part of an alchemy experiment can also be a useful weapon.  Spells should feel magical and maybe even mysterious in some way. 

 11:49

Mearls: 
For  instance, going back to cantrips, we specifically didn't want to just  make a spell that was the same as a crossbow but it did fire damage.  That sells magic short, IMO. 



 11:49

Comment From Somnambulant gamer  
You mentioned all casters have at-will spell "options" now. Are these class features, or tied into the themes or backgrounds? 

 11:50

Jeremy Crawford: 
Both! 

 11:50

Jeremy Crawford: 
The cleric and the wizard get them, and some backgrounds and themes offer them. 

 11:51

Mearls: 
Yes,  both. At-will spells come with classes. Rogues and fighters can opt  into that if they want. I'd also like to at some point offer an option  for a non-at-will magic game, but we received overwhelming feedback in  favor of at-will magic. That feedback was largely edition independent.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Mearls said:
			
		

> Yes,  both. At-will spells come with classes. Rogues and fighters can opt  into that if they want. I'd also like to at some point offer an option  for a non-at-will magic game, but we received overwhelming feedback in  favor of at-will magic. That feedback was largely edition independent.




So right there is the reason for anyone who doesn't want at-will wizard magic to get involved in the playtest and make your voices heard.  Up until this point... apparently its overwhelming in its lean towards including it.  Mike would like to possibly have it, but it has to seem like its wanted... so make sure you get in there and let them know.  Tip the scales back the other way.


----------



## Elf Witch

Plane Sailing said:


> I wonder if the issue here could be resolved by considering wizards, sorcerers and warlocks not in terms of the flavour of the magical source, but the style in which they cast?
> 
> Limited spells but some big show stoppers? You're a wizard. Cast magic all the time! You're a warlock. Something in between? You're a sorcerer.
> 
> In other words, could frequency of casting be a job demarcation thing
> 
> Also, I wonder how people here who will find a wizard casting magic spells "at will" bad, feel about a sorcerer or warlock?
> 
> Genuinely curious whether it is a "wizard" thing and those classes are OK or a "campaign" thing and those classes would be disallowed.
> 
> Cheers




I like the idea of them being different. Once you start giving wizards combat at will spells why bother to have a sorcerer. One of the big differences I have always liked was the whole wizards must memorize spells but have a huge variety to choose from. Sorcerers know a limited amount of spells but can cast them without preparation. 

If we give wizards at will spells what about sorcerers shouldn't they get them too? After all sorcerers literally have magic flowing through them. 

I like that both can run out of spells wizards because they don't have anymore memorized and sorcerers because they are out of energy. That is how I have always rationalized when sorcerers run out of energy.

Now warlocks are fueled by a different magic and cast bolts every round but they are limited in being able to do a variety of things. 

If you are going to get rid of these differences than I have to wonder why bother to have separate classes have one magic class with themes.


----------



## I'm A Banana

So, it's an inextricable part of the class, but Mearls is hypothetically interested in something that doesn't do that. It's been made an inextricable part of the class thanks to overwhelming feedback.

So I guess, if you don't like that, the answer is to *give them feedback about it*. Looks like the squeaky wheels will get the grease here, and they DO have ideas bouncing around somewhere in at least Mearls's brain about how to do it otherwise.

ed: Ninja'd!


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Hussar said:


> That you don't want to play it is 100% groovy.  That you're imposing your tastes on the rest of us is not.  Everyone in this thread has agreed that either way should be an OPTION.  You get the once a day wizzie and the other guy gets the all day wizzie.
> 
> What blows my mind is people like JRRNeikalot telling other players at the same table that they cannot play a given class because it hurts his suspension of disbelief.  He doesn't want to play that character?  Groovy.  Telling me not to because of his own hangups?  Not bloody likely.
> 
> As a DM, you get to do that because you get to set the campaign parameters.  Fair enough.  I can choose to play or not.  But, as a fellow player?  Please worry about your character and I'll take care of mine, thankyouverymuch.




If I'm playing chess, I don't want the other player to suddenly move his pawn across the board to take my queen because he thinks it's okay for pawns to move at will.    And I certainly don't want that to become an official rule.  Thank you very much.


----------



## Cybit

DEFCON 1 said:


> So right there is the reason for anyone who doesn't want at-will wizard magic to get involved in the playtest and make your voices heard.  Up until this point... apparently its overwhelming in its lean towards including it.  Mike would like to possibly have it, but it has to seem like its wanted... so make sure you get in there and let them know.  Tip the scales back the other way.




I remember there being a poll about it and it was overwhelmingly in favor of at-will options, like 80/20, or even more skewed.  Can't seem to find it on their blog though.


----------



## Janaxstrus

Hussar said:


> That you don't want to play it is 100% groovy.  That you're imposing your tastes on the rest of us is not.  Everyone in this thread has agreed that either way should be an OPTION.  You get the once a day wizzie and the other guy gets the all day wizzie.
> 
> What blows my mind is people like JRRNeikalot telling other players at the same table that they cannot play a given class because it hurts his suspension of disbelief.  He doesn't want to play that character?  Groovy.  Telling me not to because of his own hangups?  Not bloody likely.
> 
> As a DM, you get to do that because you get to set the campaign parameters.  Fair enough.  I can choose to play or not.  But, as a fellow player?  Please worry about your character and I'll take care of mine, thankyouverymuch.




Too bad it's not an option.  It's the default right now.
This is one of those things that if it is assumed in core that all wizards can blast all day, will be a huge strike against the system for me.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Cybit said:


> I remember there being a poll about it and it was overwhelmingly in favor of at-will options, like 80/20, or even more skewed.  Can't seem to find it on their blog though.




Of course the poll is skewed.  Most of the voters are coming from 4e where at will powers are standard.


----------



## Janaxstrus

Cybit said:


> I remember there being a poll about it and it was overwhelmingly in favor of at-will options, like 80/20, or even more skewed.  Can't seem to find it on their blog though.




What do you think the poll would look like from a Retro-clone site?

How about from Paizo's website?

The vast majority of the people voting are the ones that stayed with 4e (this is an assumption, but one I would wager my D&D collection on).

Those of us that ran from 4e, don't go there really.


----------



## Cybit

JRRNeiklot said:


> Of course the poll is skewed.  Most of the voters are coming from 4e where at will powers were standard.




The poll was edition independent (they asked what edition you played).  So they could have pulled that correlation, and Mearls went out of his way to point out that this was specifically NOT the case.  

Also, if you've read through the other polls, it is very obvious that the people who like 4E are not the majority of voters (look at HP, or hell, the vancian casting poll) for that site.  

I think honestly the vast majority of people either don't mind or want some way for a wizard to be able to keep using spells.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Cybit said:


> Jeremy Crawford:
> We  have been striving to connect pacing to concrete things in the game  world: magical resources, such as spells; *hit points*; and various  options that might rely on a character expending some of his or her  vitality.



Hit points are real?

Highly dubious!


----------



## I'm A Banana

Janaxtrus said:
			
		

> What do you think the poll would look like from a Retro-clone site?
> 
> How about from Paizo's website?
> 
> The vast majority of the people voting are the ones that stayed with 4e (this is an assumption, but one I would wager my D&D collection on).
> 
> Those of us that ran from 4e, don't go there really.




I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but the best way for those folks to influence what D&D does in 5e is to stop screaming into the echo chamber and to go tell the publishers to their faces how they want it. 

WotC has implied it's open to suggestions (that's why it has at-will spells now!), so folks need to step up and say something and make themselves heard. 

If half the folks on Dragonsfoot went over to that post and told WotC that at-will magic ruins the fun for them, I'm fairly confident they'd at least make no at-will magic an option.


----------



## Janaxstrus

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but the best way for those folks to influence what D&D does in 5e is to stop screaming into the echo chamber and to go tell the publishers to their faces how they want it.
> 
> WotC has implied it's open to suggestions (that's why it has at-will spells now!), so folks need to step up and say something and make themselves heard.
> 
> If half the folks on Dragonsfoot went over to that post and told WotC that at-will magic ruins the fun for them, I'm fairly confident they'd at least make no at-will magic an option.




My group is all registered for the playtest.  We'll be trying it out and providing honest feedback.  If others feel differently about the game and want something more akin to 4e, cool and the gang.  
I don't feel obligated to buy a game just to keep D&D alive.  If I don't like it, I'll vote with my dollars.

The core assuming things for wizards such as at-will attack spells, implements, and the previously mentioned "wizard can unload his whole arsenal at the fighter and the fighter keeps going", will be serious strikes against the game as a whole FOR ME.  As options?  I'm ok with the above, but not as the assumed default.


----------



## DMKastmaria

Kamikaze Midget said:


> If half the folks on Dragonsfoot went over to that post and told WotC that at-will magic ruins the fun for them, I'm fairly confident they'd at least make no at-will magic an option.




Yeah, I don't think too many Dragonsfoot, OD&D Forum, K&K, Goblinoid Games, posters are making a habit of hanging out at the WotC forums/site polls/website. 

For that matter, I don't get the impression that Pathfinder players would feel particularly welcome there, either. 

And the last time I checked, it wasn't the sort of place I'd hang, even if I played 4e.


----------



## Janaxstrus

DMKastmaria said:


> Yeah, I don't think too many Dragonsfoot, OD&D Forum, K&K, Goblinoid Games, posters are making a habit of hanging out at the WotC forums.
> 
> For that matter, I don't get the impression that Pathfinder players would feel particularly welcome there, either.
> 
> And the last time I checked, it wasn't the sort of place I'd hang, even if I played 4e.




Can't xp you again...but...exactly.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Janaxstrus said:


> The core assuming things for wizards such as at-will attack spells, implements, and the previously mentioned "wizard can unload his whole arsenal at the fighter and the fighter keeps going", will be serious strikes against the game as a whole FOR ME.  As options?  I'm ok with the above, but not as the assumed default.




Yeah, I keep getting flamed for my opinion.  Maybe I'm not articulate enough.  I don't mind at wills and some of the other ideas tossed around that I find completely antithetical of D&D as options, but as core?  No thanks.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I wonder if the issue here could be resolved by considering wizards, sorcerers and warlocks not in terms of the flavour of the magical source, but the style in which they cast?
> 
> Limited spells but some big show stoppers? You're a wizard. Cast magic all the time! You're a warlock. Something in between? You're a sorcerer.




This would be my way, if I had my iron-fisty druthers. Perhaps I'd also have some at-will magic themes or somesuch.

Because it's a playstyle thing, I think giving different mechanics to different classes is a smart way to do it.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Ideally sorcerers shouldn't cast spells. Spells are something you learn in a book. Sorcerers should hurl barely shaped globs of magic.

Historically, D&D's magic styles haven't been distinctive enough imo. Clerics and magic-users cast their spells in pretty much the same way. 3e wizards and sorecerers use the same spell list.


----------



## drothgery

Doug McCrae said:


> Ideally sorcerers shouldn't cast spells. Spells are something you learn in a book. Sorcerers should hurl barely shaped globs of magic.
> 
> Historically, D&D's magic styles haven't been distinctive enough imo. Clerics and magic-users cast their spells in pretty much the same way. 3e wizards and sorecerers use the same spell list.



... though that does run into page count problems; an AEDU 4e class (in a classic-format book) had 15 or so pages of powers. Half the reason why the sorcerer existed in 3.x was because wizard spells took up so much of the book and were only used for one class (the other half was the desire for a caster that didn't memorize/prepare spells).


----------



## Doug McCrae

drothgery said:


> ... though that does run into page count problems; an AEDU 4e class (in a classic-format book) had 15 or so pages of powers. Half the reason why the sorcerer existed in 3.x was because wizard spells took up so much of the book and were only used for one class (the other half was the desire for a caster that didn't memorize/prepare spells).



Yes. I think the 1e-3e casters' spell lists were much too long.


----------



## Lwaxy

*chuckle* I always thought they were too short  *stares at the long list of customs spells* 

Sometimes I think class resources should be separate from the core books.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Another question aimed mostly at the people who don't like 'at-will' powers - how would you feel if wizards got a choice of, say, 3 out of 10 at-will powers, which included stuff like light, prestidigitation, mage hand and a couple of offensive options?

That would allow someone who hated crossbows to choose light, mage hand and magic zap, while someone who hated at-will zapping to choose light, mage hand and detect magic, say, and tote his trusty crossbow.

Would that be an approach which would work for both camps? Giving a framework which allowed choices to come into it like that?


----------



## Sunseeker

Lanefan said:


> Are you sure about this bit I bolded, or are you merely hoping?




Freudian slip, and the fact that many of my recent posts have been made on my cell-phone with T9-Word.


----------



## Hussar

Doug McCrae said:


> Yes. I think the 1e-3e casters' spell lists were much too long.




I would largely agree, but, could you imagine the uproar if they went back to, say, Expert D&D, where wizards had 12 spell choices per level (IIRC)?  And, funnily enough, even then, the spell section in the Expert D&D rules is still one of the longest sections of the book.


----------



## DMKastmaria

Hussar said:


> I would largely agree, but, could you imagine the uproar if they went back to, say, Expert D&D, where wizards had 12 spell choices per level (IIRC)?  And, funnily enough, even then, the spell section in the Expert D&D rules is still one of the longest sections of the book.




And B/X MU spells only went to 6th level. 

I'd be cool with B/X style spells. Throw in the slower advancement and tap it out at 14th level while you're at it.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Would that be an approach which would work for both camps? Giving a framework which allowed choices to come into it like that?




I think a lot of the resistance is that magic that you can do trivially, by its nature, _trivializes magic_, at least for that character. 

If you want magic to be this great and powerful force that a wizard only barely masters, you do not want magic to be trivial.


----------



## pemerton

Eric Tolle said:


> I'll see the 1-2 spell mage and raise you. The best mage I ran was a commoner pretending to be a mage. And he was always useful; he threw darts and used crossbows- and missed. He threw burning oil- and set the forest on fire. He did all kind of stuff, and every so often he wiggled his fingers and said some nonsense words  and "Oh dear, we're in a no magic zone" or "someone countermagicked me".
> 
> See, you don't need magic at all to have an effective magic user. I support your making all wizards commoners, because nothing makes magic magical like not being able to do it at all.



This is incredibly awesome. Unfortunately I can't XP you again yet.



Sadras said:


> Not sure what adjustments could not be made to the system to suit your playstyle with earlier editions. Could you give me an example?



Earlier editions have got no mechanics to support play which focuses on the encounter/situation, and have several mechanics that push against that. Many classes have abilities that recharge on a daily cycle. Hit points recharge on a daily cycle (either via natural healing, or spells). Many spell durations are minutes or tens of minutes per level, engendering a focus on time between encounters rather than events within an encounter. Etc.

Core B/X or AD&D has no mechanics in the PC build side of things that, without more, integrate the PCs into the gameworld (with druids, monks and assassins as perhaps very modest exceptions, because of their advancement rules). For a contrast within the context of AD&D, look at Oriental Adventures. For a contrast within D&D more broadly, look at 4e, in which nearly every race and many classes are defined partly in terms of their relationship to cosmologically and thematically significant story elements (eg to be a dwarf is to be a descendant of slaves of the giants, who served the titans who served the primordials who fought the gods over the fate of the world - choosing to be a dwarf situates directly in relation to one of the key conflicts within the gameworld).

And from a completely different playstyle angle, no edition of D&D (includnig 4e) can do gritty fantasy, because the damage rules don't support it. (Contrast Rolemater, Runequest, Chivalry and Sorcery, etc.)


----------



## grimslade

Can't XP Kamikaze Midget until I spread mine around. 
Please. Please PLEASE! Get your voice heard on what you like and what you don't to the design team. I don't care if you feel welcome or not, get your view across. We have a real chance to craft a customizable D&D to emulate multiple play styles. Let's not let the Next D&D not here from everyone.


----------



## Elf Witch

Plane Sailing said:


> Another question aimed mostly at the people who don't like 'at-will' powers - how would you feel if wizards got a choice of, say, 3 out of 10 at-will powers, which included stuff like light, prestidigitation, mage hand and a couple of offensive options?
> 
> That would allow someone who hated crossbows to choose light, mage hand and magic zap, while someone who hated at-will zapping to choose light, mage hand and detect magic, say, and tote his trusty crossbow.
> 
> Would that be an approach which would work for both camps? Giving a framework which allowed choices to come into it like that?




I could see the minor stuff.  My issue with at will attack is this it should not be an auto hit like magic missile and the damage should be the same as a crossbolt and you have to roll to hit. I could buy that things like this are so fundamental that the wizard just remembers the formula for them all the time.

If that is not good enough and you want to be able to match what the damage a fighter can put out all the time then don't play a wizard play a warlock you never run out of eldritch blasts.


----------



## Elf Witch

Doug McCrae said:


> Ideally sorcerers shouldn't cast spells. Spells are something you learn in a book. Sorcerers should hurl barely shaped globs of magic.
> 
> Historically, D&D's magic styles haven't been distinctive enough imo. Clerics and magic-users cast their spells in pretty much the same way. 3e wizards and sorecerers use the same spell list.




The way I play sorcerers and house rule them for my game is they are specialists their personalities shape them and their magic. So I require that the bulk of their magic comes from a school. And the first spell in a new level has to come from that school. 

I have customized spell lists to help with a concept.   

So far no one has objected to this and most have gotten enthusiastically into it.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> I would largely agree, but, could you imagine the uproar if they went back to, say, Expert D&D, where wizards had 12 spell choices per level (IIRC)?  And, funnily enough, even then, the spell section in the Expert D&D rules is still one of the longest sections of the book.




I don't really mind a fairly long list for any class that has a limit on the number of spells the character actually knows out of that longer list. That would be sorcerers (and other spontaneous casters) in 3e and even wizards in 1e/2e. The full class list may be long but because the character could never master more than a fraction (barring superhuman intelligence), it was self-regulating and not much of a problem.

But I fully agree that any class that can prep from any spell in the whole list needs a fairly short list. Any additions to the list as the game develops is almost certainly going to include power creep.


----------



## Hautamaki

DMKastmaria said:


> Somehow, we all managed, for decades, to play D&D without this grinding the game to a halt.
> 
> _Someone_ always wants to play the MU. Just like _someone_ always wants to play the Fighter. _Someone_ always wants to play a thief. _Someone _always...
> 
> Allright, the Cleric can be a tough sell.
> 
> Once upon a time, in the late 90's and near the end of 2e's reign, rpg boards would be rife with ridicule, at the suggestion that anyone, but anyone approach PC creation from a min/max, powergaming, optimization perspective.
> 
> "How dare you not put roleplaying first!"
> 
> Now, I've never had an issue with someone being a little powergamey. And my gaming aesthetics are far and away closer to 1e than 2e.
> 
> But, thanks to 3.x, Character Optimization is Game #1, for many people. And heaven help their group, if someone 's PC isn't as _Baaaaaaad _as their buddies'.
> 
> For most of the gamers I've met and played with, from my own age group, this whole "single spell" thing was never an issue. It's a game. This is part of the game and part of the challenge. It makes for some interesting, intriguing situations. Handicaps, by their nature, make things more difficult. But they exist for a reason and skilled players don't shirk from a handicap in any game, merely because it exists.
> 
> Arguably, the weakest AD&D class is the Thief. Yet, I've had players *who'll play nothing else*. Because they enjoy it. Because they bloody well know how to play the class and play it _effectively!_
> 
> And this is why so-called "Old Schoolers" tend not to get all in a tizzy about "balance." Because in the face of player skill, that balance just doesn't mean as much as it does in other versions of the game.
> 
> Now, I'm sure that WotC will address as many 3.x and 4e players' concerns about the Wizard, as they can. I suspect they'll put out a game that at least _some_ 3.x and 4e players like. As each L&L column makes clearer and clearer, it's highly unlikely to be a game *I *want to run. Which, is what I expected and which, is perfectly ok by me.
> 
> As I've said on more than one occasion, I think WotC should stick with 4e and not shove their fan-base under the bus.
> 
> Again!




Good post but I have two points to make.

First off, you have to consider the present day environment.  People back in the day were happy to play the wizard and thief (which was also weak as you point out) for 2 main reasons that really no longer apply today.  The first main reason is that D&D itself did not have the same level of competition for the same fanbase as D&D today does.  Absent any alternative, of course people in general were willing to settle for less design-wise.  Now of course there are still people, like you, who prefer that design.  But it's inarguable that if WotC were to put out BECMI for example today, it would not be nearly as successful as when TSR put it out 30 years ago because most people, while not necessarily power gamers, do not want to play a character that basically can't contribute any more than a peasant could in the majority of rounds of combat.

The second main reason people were happy to play thieves and wizards back in the day was that combat was a much smaller part of the game.  The game itself has evolved to the point where about 60-80% of the play time of any given session is spent in combat.  Back then it was a much more even split with role-play and exploration, so even if you had a guy that couldn't do much in combat that was only about 30-40% of the game and if he could shine for the other 60-70% that was great.

Now if 5e can somehow get back to combat being less than half of the average session then balancing PC combat ability becomes that much less important.  Their attempt to do so in 4e with the skill-challenge mechanic was a dismal failure by most accounts (including mine).  I think that adventure design is a much more important factor in non-combat related play; and even more important than that is the preferences of the group, ultimately.  If a given group of players would rather fight stuff than talk to it or explore a way around it, that's what they're going to do regardless of any non-combat type mechanics you try to design.

But even with groups that don't fight much for whatever reason, I would argue combat ability balance is still important.  Even if your character is weak for only 30% of the time rather than 70% of the time, it's still 30% of the time most people are not having as much fun as they would be if their character was more balanced.

That said I'm not favor of unlimited at-will cantrips in any case as I said above.  In my perfect world a vancian caster will have X number of spells, say 30, and that won't change, or if it does, very little.  A lvl 1 caster might have 20 spells total while a lvl 30 caster might have 30; the main difference is that almost all of a level 1 caster's spells will be weak cantrips.  As a wizard gains levels he can start to cast more and more higher level spells, but never more than 30 (or whatever) per day.


----------



## DMKastmaria

Hautamaki said:


> Good post but I have two points to make.
> 
> First off, you have to consider the present day environment.  People back in the day were happy to play the wizard and thief (which was also weak as you point out) for 2 main reasons that really no longer apply today.  The first main reason is that D&D itself did not have the same level of competition for the same fanbase as D&D today does.  Absent any alternative, of course people in general were willing to settle for less design-wise.  Now of course there are still people, like you, who prefer that design.  But it's inarguable that if WotC were to put out BECMI for example today, it would not be nearly as successful as when TSR put it out 30 years ago because most people, while not necessarily power gamers, do not want to play a character that basically can't contribute any more than a peasant could in the majority of rounds of combat.




I _*still *_disagree with your assessment of how much those players can contribute. I'm also not "settling for less design wise." Neither 3.x nor 4e suite my purposes, design wise. That's all. 

There's been alternatives to D&D for quite a while. And people who disliked the system, back in the day. So, they played Runequest, Warhammer, Rolemaster and dozens of lesser known systems. But, some people actually _liked _ D&D and AD&D. There's quite a few who _still _prefer those systems. 



Hautamaki said:


> The second main reason people were happy to play thieves and wizards back in the day was that combat was a much smaller part of the game.  The game itself has evolved to the point where about 60-80% of the play time of any given session is spent in combat.  Back then it was a much more even split with role-play and exploration, so even if you had a guy that couldn't do much in combat that was only about 30-40% of the game and if he could shine for the other 60-70% that was great.




My games have always been combat heavy. My players and I like it that way. Thieves and MU's, too. Honestly, have fun playing what you're playing, but you're making an awful lot of presumptuous statements about what everyone else is thinking, used to think, how they "used to" play, etc.



Hautamaki said:


> Even if your character is weak for only 30% of the time rather than 70% of the time, it's still 30% of the time most people are not having as much fun as they would be if their character was more balanced.




Most people who frequent EnWorld and WotC Forums, no doubt. Balance is a big deal in 4e. Not so much in AD&D. Player skill and player agency is far more of a deciding factor. 



Hautamaki said:


> That said I'm not favor of unlimited at-will cantrips in any case as I said above.  In my perfect world a vancian caster will have X number of spells, say 30, and that won't change, or if it does, very little.  A lvl 1 caster might have 20 spells total while a lvl 30 caster might have 30; the main difference is that almost all of a level 1 caster's spells will be weak cantrips.  As a wizard gains levels he can start to cast more and more higher level spells, but never more than 30 (or whatever) per day.




The WotC editions have been the story of the designers trying to fix AD&D. They've yet to please a majority of their fanbase. I'd like it if they took a cue from the LBB's and made a simple, base game and told everyone to make their own bloody modules for it! Then, EnWorld would be a much more interesting place. 

This is the secret of the OSR's success. We're mostly DIY D&D'ers. That kind of creativity and enthusiasm is what fostered the games' growth in the 70's. It's why, whatever 5e turns out to be, the OSR and the OGL ain't going nowhere. 

And this is really the only reason I'm interested in 5e. Because there's a real possibility that its very nature, being modular, will inspire and spawn a whole slew of creative DM's, *who'll take that system and turn it into whatever they please! *

I'm not looking for 5e to be a game I'll want to play. What I want is for all those EnWorld posters who, before the playtest has even been released, are writing up rules, tweaks and discussing ideas, to hold onto and continue developing the systems and subsystems they're making today. And then unleash a slew of new publications like the _Arduin Grimoires_, and _Alarums & Excursions_, or to compare with more recent offerings, 
_Fight On!_, _Knockspell_, and _Loviatar._

Look at what that kind of creativity and enthusiasm has wrought in the OSR. Look at what the fanbase has created, in the past 5 years! And how the audience and body of work for those "dead systems" has grown!

If WotC wants 5e to be a success, if the fanbase wants it, then the fans need to take things into their own hands! Assuming, that WotC will stay out of their way.


----------



## Libramarian

I could accommodate someone who wants magic-looking basic attacks in my group. I would just let them refluff their crossbow and dagger however they like, as long as they agree to keep it in their own mind and not bother anyone else looking for a more classic D&D flavor. Everybody wins.

I call it solipsistic refluffing. I think it has the potential to be a hot new innovation in RPG technology.


----------



## Lanefan

Regarding spell interruption:







drothgery said:


> Because it's not a good balancing mechanism. It makes the wizard's turn take longer (when with pre-4e style spells, it already is taking a long time), and means that the wizard has to succeed on multiple checks to do what he does, while the fighter has to succeed at one (for much the same reason, I hate the 3.x SR mechanic, or as I call it, making a saving throw to be able to make a saving throw). Generally, I don't think 'able to do more cool stuff, but be far less reliable' is how wizards should work.



How on earth does "you got hit, you lose your spell, next!" make a wizard's turn* take longer?

Because interruption, if it is to be a true balancer, has to be automatic on any hit.  No concentration check.  No saving throw.  The only dice that get rolled are to check for (and resolve) a wild magic surge if one's game includes such.

* - and I'll be a much happier camper if they find a way to step back from 3e-4e's strict turn-based system to something more fluid and freeform.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

Plane Sailing said:


> Another question aimed mostly at the people who don't like 'at-will' powers - how would you feel if wizards got a choice of, say, 3 out of 10 at-will powers, which included stuff like light, prestidigitation, mage hand and a couple of offensive options?
> 
> That would allow someone who hated crossbows to choose light, mage hand and magic zap, while someone who hated at-will zapping to choose light, mage hand and detect magic, say, and tote his trusty crossbow.



The dangerous ground here is that if an at-will is anything more than marginally useful it'll either get broken in a heartbeat or dramatically change how the game gets played.

At-will _Light_?  So much for low-level types having to worry about how long their torches and lanterns will last.

At-will _Detect Magic_?  Having played a character in 3e who had this (via _Permanence_) I can tell you it's extremely powerful at high levels and pretty much broken at low...

At-will _Mage Hand_?  I'd have a field day finding ways to abuse this; and many many others would find better abuses than I ever could. 

Danger, Will Robinson!

Lanefan

EDIT: there's supposed to be a smiley just there, after "... I ever could." but it's not showing.
EDIT 2: and now it's there, and I'm confused.


----------



## Balesir

Lanefan said:


> At-will _Light_?  So much for low-level types having to worry about how long their torches and lanterns will last.



4e has this and my experience is that it works just fine. The wizard can only have one light active at a time, though, so the fighter's Sunblade is actually a better bet most of the time.



Lanefan said:


> At-will _Detect Magic_?  Having played a character in 3e who had this (via _Permanence_) I can tell you it's extremely powerful at high levels and pretty much broken at low...



4e uses a skill for this, which works far better than the spellcasters having to give up attacks or heals for it, in my experience. Taking an action and a skill roll is easy in the "search the room" phase, but often decidedly sub-optimal in combat.



Lanefan said:


> At-will _Mage Hand_?  I'd have a field day finding ways to abuse this; and many many others would find better abuses than I ever could.



Again, 4e has this, and "abuses" are limited. The main boon is the ability to pull out items to use without taking a minor action to do so; if minor actions aren't in use I'm guessing that such actions will be cost free anyway...

Can you use it to lift stuff out of trapped places? Sure - but in a world with at-will mage hand, many traps will be set up to account for it (and the range of it is very limited).


----------



## Lanefan

Balesir said:


> 4e has this and my experience is that it works just fine. The wizard can only have one light active at a time, though, so the fighter's Sunblade is actually a better bet most of the time.



Sunblade?  Is that like a Sunsword from previous editions, 'cause if so that's a mighty powerful thing to be giving characters who can't even cast _Continual Light_ yet... 



> 4e uses a skill for this, which works far better than the spellcasters having to give up attacks or heals for it, in my experience. Taking an action and a skill roll is easy in the "search the room" phase, but often decidedly sub-optimal in combat.



_Detect Magic_ isn't usually a combat spell anyway; it's more an exploration thing.  I'd rather force the casters to have to choose where to put their spells, but either method could work.

Lanefan


----------



## Bluenose

DMKastmaria said:


> And B/X MU spells only went to 6th level.
> 
> I'd be cool with B/X style spells. Throw in the slower advancement and tap it out at 14th level while you're at it.




You've been reading Adventurer Conqueror King, have you? It actually allows some higher level spells, but they're rituals and not trivial to cast.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Plane Sailing said:


> D&D doesn't expect naked fighters with a steel sword to be adventuring at 15th level. It expects fighters with rings of protection, boots of flying, a helm of brilliance, gem of seeing and sword of might smiting to be adventuring at 15th level.
> 
> D&D was never intended to be a low-magic item system, and that is probably why it sucks at that once you get above relatively low level!



If magic items are necessary for balance, then does that mean that they are an expectation and not a reward for skilled play? Wealth-by-level guidelines, magic items in PHB, sense of entitlement, videogame generation, cats and dogs living together. Etc.


----------



## Mattachine

It looks as though the folks that want low-level wizards to have almost no magic won't like the new edition. Since the majority of those folks are already using house-rules in their games, I guess they will just have to house-rule away some minor at-will magic in 5e.  

The design team has made it clear that minor, at-will magic of some type is going into the new edition.


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> Earlier editions have got no mechanics to support play which focuses on the encounter/situation, and have several mechanics that push against that. Many classes have abilities that recharge on a daily cycle. Hit points recharge on a daily cycle (either via natural healing, or spells). Many spell durations are minutes or tens of minutes per level, engendering a focus on time between encounters rather than events within an encounter. Etc.




I see, however I did say that adjustments could be made to the existing system. The basic core was user-friendly to have it being adjusted. So I was specifically speaking options with the PHB or the DMG but house rules as well. 



> Core B/X or AD&D has no mechanics in the PC build side of things that, without more, integrate the PCs into the gameworld (with druids, monks and assassins as perhaps very modest exceptions, because of their advancement rules). For a contrast within the context of AD&D, look at Oriental Adventures. For a contrast within D&D more broadly, look at 4e, in which nearly every race and many classes are defined partly in terms of their relationship to cosmologically and thematically significant story elements (eg to be a dwarf is to be a descendant of slaves of the giants, who served the titans who served the primordials who fought the gods over the fate of the world - choosing to be a dwarf situates directly in relation to one of the key conflicts within the gameworld).




True, this grew from experience, setting and design. The Racial Handbooks of 2E helped with this a lot. And If I remember correctly the Gazetteer series did provide a thematic storyline for the races as well. Dragonlance too had a handbook. Can't really comment on FR, Eberron or Dark Sun as I did not invest time into those settings. 
Furthermore the system did not preclude the DM designing thematic or cosmological relationships between differing entities/races. 

Certainly 4E took all this straight out the box which is great for some, but I was not debating that initially. My initial comment was the older editions could essentially be manipulated to suit any style of play (whether they be options from Books, Supplements, Magazines or Houserules) and from what you mentioned up until this point I see nothing that precludes that. (Design and integrate).



> And from a completely different playstyle angle, no edition of D&D (includnig 4e) can do gritty fantasy, because the damage rules don't support it. (Contrast Rolemater, Runequest, Chivalry and Sorcery, etc.)




Whole-heartedly agree with this point. Many proposed systems (from the publishers and from the fans) have come to the fore to be used in conjunction or in place of the D&D health/damage system but have failed to capture what some other non-D&D systems have done so much better. 
So yes, I concede D&D fell short here.


----------



## GM Dave

Bluenose said:


> You've been reading Adventurer Conqueror King, have you? It actually allows some higher level spells, but they're rituals and not trivial to cast.




It would really change things if spells like Wish or Meteor Swarm were several hour if not a day or more long casting rituals.

It would move these types of 'game breaking' spells out of the combat environment and move them more to set piece really evil plans or the save of player's lives that really deserve to be brought back at great cost.

Much better than the fighter died this round so we'll wish him back up to full health the next round.

Time stop would not be the spell a wizard on spur of the moment uses to run around setting up delayed charges around Orcus but be something that requires pre-planning to get set up to then take advantage of that few seconds of extra time (more used to pull off that ultimate theft from the City of Bronze of the Artifact needed to challenge Orcus).


----------



## DMKastmaria

Bluenose said:


> You've been reading Adventurer Conqueror King, have you? It actually allows some higher level spells, but they're rituals and not trivial to cast.




I haven't picked ACKS up yet. Too many bloody Kickstarter's, for me to keep up with them all.


----------



## GM Dave

Mattachine said:


> It looks as though the folks that want low-level wizards to have almost no magic won't like the new edition. Since the majority of those folks are already using house-rules in their games, I guess they will just have to house-rule away some minor at-will magic in 5e.
> 
> The design team has made it clear that minor, at-will magic of some type is going into the new edition.




In the May 16th discussion, they also made know that they would like to make an option without at-wills.

It was just their design playtest seemed to favour having some at-wills in greater demand then no at-wills.

This is reminiscent of the Gnome race question.  If 5% of your supporters play Gnomes can you discard including Gnomes in your game?

If your support is 100 people then you've lost 5 people.  If your support is 100,000 people then you've lost 5,000 people at potentially 25/person or 125,000 dollars in sales.  That is enough to make it potentially worth adding a few extra lines to a book to satisfy that group.

When it comes to the question of a non-at-will caster there are likely to be at least 5% if not more that would want that as an option.

It is also something that a head market sales person will look at and point to as being a way to avoid initial rejection of the project for a low investment of time and cost.  This is something you should aim for when you are hoping to avoid problems through playtesting.

You might even have the 'problem' solved for you by the playtesting as I bet their will be at least a dozen people that will go on boards discussing 'fixes' that will provide an alternative if the system can 'easily' allow that.


----------



## Fifth Element

Doug McCrae said:


> If magic items are necessary for balance, then does that mean that they are an expectation and not a reward for skilled play? Wealth-by-level guidelines, magic items in PHB, sense of entitlement, videogame generation, cats and dogs living together. Etc.



I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter, can't XP, +1, FTW. Etc.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> D&D doesn't expect naked fighters with a steel sword to be adventuring at 15th level. It expects fighters with rings of protection, boots of flying, a helm of brilliance, gem of seeing and sword of might smiting to be adventuring at 15th level.
> 
> D&D was never intended to be a low-magic item system, and that is probably why it sucks at that once you get above relatively low level!





Doug McCrae said:


> If magic items are necessary for balance, then does that mean that they are an expectation and not a reward for skilled play? Wealth-by-level guidelines, magic items in PHB, sense of entitlement, videogame generation, cats and dogs living together. Etc.



I guess one way to resolve this problem is if there is no expectation of attaining high level. Or any level above first. Experience points are always a reward for skilled play. But there are also wealth-by-level guidelines. All high level characters (or just fighters?) are expected to have plenty of magic, but high level characters aren't expected.

However I don't think most people play this way any more, we certainly don't. Levelling up is either automatic, or fairly easy. First level characters don't die in their droves as they seemed to in D&D's early days. I believe some rpgers are even giving their level one PCs names now!


----------



## Janaxstrus

Mattachine said:


> It looks as though the folks that want low-level wizards to have almost no magic won't like the new edition. Since the majority of those folks are already using house-rules in their games, I guess they will just have to house-rule away some minor at-will magic in 5e.
> 
> The design team has made it clear that minor, at-will magic of some type is going into the new edition.





A lot of us won't house rule it at all.  We won't buy it.
I've got perfectly good systems with house rules already in place, no need to spend hundreds of dollars to repeat the process if the game isn't better.


----------



## steeldragons

Doug McCrae said:


> I guess one way to resolve this problem is if there is no expectation of attaining high level. Or any level above first. Experience points are always a reward for skilled play.




Well, that...and killing monsters (monster XP) and/or takin' their stuff (GP XP)...and possibly just completing [successfully] a given story arc, good role-playing (vs. just skilled player playing), and probably a few other things.



Doug McCrae said:


> But there are also wealth-by-level guidelines.




EGADS! Do we know this will be in 5e or is this a supposition from former editions?!

I, for one, certainly hope "wealth-by-level" is a thing of the soon-to-be-distant past. The expectations and entitlement they instilled did nothing, that I could see, in achieving or encouraging "balance." Simply made for more greedy and expectant players wanting/demanding "their cool stuffs cuz the books says so."



Doug McCrae said:


> All high level characters (or just fighters?) are expected to have planty of magic, but high level characters aren't expected.




I dunno if this ["high level characters aren't expected"] is so...I think high level play has become a staple of many groups...whether they work up to it or just start somewhere above 5th...or 10th for that matter. But I would expect, through their adventures and accomplishments, a high level character of any class would have a decent array of magic items (I'm thinking in terms of 3-5 reeeally good ones, which I understand is a low number by many standards. But 5-10 -as a completely hypothetical number- with some minor or situational items and a few "use all the time" weapons, armor, items doesn't strike me as unreasonable.)



Doug McCrae said:


> However I don't think most people play this way any more, we certainly don't. Levelling up is either automatic, or fairly easy. First level characters don't die in their droves as they seemed to in D&D's early days.




No reason that isn't a valid way to play. But I don't think it is accurate or fair to simply dismiss lower level play for "most people"...nor expect the developers should worry/write the game as if it doesn't start at Level 1...as a baseline.



Doug McCrae said:


> I believe some rpgers are even giving their level one PCs names now!




<best Mort from Penguins of Madagascar voice> It's twue. </Mort> 

--SD


----------



## Wulfgar76

Janaxstrus said:


> A lot of us won't house rule it at all.  We won't buy it.
> I've got perfectly good systems with house rules already in place, no need to spend hundreds of dollars to repeat the process if the game isn't better.




And this is why you are _outside_ the target audience of the new edition.
And why WotC should not waste one minute trying to earn your business.

Evidently the customers _most likely to buy_ D&D Next want something you don't want.

It is unrealistic to expect WotC to ignore the people eagerly waiting to buy their products, and try to appease people already happy with competitor products.

The worst thing D&D Next could do is cater to the whims of the people _least _likely to buy their new product.


----------



## Libramarian

Mattachine said:


> It looks as though the folks that want low-level wizards to have almost no magic won't like the new edition. Since the majority of those folks are already using house-rules in their games, I guess they will just have to house-rule away some minor at-will magic in 5e.
> 
> The design team has made it clear that minor, at-will magic of some type is going into the new edition.



I don't get what the point of this post is. What the design team has made clear is that they intend to listen to our opinions. I think everyone who's not into at-will blasty magic should speak up as loudly as they feel like.

People should stop trying to control the way other people choose to express their opinions. Let WotC worry about who to listen to.

Personally I was somewhat reassured by Mike Mearl's comment in the chat thing that they don't want at-will magic to be just refluffed weapons, but more like -- you create a small amount of acid alchemically, which could be weaponized. That's more appealing I suppose.

I don't think my apprehension is coming from a particularly grognardy place, I just think at-will blasty magic is by necessity lame and plinky, and I don't want magic like that.

Unless it had a sense of humor about it. Then I could be won over. But that is unlikely.

If it's like Ice Dagger, Acid Splash, Fire Lance -- no thanks, too contrived/symmetrical.


----------



## Steely_Dan

Wulfgar76 said:


> And this is why you are _outside_ the target audience of the new edition.
> And why WotC should not waste one minute trying to earn your business.
> 
> Evidently the customers _most likely to buy_ D&D Next want something you don't want.
> 
> It is unrealistic to expect WotC to ignore the people eagerly waiting to buy their products, and try to appease people already happy with competitor products.
> 
> The worst thing D&D Next could do is cater to the whims of the people _least _likely to buy their new product.




Everything you say is bad, imo.  So, cater to some D&D players, but not others,  that smacks of favouritism.


----------



## Libramarian

Doug McCrae said:


> I guess one way to resolve this problem is if there is no expectation of attaining high level. Or any level above first. Experience points are always a reward for skilled play. But there are also wealth-by-level guidelines. All high level characters (or just fighters?) are expected to have plenty of magic, but high level characters aren't expected.



I follow your logic. I prefer a little of column A, a little of column B -- less expectation with respect to both wealth by level and level by x amount of playtime.


> However I don't think most people play this way any more, we certainly don't. Levelling up is either automatic, or fairly easy. First level characters don't die in their droves as they seemed to in D&D's early days. I believe some rpgers are even giving their level one PCs names now!



My impression is that the awarding player skill style is surprisingly resilient, given how little the current edition supports it. It's clearly something that continues to interest people. For me I really have found that pushing D&D in more of a challenge-the-player direction while de-emphasizing the DM's role as story-plotter makes the game a lot more fun. It's like a Flaming Moe from the Simpsons -- fire makes it good. My ultimate hope for DDN would be if it presents different styles in a way that encourages people to try something new. Then we can all see which kind of play rises to the top, without wondering what effect the current edition's bias is having on the discussion.


----------



## Balesir

Libramarian said:


> My impression is that the awarding player skill style is surprisingly resilient, given how little the current edition supports it.



Huh?? I find 4e supports the player skill of "showing me what they can do with(in) the rules" absolutely fine. What particular player skills do you want to see tested? Salesmanship? Basket weaving? OK, that last one is a mite facetious, but the question is serious - what player skills do you want to be tested?


----------



## steeldragons

Libramarian said:


> I don't get what the point of this post is. What the design team has made clear is that they intend to listen to our opinions. I think everyone who's not into at-will blasty magic should speak up as loudly as they feel like.
> 
> People should stop trying to control the way other people choose to express their opinions. Let WotC worry about who to listen to.
> 
> Personally I was somewhat reassured by Mike Mearl's comment in the chat thing that they don't want at-will magic to be just refluffed weapons, but more like -- you create a small amount of acid alchemically, which could be weaponized. That's more appealing I suppose.
> 
> I don't think my apprehension is coming from a particularly grognardy place, I just think at-will blasty magic is by necessity lame and plinky, and I don't want magic like that.
> 
> Unless it had a sense of humor about it. Then I could be won over. But that is unlikely.
> 
> If it's like Ice Dagger, Acid Splash, Fire Lance -- no thanks, too contrived/symmetrical.




I quoted with with the intent of snipping out some pieces to illustrate and agree...but then, it seems, there's nothing in here that needs snipping. 

What this speaks to, I think/as I'm reading it, is the inherent issue...and potential problem...WotC is facing with 5e.

It is an inherent divergence of who/how people _approach_ the game.

Namely...There are those who think/want/expect the magic is there for/as any other piece of the_ crunch_ of _building_ my character. How much/often can I do this? How much damage can I do? How long does it take? Is there some "feat" that let's me do XYZ with it?  Can I "keep up with the Joneses" swinging the swords and not feel "useless"?

Then, there are those who think/want/expect the magic is there for/as any other piece of the_ fluff_ of _creating_ their character. The questions are, for the most part the same...but the_ perspective_ from which they are asked is completely different.

Is there a third (or fourth, fifth, sixth...) party who wants/uses both or something else entirely? I don't know. I would suspect so. But they aren't the ones arguing on ENworld over every little piece of info we get about the new game. lol.

It's a question of a game of [or perspective/approach to that game for] Crunch/mechanics or Fluff/flavor. Is it a game "built to be won/beaten 'cuz I'm the bestest there is at wut I does' mentality" or a game "created to be experienced/enjoyed without an 'I win! I'm the bestest' mentality"?

The journey or the destination?

It is not a question I have an answer for...and I suspect WotC doesn't either. I do not, for a moment, envy their position.

But, all in all, I agree with everything you say here. It's/I'm not saying this is "goodrightfun" and others are "badwrongfun." Just that I agree with this perspective and hope, very much so, that 5e is able to find that ever-so-elusive "sweet spot" (personally, I think options is the best way of doing this...but there might be some other way I hadn't thought of) to make both camps happy...because, like it or not, they are distinctively different camps from the very way they approach the game.

--SD


----------



## Mattachine

Libramarian said:


> I don't get what the point of this post is. What the design team has made clear is that they intend to listen to our opinions. I think everyone who's not into at-will blasty magic should speak up as loudly as they feel like.
> 
> People should stop trying to control the way other people choose to express their opinions. Let WotC worry about who to listen to.
> 
> Personally I was somewhat reassured by Mike Mearl's comment in the chat thing that they don't want at-will magic to be just refluffed weapons, but more like -- you create a small amount of acid alchemically, which could be weaponized. That's more appealing I suppose.
> 
> I don't think my apprehension is coming from a particularly grognardy place, I just think at-will blasty magic is by necessity lame and plinky, and I don't want magic like that.
> 
> Unless it had a sense of humor about it. Then I could be won over. But that is unlikely.
> 
> If it's like Ice Dagger, Acid Splash, Fire Lance -- no thanks, too contrived/symmetrical.




Neither I nor the post I was referring to was about "at-will blasty magic", but simply about having at-will magic of any type. The WotC design team have already said they are including at-will magic of some type. 

I and many others think it's a great idea, and are glad that the design team is already working on it.


----------



## Janaxstrus

Wulfgar76 said:


> And this is why you are _outside_ the target audience of the new edition.
> And why WotC should not waste one minute trying to earn your business.
> 
> Evidently the customers _most likely to buy_ D&D Next want something you don't want.
> 
> It is unrealistic to expect WotC to ignore the people eagerly waiting to buy their products, and try to appease people already happy with competitor products.
> 
> The worst thing D&D Next could do is cater to the whims of the people _least _likely to buy their new product.




I am only outside any audience because of the previous edition.  I still own thousands of dollars worth of 1st, 2nd, and 3x edition stuff.
If all they want are the people from their last edition, 5e will not meet their sales goals.

They lured me into the discussion with a game that will feel like the old days, but to me, being the special snowflake wizard who does nothing but blast things round after round feels NOTHING like the old days.
A wizard who requires a staff or orb or he is at a serious disadvantage doesn't feel like the old days.

I've said a dozen times, I want to like the new game.  I want it to be a game I'll enjoy and spend money on.  Like it or not, we "grognards" tend to have the most disposable income.  They need us MORE than we need them.  Most of us have perfectly functional games now, and we want to be wowed by this edition.  I want to spend the money on a game, but I'm not going to do so if it's chock full of 4e-isms.

So, like it or not, if they want the game to succeed and be around more than 4 years, they need us grognards and lapsed customers.  They need to put out a game we like.  They need to listen to the feedback I and many many others fully intend on sending in.  They are the ones with the future (or lack thereof) of D&D on their heads.  If it's a bad game (for my playstyle and preferences), I am not out anything.  I save my money and move on.  If they fail in their bid to unite the customer bases, Hasbro just may shelve it and spell the end for the foreseeable future.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Wulfgar76 said:
			
		

> And this is why you are outside the target audience of the new edition.
> And why WotC should not waste one minute trying to earn your business.
> 
> Evidently the customers most likely to buy D&D Next want something you don't want.
> 
> It is unrealistic to expect WotC to ignore the people eagerly waiting to buy their products, and try to appease people already happy with competitor products.
> 
> The worst thing D&D Next could do is cater to the whims of the people least likely to buy their new product.




Wat.

Yeah, actively cultivating an older-E feel while demanding constant feedback and claiming a high level of responsiveness is really not doing that. Nothing's set in stone. 

I'm pretty sure the only people that WotC DOESN'T want to buy their game are racist nazi sympathizers who then go on murder sprees while scrawling THAC0 4EVA in their victims' blood.

Everyone else: come on and tell them what you want. WotC's site might have a lot of goobers on it, but when have D&D players ever been scared of taking the fight to the dragon's lair?

All Is Not Lost.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort

Lanefan said:


> The dangerous ground here is that if an at-will is anything more than marginally useful it'll either get broken in a heartbeat or dramatically change how the game gets played.
> ...
> 
> Danger, Will Robinson!




As a practical matter, any 9th level Wizard could easily have all the Mage Hand he could ever want.

I think the basic idea is that there is no real reason to prevent, say, a 12th level wizard blaster specialist from casting 3 Magic Missiles forever.  In 3e he could just have bought a cheap wand -- the difference between 50 charges and infinite is unlikely to be important.  We get a similar results without the bookkeeping.


----------



## am181d

Steely_Dan said:


> Everything you say is bad, imo.  So, cater to some D&D players, but not others,  that smacks of favouritism.




Saying that the game should be designed to meet what 90% of the audience wants versus what 10% wants is not favoritism. It's common sense.

(A few disclaimers: I made up those numbers. I'm just going by Mike Mearls saying there was overwhelming support for At Wills. If folks are opposed to At Wills in significant numbers, I assume that'll come up as a data point in the playtesting, so I'm not particularly concerned about this either way.)


----------



## Janaxstrus

am181d said:


> Saying that the game should be designed to meet what 90% of the audience wants versus what 10% wants is not favoritism. It's common sense.
> 
> (A few disclaimers: I made up those numbers. I'm just going by Mike Mearls saying there was overwhelming support for At Wills. If folks are opposed to At Wills in significant numbers, I assume that'll come up as a data point in the playtesting, so I'm not particularly concerned about this either way.)




It was about 80-20 iirc...on Wizard's site...where it's mainly current customers.

I definitely will be putting in my 8 cents worth


----------



## GM Dave

am181d said:


> Saying that the game should be designed to meet what 90% of the audience wants versus what 10% wants is not favoritism. It's common sense.
> 
> (A few disclaimers: I made up those numbers. I'm just going by Mike Mearls saying there was overwhelming support for At Wills. If folks are opposed to At Wills in significant numbers, I assume that'll come up as a data point in the playtesting, so I'm not particularly concerned about this either way.)




If percentages only worked so plainly at the game table.

It is not enough to sell a product to a group of people.

The people that buy the product have to turn around and sell it to their friends.

This is one of the reasons that I still play 3.5/PF.  I played and enjoyed 4e along with one of my friends but the others that I normally game with did not adjust to the change.

Now, of the people that I game with they range in how obstinate they are to change and new things.

For example when I GM, I generally will not allow Psionics in my fantasy.  I've played as a player doing Psionics in games like Dark Sun but I generally don't want it when I GM.

My choice kills that option for the rest at my table.

Another two people in the group refuse to play anything that smacks of Sci-fi (including Star Wars and other such types) but will play Spelljammer.

That choice is declared and you either accept it or you may lose that person as a player for the group and often at my age (30 to 40) players come in pairs.

If you have a 10 or 20% rejection of the project then the final impact can be much higher in the overall adoption of the project.

This is why, I've seen WotC working hard on giving 'options' rather than dictating a specific form and style of play and choice.

That works for me and I think that at-will, especially with the aim at more colourful spells with multiple uses, as being the better option.

For example, I think there was a cantrip called 'Fling' which essentially tossed a small item.  You can use it for things like tossing a grapple hook between spots, passing a message tied to a rock, tossing an item that is required to another player (like a potion), or it could be for tossing an item like a dagger or rock at an opponent.  Change the rock or dagger for a flask of oil with another cantrip like Mage Hand for holding a torch and you've got nice crutch fire dispersion device.


----------



## Herschel

Janaxstrus said:


> They lured me into the discussion with a game that will feel like the old days, but to me, being the special snowflake wizard who does nothing but blast things round after round feels NOTHING like the old days.



Nor does it feel like the "new" days, but I suppose you'd have to actually read and play it to figure that out. 


> A wizard who requires a staff or orb or he is at a serious disadvantage doesn't feel like the old days.



A staff or orb is no different than spell components except for inventory purposes. We've always needed fiddly bits to cast spells. 



> I've said a dozen times, I want to like the new game. I want it to be a game I'll enjoy and spend money on. Like it or not, we "grognards" tend to have the most disposable income.




Huh, so suddenly we 30- and 40-somethings with jobs in the Financial Sector aren't a good customer base. And teenagers/young adults with jobs but no bills. And just because we play the newest edition. Who knew?



> They need us MORE than we need them. Most of us have perfectly functional games now, and we want to be wowed by this edition. I want to spend the money on a game, but I'm not going to do so if it's chock full of 4e-isms.




And those of us who like the innovations aren't going to buy it if they fill it with inefficient crap from the past.



> So, like it or not, if they want the game to succeed and be around more than 4 years, they need us grognards and lapsed customers.




This makes some very unsubstantiated assumptions. And like it or not, they need the newer customers too. 


> They need to put out a game we like. ...If it's a bad game (for my playstyle and preferences), I am not out anything. I save my money and move on.




Which goes for old, new, really old and really new players.


----------



## Wulfgar76

Janaxstrus said:


> I am only outside any audience because of the previous edition.  I still own thousands of dollars worth of 1st, 2nd, and 3x edition stuff.
> If all they want are the people from their last edition, 5e will not meet their sales goals.



You have no idea how much product they need to sell to be successful. But the formula is real simple: sell as much product to as many customers as possible.



> They lured me into the discussion with a game that will feel like the old days, but to me, being the special snowflake wizard who does nothing but blast things round after round feels NOTHING like the old days.




This is a minor sticking point you can't seem to get past, and a petty reason to reject an entire game system.




> A wizard who requires a staff or orb or he is at a serious disadvantage doesn't feel like the old days.



There is nothing revealed so far that suggests this is the case in 5e.




> I've said a dozen times, I want to like the new game.  I want it to be a game I'll enjoy and spend money on.  Like it or not, we "grognards" tend to have the most disposable income. They need us MORE than we need them.




They need only to sell enough product to be profitable - and you do that by creating a product that appeals to as many people as possible - not a small niche market segment who hates your last edition and has already jumped over to competitors.




> Most of us have perfectly functional games now, and we want to be wowed by this edition.  I want to spend the money on a game, but I'm not going to do so if it's chock full of 4e-isms.




Exactly.

Do you really think they should ignore their current customer base to earn the business of surly, skeptical grognards who are perfectly happy playing some retroclone system and hate everything they hear about 5e?


----------



## steeldragons

Herschel said:


> Nor does it feel like the "new" days, but I suppose you'd have to actually read and play it to figure that out.




Well, this strikes me as intentionally argumentative/rude.  But that's not really important to my response. I thought it [blasty-at-wills] was directly pulled from the "new". I can/could be wrong, of course.



Herschel said:


> A staff or orb is no different than spell components except for inventory purposes. We've always needed fiddly bits to cast spells.




This is a good point. Looking at "implements" and "components" makes a buncha sense. And if it allows for the "Harry Potter wanna-plays" out there, more power to it. 



Herschel said:


> Huh, so suddenly we 30- and 40-somethings with jobs in the Financial Sector aren't a good customer base. And teenagers/young adults with jobs but no bills. And just because we play the newest edition. Who knew?
> 
> Woah woah woah. I'm turning 40 in a couple of weeks...and I think I am probably considered a "Grognard" by most. I would include the 30+ somethings in that too since they, most likely, didn't start with 3.x or 4e, that would warrant a "new skooler" label...if such labels can be applied to any of us.
> 
> That is not to say someone starting with 1 or 2e can't play and enjoy 4e! Far from it.
> 
> But, I dunno. Seems the 30 or 40 somethings would fall into the "general" category of "grognard" (insofar as I understand the term) or "old skooler"...the "4vengers" (i've seen them called hereabouts) would fall under "new skoolers"....do 3.x-ers have a term of their own? I dunno.
> 
> But, I don't believe, Janaxstrus implied that 30 or 40 somethings (particularly working in finance!) are not a valid customer base. If there are teens and young adults with no bills...they are equally viable. I don't know just how large a section of the gaming community that is...but it could be considerable.
> 
> 
> 
> Herschel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And those of us who like the innovations aren't going to buy it if they fill it with inefficient crap from the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't believe anyone is saying we want inefficient crap...past, present or future.
> 
> 
> 
> Herschel said:
> 
> 
> 
> This makes some very unsubstantiated assumptions. And like it or not, they need the newer customers too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But the fact is, by a large number, the "new customers" are the ones who didn't buy the last edition. It's about getting "new old customers" and tapping into the 30, 40, 50 something money. From a gaming perspective, age does not matter. From a business perspective, those with the money, be they young or old,  certainly do.
> 
> 
> 
> Herschel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which goes for old, new, really old and really new players.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tru dat. No argument here...or elsewhere for that matter.
> 
> Moreso, just making my case that as one turning 40, I'm not, necessarily, OLD I suppose. lol.
> 
> Nothin' else to see here. Moving on.
> --SD
Click to expand...


----------



## Balesir

steeldragons said:


> It's a question of a game of [or perspective/approach to that game for] Crunch/mechanics or Fluff/flavor. Is it a game "built to be won/beaten 'cuz I'm the bestest there is at wut I does' mentality" or a game "created to be experienced/enjoyed without an 'I win! I'm the bestest' mentality"?



I think this is broadly the nub of the problem, yes. Another way to look at the difference would be:

1) Games where the players are concentrating while actually playing on overcoming the challenges before the characters in the most expeditious way possible congruent with keeping to the rules, and

2) Games where the players are concentrating while actually playing  on expanding their view of the game world, their characters and/or the situation/adventure/plot their characters find themselves in the middle of - pushing the boundaries to find the "truth" of that situation.

I think there may also be a (3) of games where the players are concentrating while actually playing on what choices, actions and/or objectives their characters might adopt in order to make the game a more interesting story - how can they stir up some really juicy moral conflict?



steeldragons said:


> It's/I'm not saying this is "goodrightfun" and others are "badwrongfun." Just that I agree with this perspective and hope, very much so, that 5e is able to find that ever-so-elusive "sweet spot" (personally, I think options is the best way of doing this...but there might be some other way I hadn't thought of) to make both camps happy...because, like it or not, they are distinctively different camps from the very way they approach the game.



Right - the different foci are not better or worse than each other - just different. It's like whether you prefer steak or apple pie; neither choice is "wrong", and it's fine to like both.

But I think the task of making "modules" to suit is going to be tough, personally. The different foci really thrive with very different core rules philosophies. One wants the rules to state what happens in system terms precisely, another wants rules that suggest something about how the game world should work. One does better with rules that resolve character actions, another prefers rules that resolve conflicts between entities in the game world. One really needs the rules to define the (game effects of outcomes, another prefers simply defining who will dictate the outcome of a resolution. One wants the predefined game world situation to determine the stakes of a conflict; the other is happier with stakes set by the players of the characters involved.

All of these are pretty fundamental, "core" system elements. Mixing them up can work to a degree, but too much mixing just gives "incoherence" as discussed in innerdudue's thread in this forum. To some extent I think WotC will have to pick a style and focus mainly on it at the expense of the other(s). I don't actually mind which they pick - as long as they don't produce a kludgy mess by trying to mix and match both. Maybe they'll even manage a blend without making it kludgy - who knows? I'm not holding my breath for that last one, though...


----------



## Balesir

steeldragons said:


> But, I dunno. Seems the 30 or 40 somethings would fall into the "general" category of "grognard" (insofar as I understand the term) or "old skooler"



Huh, as one who had a 50-something-th birthday last week, the word "whippersnapper" is tugging at the edges of _my_ mind... 

Edit to P.S.: the word "grognard" (which means "grumblers") originally referred to veterans of the Napoleonic French army - most particularly members of the elite Imperial Guard. As such, 30-40 years old is actually probably pretty appropriate for such an "old soldier"!


----------



## Keldryn

I've said it in another thread, but I'll say it again here:

If a typical combat encounter can be resolved in 10 to 15 minutes (as with AD&D or B/X and BECMI D&D), then the low-level wizard doesn't need to have at-will magicky things to do each round to prevent the player from getting bored.  It's when combats start to average 45 minutes to an hour that it really sucks to be the wizard with only one spell to cast, or to be the 3.x rogue fighting against undead.

I'd like to see low-level wizards start off with more spell slots and acquire new ones more slowly.  3.x gives 1st-level wizards three cantrips and one 1st-level spell, although it only takes a 12 Int to get a bonus 1st-level spell.  Bump up the cantrips to 4 or 5 and add another 1st-level slot and your typical 1st-level wizard can perform a fair bit of magic in a day.  

One of the major problems with 3e spells that I don't see brought up that often is that in pre-3e D&D, the very high level spells were essentially part of "epic level" advancement.  The base OD&D books and B/X D&D didn't go beyond 6th level spells.  7th to 9th level spells were added in the Greyhawk supplement and carried over to AD&D, and from my understanding were primarily intended for use by high-level villains.

AD&D assumed that PCs settled down and retired from active adventuring around name level  (9th to 11th), usually after many years of play.  The entire structure of the game reinforces this (PCs gain +1 to +3 hp per level instead of hit die plus con bonus, XP to advance becomes linear, demi-human level limits generally cluster around name level or a bit lower, PCs acquire strongholds and followers, name-level characters can defeat arch-devils, demon lords, huge ancient dragons, and demigods).  In re-structuring the game so that players can experience the whole breadth of levels from 1 to 20 in a couple of years of regular play, the designers of 3e failed to account for the fact that those "epic" spells were never designed for regular use, least of all by players.

To put it another way, by the time the AD&D magic-user is able to memorize a single 6th-level spell such as _disintegrate, control weather, legend lore,_ or _anti-magic shell_, the party has faced beholders, pit fiends, type VI demons (balor), and huge, ancient red dragons and lived to tell about it.  With a bit of luck, they've also defeated Orcus.  The fighter has likely built a castle and is protecting the land with his loyal men-at-arms, the thief has established a hideout and has has own gang of thieves, and the magic-user is finally able to begin crafting magic items at great expense.  The party still bands together when there is a crisis that needs their attention, but they've otherwise settled down.

In 3rd Edition, when the wizard is able to cast these spells, the party will have a tough fight with an adult (middle-aged) red dragon and will get soundly TPKed by a balor, pit fiend, or ancient red dragon.  The party is only a little over halfway through their adventuring careers.

In 4e terms, 3rd Edition had casters entering the Epic Tier at about 13th level, while the other classes stayed in the early Paragon Tier through level 20 (not even going to get into the Epic Level stuff beyond 9th level spells).  I'm not a big fan of 4e, but this is something that it got right.


----------



## ForeverSlayer

The only types of "at will" spells I want in Next are cantrips, like Pathfinder has done, and like it was done back in 3rd edition, for example, by leaving a fire spell in a spell slot allowed to to shoot a blast of fire etc....

I think it makes more sense to have the Wizard decide whether he wants to leave that spell in the spell slot to use an at will ability or use that last spell and maybe have to switch to weapons.


----------



## Doug McCrae

[MENTION=11999]Keldryn[/MENTION], good analysis, can't xp you.


----------



## Janaxstrus

Herschel said:


> Nor does it feel like the "new" days, but I suppose you'd have to actually read and play it to figure that out.
> 
> A staff or orb is no different than spell components except for inventory purposes. We've always needed fiddly bits to cast spells.




Incorrect.  No components I've seen provide bonuses to your spells.  Implements are another potential set of bonuses to track.



> Huh, so suddenly we 30- and 40-somethings with jobs in the Financial Sector aren't a good customer base. And teenagers/young adults with jobs but no bills. And just because we play the newest edition. Who knew?




Can you point out where I said anyone wasn't needed?  I specifically said people like me, ARE needed, not that anyone else isn't.  FYI, I am in my 30s as well, but since I started with Basic, and prefer all the older editions to the new, I would consider myself a grognard.  The goal of this edition was UNITING the bases.  As such, I stated they need us lapsed customers to reach that goal.  Don't take things so personally.




> And those of us who like the innovations aren't going to buy it if they fill it with inefficient crap from the past.




Old =/= inefficient.  Old is only old, inefficient is edition neutral.  ALL of them have ineffecient constructs, sorry to break this to you.




> This makes some very unsubstantiated assumptions. And like it or not, they need the newer customers too.



Again, no one said they didn't.  Needing 1 type of customer does not negate the need for another.  Wulfgar is the one that said customers like myself were not needed.




Wulfgar76 said:


> You have no idea how much product they need to sell to be successful. But the formula is real simple: sell as much product to as many customers as possible.




I don't know how much they need to keep an edition alive.  I do know that whatever that number is, when editions stop meeting it, they get replaced.  If you can't manage to lure back other players, you are very likely to keep not meeting those goals.



> This is a minor sticking point you can't seem to get past, and a petty reason to reject an entire game system.



It's a strike against the system, as I stated earlier in this thread, in a post you even quoted.  It's not make or break, it's a strike.  Too many strikes and then the make or break starts.
If the at-will cantrips become options, I'm 100% fine with it.  I have an issue with it in core.  I honestly couldn't care less what they put in a 4e type option book, or a 2e or a hardcore, my only real concern is what they decide is the CORE of the game.  That is the stuff that is hardest to deal with and change.



> They need only to sell enough product to be profitable - and you do that by creating a product that appeals to as many people as possible - not a small niche market segment who hates your last edition and has already jumped over to competitors.



This is wrong.  I would almost guarantee all editions were still profitable when they were replaced.  They were not profitable ENOUGH.
The "niche" segment that plays Pathfinder spends enough money to (according to people who track sales in the gaming industry) outsell 4e over the last 3 quarters.  PF/3.x fans are not niche, they are a significant % of the D&D style gaming community.





> Do you really think they should ignore their current customer base to earn the business of surly, skeptical grognards who are perfectly happy playing some retroclone system and hate everything they hear about 5e?




Citation Needed.


----------



## Hussar

Just a point on the age thing.

There's a very, very good reason 3e was made for younger gamers.  The marketing research capped at 35 years old because it was found that over 35, people's gaming expenditures drop dramatically.  The biggest blocks of gamer demographics are high school (where you have lots of free time), college (again, lots of free time) and prison (ditto).  The army is also a large demographic for gamers as well.

The 35-55 (which I belong ... sigh) demographic has never historically been particularly significant.  That might be different now where the 3e aged gamers (say 20 yo to 30 yo in 2000) are now in their mid thirties and early forties.  So, it might make sense to court them.  But, without any other market research, I really don't know.

Going by what was done before though, us 40+ aged gamers are just not buying enough product to make our input all that significant.


----------



## Fifth Element

Being a grognard ain't about age. It's about attitude!


----------



## Campbell

I'll be 28 this August and 3e came out when I was a freshmen in high school. The grew up on 3e+ demographic is probably older than most people realize.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> Just a point on the age thing.
> 
> There's a very, very good reason 3e was made for younger gamers.  The marketing research capped at 35 years old because it was found that over 35, people's gaming expenditures drop dramatically.



How did they know that? It's not like they asked us...


> Going by what was done before though, us 40+ aged gamers are just not buying enough product to make our input all that significant.



I guess I go against the flow then, as I spent far more per year on gaming-related stuff in my 40's (I'm 50 now) than I ever did before.

Lanefan


----------



## Gorgoroth

*likewise, I'm sure*

I will play D&D until the day I die.

I'm 34, started 1st ed at 11, and spend more on RPGs now than I did in my teens, but less than the coke + hooker fueled debauch of my 20s. 

Nah, just kidding, I never paid for party flavours  hehe


----------



## Ridley's Cohort

Keldryn said:


> In re-structuring the game so that players can experience the whole breadth of levels from 1 to 20 in a couple of years of regular play, the designers of 3e failed to account for the fact that those "epic" spells were never designed for regular use, least of all by players.




You make a number of general points I largely agree with.  I think you are overstating the likely naivete of the 3e designers.

I would say their effort here was quite successful in extending play into the higher levels, however they were under pressure to preserve the feel of these classic spells close to their the original text.  To have even partially accomplished that feat was perhaps even evidence of the outright superiority of 3e to its predecessors.

In hindsight, I would vehemently argue that half those spells should have been rewritten completely from scratch, for the reasons you stated.  But at the time, such a choice would have been rated a strike against, evidence 3e was "not really D&D".

IMHO the majority of the 3.0 design problems stem from adhering too closely to the original material.  3.5 put a band-aid on a number of them, but I think it is Arcana Unearthed that shows us the real potential of a 3e-style system.  It was easier for Monte because there were no expectations other than fun.


----------



## Bluenose

Lanefan said:


> How did they know that? It's not like they asked us...
> I guess I go against the flow then, as I spent far more per year on gaming-related stuff in my 40's (I'm 50 now) than I ever did before.
> 
> Lanefan




I have more disposable income now than I did when I was a teenager or at college. So I can spend more on gaming material now than I did then. 

Sadly for WotC, a lot of it goes on things that aren't D&D. Mind you, that was true even when I didn't have as much to spend.


----------



## Tony Vargas

JRRNeiklot said:


> Citation, please.



Leomund's Tiny Hut.  Not the spell, the column.  Alternate initiative system is just one example.



> After over 30 years of playing in dozens of groups, I've never seen anyone not use the initiative system, or at least casting times.



In the 80s, alone, I saw many.    Maybe you played with very orthodox groups who followed the rules precisely.  I've personally never met anyone who played 0D&D or 1e 'straight.'  I'm not certain it /can/ be played 'RAW' (it was very clunky if you tried to use all the fiddly bits, and there were definitely some serious 'Murphy's rules' in there) for long before you run into an issue where you just need to add or change rules to keep things functional.  This millennium, sure, RAW rules, but in the 20th century, the rules were not held as remotely sacred.  

I think it might have been regional differences.  I'm on the west coast, and in the groups and conventions around the greater SF bay area, that's how things were.  Before the internet brought us all together to flame eachother, you could have distinct variations like that... 



> It's hardly a wonder people think magic is overpowered if spell interruption is not used.



With or without the ineffectual balancing mechanisms that have been attempted, magic can easily prove overpowered in classic D&D.  Not just magic-users, but magic items, actually.  I agree, though, that the problem was less pronounced in AD&D than in 3e.  In 3e the imbalances were more systematic, and players could leverage them consistently.  In AD&D they were more random or more firmly in the DMs court.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Lanefan said:


> I guess I go against the flow then, as I spent far more per year on gaming-related stuff in my 40's (I'm 50 now) than I ever did before. Lanefan



That fits conventional marketing wisdom.  In your peak-earning/midlife-crisis years - typically your 40s - you're able, and willing, to blow a lot of disposable income on the hobbies and interests you had in your youth, even if you don't always have time to actually pursue those interests like you used to.  One reason trends go in cycles.  

20-30 years ago, D&D was a fad, and the 14 year old boys who made it a fad are now in that sucker-for-nostalgia demographic.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I'm right there with 'em:  I started playing D&D at 13, and am now in my 40s.)


----------



## Hussar

Lanefan said:


> How did they know that? It's not like they asked us...
> I guess I go against the flow then, as I spent far more per year on gaming-related stuff in my 40's (I'm 50 now) than I ever did before.
> 
> Lanefan




Well, actually, they DID ask you.  That's how they knew that the 35+ gamer didn't spend a lot on gaming.  

Sure, there are exceptions, but, that's just it, they're exceptions.  I mean, my gaming expenditures are far less now than they were fifteen years ago.  So far this year, I've spent exactly one dollar on gaming material.  Last year it was a year sub to the DDI as a birthday present.  

So, every one of you is balanced by one of me.  And, according to WOTC's market research, at the time (and, let's not forget that research is now fifteen (ish) years old, there were a lot more 40 somethings like me than you.

Whether or not that is still true who knows.  Well, I imagine WOTC and possibly Paizo have spent considerable money finding out.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

GM Dave said:


> If percentages only worked so plainly at the game table.
> 
> It is not enough to sell a product to a group of people.
> 
> The people that buy the product have to turn around and sell it to their friends.
> 
> This is one of the reasons that I still play 3.5/PF.  I played and enjoyed 4e along with one of my friends but the others that I normally game with did not adjust to the change.
> 
> Now, of the people that I game with they range in how obstinate they are to change and new things.
> 
> For example when I GM, I generally will not allow Psionics in my fantasy.  I've played as a player doing Psionics in games like Dark Sun but I generally don't want it when I GM.
> 
> My choice kills that option for the rest at my table.
> 
> Another two people in the group refuse to play anything that smacks of Sci-fi (including Star Wars and other such types) but will play Spelljammer.
> 
> That choice is declared and you either accept it or you may lose that person as a player for the group and often at my age (30 to 40) players come in pairs.
> 
> If you have a 10 or 20% rejection of the project then the final impact can be much higher in the overall adoption of the project.
> 
> This is why, I've seen WotC working hard on giving 'options' rather than dictating a specific form and style of play and choice.
> 
> That works for me and I think that at-will, especially with the aim at more colourful spells with multiple uses, as being the better option.
> 
> For example, I think there was a cantrip called 'Fling' which essentially tossed a small item.  You can use it for things like tossing a grapple hook between spots, passing a message tied to a rock, tossing an item that is required to another player (like a potion), or it could be for tossing an item like a dagger or rock at an opponent.  Change the rock or dagger for a flask of oil with another cantrip like Mage Hand for holding a torch and you've got nice crutch fire dispersion device.




Except of course none of this is relevant if you look out there at the actual games that are successful and WHY they are successful. They succeed because they create a certain specific game. They succeed because there are SOME PEOPLE who like that game and that type of game allows them to tap into their creativity and have fun. Is Paizo running around worrying about what 5% of the people who really dislike PF are thinking? Of course not. They're busy being creative with the toolset they have. Maybe it won't capture ALL players, of course it won't. Making a tepid generic mess and spending all your time basketweaving 900 different variations of spell casting instead of making good adventures and settings and putting out cool strongly-themed stuff is not a recipe for success. 

So, yeah, sometimes you really actually do want to just say "you 5%, we like you, but we're just not catering to you with this product." Either the people in that 5% can come into the tent and budge a little or they can play what they do like. Sure, MAYBE it means some other people will play other stuff too, but it works both ways. A lot of the time, when there are enough people that DO like the game you're making they'll pull the others along too. I think it is safest to say that in the long run 5% is 5% and that's about the size of it.


----------



## Lwaxy

It is more than 5% not having a "wizard problem" and thus likely not wanting to see the MUs nerfed, though.


----------



## DMKastmaria

Lanefan said:


> How did they know that? It's not like they asked us...
> I guess I go against the flow then, as I spent far more per year on gaming-related stuff in my 40's (I'm 50 now) than I ever did before.
> 
> Lanefan




Yeah, I don't buy that spot of research either. Everyone I know spends more money on their hobbies in their 40's, than they did in their younger years. 

They may be spending it on _other _hobbies and its possible that many respondents, assuming there really were respondents, were also lapsed gamers.

I spend far, far more money on gaming today, than I ever did in my teens, twenties, or even thirties.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Just a point on the age thing.
> 
> There's a very, very good reason 3e was made for younger gamers.  The marketing research capped at 35 years old because it was found that over 35, people's gaming expenditures drop dramatically.  The biggest blocks of gamer demographics are high school (where you have lots of free time), college (again, lots of free time) and prison (ditto).  The army is also a large demographic for gamers as well.




OK, you're going to need to cite something for this. How did they determine that gaming expenditures drop dramatically if they weren't part of the market survey that helped determine gaming expenditures?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Ridley's Cohort said:


> You make a number of general points I largely agree with.  I think you are overstating the likely naivete of the 3e designers.
> 
> I would say their effort here was quite successful in extending play into the higher levels, however they were under pressure to preserve the feel of these classic spells close to their the original text.  To have even partially accomplished that feat was perhaps even evidence of the outright superiority of 3e to its predecessors.
> 
> In hindsight, I would vehemently argue that half those spells should have been rewritten completely from scratch, for the reasons you stated.  But at the time, such a choice would have been rated a strike against, evidence 3e was "not really D&D".
> 
> IMHO the majority of the 3.0 design problems stem from adhering too closely to the original material.  3.5 put a band-aid on a number of them, but I think it is Arcana Unearthed that shows us the real potential of a 3e-style system.  It was easier for Monte because there were no expectations other than fun.




Yeah, I have to agree. I think the same thing was true of 2e, its worst features are where it failed to dare to fix 1e.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Lwaxy said:


> It is more than 5% not having a "wizard problem" and thus likely not wanting to see the MUs nerfed, though.




Well, if you are referring to some sort of hypothetical 'wizard nerfing' that you believe happened in 4e then I'd suggest playing it, because this is IMHO largely a myth. But I'm not 100% sure what you mean 

Again, IME people are perfectly happy to play 4e in the real world away from fandom land where people will argue arcane trivia like exactly how many times a day should a wizard be able to cast a certain spell. They will be perfectly happy to play 5e. too. What they aren't all that happy to play is a game that gives off a vibe of corporate brand management vs unrestrained creativity. WotC needs to focus on the creativity part. All this screwing around with rules and hand wringing is a monstrous waste of time from their perspective. Sadly it would take more self-reflection than most organizations can muster to understand that.

So really, debates like this thead? They just don't matter much in the grand scheme of things. The whole 'mission' of 5e actually doesn't mean much in the grand scheme. It can be a good thing, but probably not for the reasons WotC thinks. It can also be still-born for reasons utterly outside of what its rules are.


----------



## Janaxstrus

DMKastmaria said:


> Yeah, I don't buy that spot of research either. Everyone I know spends more money on their hobbies in their 40's, than they did in their younger years.
> 
> They may be spending it on _other _hobbies and its possible that many respondents, assuming there really were respondents, were also lapsed gamers.
> 
> I spend far, far more money on gaming today, than I ever did in my teens, twenties, or even thirties.





Agreed.  Only one person I've gamed with in the last 5 years is under 35 right now.  Most are nearing or surpassing 40.  Heck, I don't think most of the people that played D&D Miniatures were much under 30 even.  I know I spent close to 5k on those.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Man, it WotC didn't care about older gamers, they wouldn't be republishing the 1e core books. They also probably wouldn't be using 5e's hypothetical ability to replicate an older-e feel as a selling point. Clearly grognards make up a not-insignificant portion of the audience, here.

In other news, sleep can apparently end an entire encounter before it begins, again, so it really does sound like the designers are paying attention to those who felt that 4e's wizard was an unsatisfying bag of blah.


----------



## Herschel

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, I have to agree. I think the same thing was true of 2e, its worst features are where it failed to dare to fix 1e.




This is very true, and I love 2E still. Of course when they actually do fix the broken things there's also a backlash as we see with the Edition Wars because some people don't want the broken fixed, in some cases because they don't like change, in others because they want to have the supreme character.


----------



## billd91

Herschel said:


> This is very true, and I love 2E still. Of course when they actually do fix the broken things there's also a backlash as we see with the Edition Wars because some people don't want the broken fixed, in some cases because they don't like change, in others because they want to have the supreme character.




Or because they don't think they're broken or the "fix" includes costs worse than the initial problem...

Let's not spin everything negatively against people who don't want to fix what you want fixed.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun

Kamikaze Midget said:


> In other news, sleep can apparently end an entire encounter before it begins, again, so it really does sound like the designers are paying attention to those who felt that 4e's wizard was an unsatisfying bag of blah.



So the designers are listening to people complain that something couldn't do something regardless of the fact that it did it exceedingly well (you should probably look at some of the discussions of 4E's Sleep).  Yeah, that sounds like a valuable use of their time...


----------



## Herschel

billd91 said:


> Or because they don't think they're broken or the "fix" includes costs worse than the initial problem...
> 
> Let's not spin everything negatively against people who don't want to fix what you want fixed.




I simply pointed out that some people didn't want things fixed, for whatever (and varying reasons) including actually LIKING broken things. 

And nothing fixed so far has been "worse" than the original problem, each edition of the game so far has been better than its preceding edition regardless of whether certain players' tastes adopted those changes.  I still vastly prefer 2E to 3E but 3E was a better designed game even though it failed to fix a number of things that needed fixing.


----------



## Keldryn

Ridley's Cohort said:


> You make a number of general points I largely agree with.  I think you are overstating the likely naivete of the 3e designers.




Perhaps I am.  However there are a number of other areas in the game's design where there are similar issues where the new mechanics completely change the balance of the game, particularly at high level (monsters getting ability score bonuses, fighters have to take a full-round action to make multiple attacks while casters can move-and-cast any standard action spell, the huge reduction in time required to prepare spells, the trivialization of spell interruption, cheap & easy access to wands/scrolls, a different saving throw structure where stat & spell level & caster level determine the difficulty and high-level warriors & monsters no longer have among the best saves in the game, multiclassing with caster levels).

It's been written that many of the core issues with 3.x didn't come up during the playtesting because the playtesters generally played the game as d20 AD&D, and thus many of the balance issues not coming to light until the game had been available for a couple of years.  So that would indicate a certain naivete of the 3.x designers.  I suspect that many of these issues took them as much by surprise as it did the rest of us.  "Let's take AD&D but make the rules more logical and consistent, and let's get rid of some of those arbitrary restrictions and un-fun bits while we're at it."



> I would say their effort here was quite successful in extending play into the higher levels, however they were under pressure to preserve the feel of these classic spells close to their the original text.  To have even partially accomplished that feat was perhaps even evidence of the outright superiority of 3e to its predecessors.



They were successful in extending play into the higher levels, for better or worse.  It seems like a lot of people don't actually like playing (or especially DMing) 3.x at high levels, although that's a gut feeling from reading message forums and not based on any actual data.  I wouldn't say that it shows any "outright superiority."  I would argue that BECMI D&D did a much better job of supporting play through high levels (36th) while remaining playable and retaining some measure of balance.

Someone on these forums -- my apologies but I can't remember who -- has frequently stated his belief that D&D is a 10-level game at its core, and I'm inclined to agree.  



> In hindsight, I would vehemently argue that half those spells should have been rewritten completely from scratch, for the reasons you stated.  But at the time, such a choice would have been rated a strike against, evidence 3e was "not really D&D".



Rewriting them is one option, but yes, that could have gone into "not D&D territory."  

Frankly, I think that the 7th-9th level spells should have been left for the Epic Level Handbook, as that would have matched their original concept much more closely (since by that level, 3e characters are no longer gaining a full level's worth of improvements).  It was a huge mistake to start coming up with character abilities that are more epic than _wish, miracle, time stop_, or _true resurrection_.  Those should represent the limits of mortal power, with everything else being scaled accordingly.



> IMHO the majority of the 3.0 design problems stem from adhering too closely to the original material.  3.5 put a band-aid on a number of them, but I think it is Arcana Unearthed that shows us the real potential of a 3e-style system.  It was easier for Monte because there were no expectations other than fun.



Agreed on adhering too closely to the original material.  I don't know that straying from the original material in order to make a better-designed game was the answer, as that's very much what 4e did, and we see how divisive that was (I recognize 4e as a well-designed game, but I don't really like playing it).  That original material is a big part of what gives D&D its identity.


----------



## I'm A Banana

CasvalRemDeikun said:
			
		

> So the designers are listening to people complain that something couldn't do something regardless of the fact that it did it exceedingly well (you should probably look at some of the discussions of 4E's Sleep). Yeah, that sounds like a valuable use of their time...




Being capable of doing something when sufficiently twinked is not the same thing as doing it "exceedingly well." 

Seriously, look at 1e sleep, then look at 4e sleep. If you don't agree that they were designed for very different purposes in play, I think we need to start at a more basic level to achieve a mutual understanding.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Herschel said:


> I simply pointed out that some people didn't want things fixed, for whatever (and varying reasons) including actually LIKING broken things.
> 
> And nothing fixed so far has been "worse" than the original problem, each edition of the game so far has been better than its preceding edition regardless of whether certain players' tastes adopted those changes.  I still vastly prefer 2E to 3E but 3E was a better designed game even though it failed to fix a number of things that needed fixing.




Really?  You get to decide what "better" is for everyone on the planet?


----------



## Herschel

LoL, get some context. 3E was a better designed game than 2E, which was better designed than 1E and 4E was better designed than 3E. That's just objective fact because every edition thus far has learned from and mechanically improved upon things of the past. It's evolution. OD&D was the first and had the most holes because, well, it was first. There was really nothing to expand upon but the original idea.

AD&D took that game, added to it and expanded upon it.

2E did the same and fixed/codified a few things from 1E.

3E, more of the same.

4E, ditto. 

That's not to say everyone will prefer any particular edition. As I said I prefer 2E to 3E even though 3E is a better designed game. 

I also prefer older video games and hate Halo/God of War/etc. even though the latter are better designed games. I'd rather play Frogger. 

There are also better ways of cooking, but making an old barrel in to a smoker is still awesome for brisket and ribs. 

Classic sports cars handle like crap and ride like a buckboard but a late 60's Mustang is still cool as heck.

Just a few examples.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Herschel, how well designed a game is, that is a subjective call. By some measures one can say here were "advances" from 1e to 2e to 3e. By others there weren't. 3e introduced a lot of problems with balance and rules granularity (features or bugs depending on your point of view). It took a unified approach but arguably lost the benefit of the less unified designs of previous editions. Personally I found the NwP system superior to the 3e skill system for example.


----------



## Herschel

3E definitely had a number of bugs that came up with balance, etc. I also preferred the NWP system but the skill system was a more robust system. Some things they fixed caused new issues to come about but the actual guts of the game were added upon with more robust ideas and math. It's kinf of like a Tim Allen riding lawnmower, dropping a 350 in it will give it insane amounts of power but will the transmission/gear box/drive shaft handle it or will the end user ever tap in to it if it does. 

One thing I thought with 3E is they didn't deconstruct and re-construct the game enough and certain sacred cows got in the way of making the game right. There were a lot of great ideas that were hamstrung by "legacy". One of the reasons I like 4E is because they did a better job of that.

"Better" here means more innovative, not preference.


----------



## GM Dave

Herschel said:


> 3E definitely had a number of bugs that came up with balance, etc. I also preferred the NWP system but the skill system was a more robust system. Some things they fixed caused new issues to come about but the actual guts of the game were added upon with more robust ideas and math. It's kinf of like a Tim Allen riding lawnmower, dropping a 350 in it will give it insane amounts of power but will the transmission/gear box/drive shaft handle it or will the end user ever tap in to it if it does.
> 
> One thing I thought with 3E is they didn't deconstruct and re-construct the game enough and certain sacred cows got in the way of making the game right. There were a lot of great ideas that were hamstrung by "legacy". One of the reasons I like 4E is because they did a better job of that.
> 
> "Better" here means more innovative, not preference.




I agree that the shift from 2e to 3e when it comes to spells was mostly a copy and paste.  There was little consideration of spells except making sure their were Arcane and Divine spells divided over 9 levels plus cantrips.

You can even find some odd bits in the 3.0 spells that came out as a result of the original text in 1e and 2e.

4e was the first edition that dumped all but the names and goals of the abilities and started from scratch.

This is why these abilities are better designed for the game system.  From beginning to end they were meant to work with the 4e engine.

(If you need examples of what I mean look at spells like Shadow Walk 3e which speaks of the Plane of Shadow and has a 50% of abandoning someone or creature there at level 7 ~ 50% of almost the same as killing most things ~ sold!) (or Wind Walk, lasts 1 hr/lvl, 80% disguise against anyone if dressed in ? white ?, travel 60 mph, DR 20/+1, dismiss at will for individuals, lvl 6 Cleric ~ White ninja force and full on travel except if strong winds ~ there are so many ways to cause chaos with this combination of effects).


----------



## billd91

Herschel said:


> "Better" here means more innovative, not preference.




Innovative isn't necessarily better - just newer.


----------



## Herschel

In the context I used, it does. 

Innovative: better, contemporary, cutting-edge, improvement, ingenious, inventive, leading-edge, state-of-the-art

English is a bit of a squishy language, which is why I'm outlining context.


----------



## Janaxstrus

Herschel said:


> In the context I used, it does.
> 
> Innovative: better, contemporary, cutting-edge, improvement, ingenious, inventive, leading-edge, state-of-the-art
> 
> English is a bit of a squishy language, which is why I'm outlining context.





All opinion, not fact.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Janaxstrus said:


> All opinion, not fact.




Exactly. These things are not comparable to advancements in computers or cars.


----------



## Herschel

Janaxstrus said:


> All opinion, not fact.




Except it's cut & pasted DIRECTLY from the Thesaurus, which is used to give context. In this case, it is fact because that's the context being used.

It also speaks nothing about preference.


----------



## Herschel

Bedrockgames said:


> Exactly. These things are not comparable to advancements in computers or cars.





Actually, cars are an apt comparison in this context. Look at it another way: The Delorean. The Stainless Steel body never rusts. That's a better body design in this context. It's expensive, and expensive to repair, etc. but it's still an improvement on 1980s Toyotas, for example. Whether or not you or I want to spend the money on that innovation is another story. My personal cost vs. benefit may mean I'd rather have that 80s Toyota that will rust horribly because I can replace it twice for what I'd spend on the Delorean.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Herschel said:


> Except it's cut & pasted DIRECTLY from the Thesaurus, which is used to give context. In this case, it is fact because that's the context being used.
> 
> It also speaks nothing about preference.




That is because you pivoted the discussion on a single word. New mechanics are not always better.


----------



## Herschel

Bedrockgames said:


> That is because you pivoted the discussion on a single word. New mechanics are not always better.




Fine, whatever, my god I can't spell it out any more but because you want to take it as a negative preference (which is NOT how it is used) have it your way. You're pivoting the whole thing on a view of a single word that is not how it was being used.


----------



## DMKastmaria

Janaxstrus said:


> All opinion, not fact.




It _is_ Contemporary. 

I'll also give him Inventive. 

Cutting-Edge and State of the Art are just buzz-words, when we're talking about imaginary constructs. 

The _technology_ of RPG's have barely changed at all. Pen, paper, dice, and your imagination. Mini's, I am told, are no longer considered optional in 4e and by some in 3e. 

As for the ideas, 3e and 4e represent possible lines of development. So do ACKS,  LotFP and DCC. That's all. Some of those versions, arguably improve certain aspects of play. Other's, arguably, impair certain aspect of play. Many will just not be of use to any particular DM/Group, no matter how "innovative" one might think it is.

If 4e doesn't allow me to run the kind of campaign I want, then it's utterly useless, for my purposes!


----------



## Bedrockgames

Herschel said:


> Actually, cars are an apt comparison in this context. Look at it another way: The Delorean. The Stainless Steel body never rusts. That's a better body design in this context. It's expensive, and expensive to repair, etc. but it's still an improvement on 1980s Toyotas, for example. Whether or not you or I want to spend the money on that innovation is another story. My personal cost vs. benefit may mean I'd rather have that 80s Toyota that will rust horribly because I can replace it twice for what I'd spend on the Delorean.




I don't think the comparison holds. 

A more apt comparison is film making. Techniques and styles change over time, they aren't neccessarily better than the ones that came before (arguably a lot of the style changes of the 90s for example were worse than what came before). Even then, it is still not a good comparison. Games are their own things. Game mechanics are quite unique and any analogy is going to break down. Bottom line is just because a mechanic was introduced in 1999 that doesn't mean it is better than a mechanic introduced in 1989 or 1978. And a revision of an existing system is not always an improvement. 

The skill system of 3E is one such an example. You say it was more robust, but whether that is better for play or not is debatable. In my opinion it covered far too much ground and having skills for things like diplomacy, intimidate and spot introduced bigger problems to play than they solved (by interfering with the player's interaction with the fictional environment). This isn't the only interpretation of 3E skills (many people see them as a vast improvement over NWPs). But it just shows you really can't pinpoint one edition as objectively better. Take initiative for example. Most people think shifting it to the d20 was a major innovation. I think it was terrible. I much prefer having the old mechanic of a d10 from lowest to highest for a very simple reason: counting up is easier for the GM than counting down and 1-10 is a much more manageable range than 1-20+. So while some may see unification of mechanics as inevitable and always good, there are reasons for less unified systems like 1e and 2e.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Herschel said:


> Fine, whatever, my god I can't spell it out any more but because you want to take it as a negative preference (which is NOT how it is used) have it your way. You're pivoting the whole thing on a view of a single word that is not how it was being used.




My intent was not to be hostile or aggressive so I appologize if my post came across as an attack. I think we just disagree on this point or have misunderstood one another's positions (the later is entirely possible).


----------



## Keldryn

Herschel said:


> LoL, get some context. 3E was a better designed game than 2E, which was better designed than 1E and 4E was better designed than 3E. That's just objective fact because every edition thus far has learned from and mechanically improved upon things of the past. It's evolution. OD&D was the first and had the most holes because, well, it was first. There was really nothing to expand upon but the original idea.
> 
> AD&D took that game, added to it and expanded upon it.
> 
> 2E did the same and fixed/codified a few things from 1E.
> 
> 3E, more of the same.
> 
> 4E, ditto.
> 
> That's not to say everyone will prefer any particular edition. As I said I prefer 2E to 3E even though 3E is a better designed game.
> 
> I also prefer older video games and hate Halo/God of War/etc. even though the latter are better designed games. I'd rather play Frogger.




I'm of the opinion that modern games are largely over-designed.  This applies to video games and RPGs like 4e.  Modern games are "scientifically" well-designed and you can recognize where established design principles have been applied.  Unfortunately, they've often lost something in the process.  It's hard to say exactly what that "something" is, but the slick presentation, well-thought-out-balance, empirically-proven pacing and reward cycles leave me a little cold.


----------



## Lanefan

Bedrockgames said:


> So while some may see unification of mechanics as inevitable and always good, there are reasons for less unified systems like 1e and 2e.



A secondary point in support of this is that it is far easier to kitbash a part of a less unified system without upsetting the rest of it too much.  Tinkering with one part of a highly unified system has knock-on effects all over the place...







			
				Keldryn said:
			
		

> I'm of the opinion that modern games are largely over-designed. This applies to video games and RPGs like 4e. Modern games are "scientifically" well-designed and you can recognize where established design principles have been applied. Unfortunately, they've often lost something in the process. It's hard to say exactly what that "something" is, but the slick presentation, well-thought-out-balance, empirically-proven pacing and reward cycles leave me a little cold.over the place...



I've been using "prepackaged" to represent this same thought, but "overdesigned" is a better term.  Thanks!

Lanefan


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> A secondary point in support of this is that it is far easier to kitbash a part of a less unified system without upsetting the rest of it too much.  Tinkering with one part of a highly unified system has knock-on effects all over the place...I've been using "prepackaged" to represent this same thought, but "overdesigned" is a better term.  Thanks!
> 
> Lanefan




Yes. The games i design are streamlined and unified (so i am no enemy of modern design) but that is a key downside and we encounter it every time we make a game. The more you tie yourself to that one mechanic the less you room it can give you to fiddle with different parts of the game.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Keldryn said:


> Modern games are "scientifically" well-designed and you can recognize where established design principles have been applied.  Unfortunately, they've often lost something in the process.  It's hard to say exactly what that "something" is,



That something is the familiar way the games sucked when they weren't as well designed.  It's part nostalgia, part missing the 'lawless wild west' factor.  Actually living in the wild west sucked, some jerk might come and shoot you for your boots or steal your horse or jump your claim at any moment.  But, that adversity was exciting to read or watch movies about long after it was over.  Heroic fantasy is also about characters dealing with extreme adversity.  Conflating the adversity the hero faces due to heroic challenges, and the adversity the player faces due to bad rules is an understandable mistake.


----------



## Abraxas

Tony Vargas said:


> That something is the familiar way the games sucked when they weren't as well designed.  It's part nostalgia, part missing the 'lawless wild west' factor.  Actually living in the wild west sucked, some jerk might come and shoot you for your boots or steal your horse or jump your claim at any moment.  But, that adversity was exciting to read or watch movies about long after it was over.  Heroic fantasy is also about characters dealing with extreme adversity.  Conflating the adversity the hero faces due to heroic challenges, and the adversity the player faces due to bad rules is an understandable mistake.



Attributing it to nostalgia is an understandable mistake.
Is it so hard to believe that those older systems are liked because the people find them better than newer systems? That people feel they were actually well designed and served the game better? That just because something is newer doesn't mean that it is well designed?
Unfortunately, equating newer with better happens all too frequently around here.


----------



## Herschel

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think the comparison holds.
> 
> A more apt comparison is film making. Techniques and styles change over time, they aren't neccessarily better than the ones that came before (arguably a lot of the style changes of the 90s for example were worse than what came before).




Using this type of example us audio recording techniques. Listen to "When The Levee Breaks" by Led Zepelin, particularly John Bonham's drums. That thunderous, echoing sound was created "organically" because there wasn't a better method. Bonham played Ludwig Vistalites (Acrylic shells) with no muffling and tuned a bit high. That is the start of that boomy sound but it wasn't enough. They wanted an echoing reverb so they went to a castle, set up the kit at the bottom of a tower and set the microphones up top, allowing the sound to bounce around and off the sides, creating that canyon effect. 

Almost 40 years later you can just run the sound through a digital effects processor and get the same effect quicker, cheaper and more efficiently. 

I also used to do echo/reverb in sound recording by potting the recording destination up slightly to create that extra "loop" and I was good at it.  Again, now I could just use a digital effects processor.

But, if I'm more comfortable with the old ways, feeling they're more "organic", "natural" or whatever I can still use them if I prefer them.


----------



## Herschel

Keldryn said:


> I'm of the opinion that modern games are largely over-designed. This applies to video games and RPGs like 4e. Modern games are "scientifically" well-designed and you can recognize where established design principles have been applied. Unfortunately, they've often lost something in the process. It's hard to say exactly what that "something" is, but the slick presentation, well-thought-out-balance, empirically-proven pacing and reward cycles leave me a little cold.



I'm definitely in agreement with this regarding many things.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Herschel said:


> Using this type of example us audio recording techniques. Listen to "When The Levee Breaks" by Led Zepelin, particularly John Bonham's drums. That thunderous, echoing sound was created "organically" because there wasn't a better method. Bonham played Ludwig Vistalites (Acrylic shells) with no muffling and tuned a bit high. That is the start of that boomy sound but it wasn't enough. They wanted an echoing reverb so they went to a castle, set up the kit at the bottom of a tower and set the microphones up top, allowing the sound to bounce around and off the sides, creating that canyon effect.
> 
> Almost 40 years later you can just run the sound through a digital effects processor and get the same effect quicker, cheaper and more efficiently.
> 
> I also used to do echo/reverb in sound recording by potting the recording destination up slightly to create that extra "loop" and I was good at it.  Again, now I could just use a digital effects processor.
> 
> But, if I'm more comfortable with the old ways, feeling they're more "organic", "natural" or whatever I can still use them if I prefer them.




but now you are getting into actual technological advances (and I am not convinced by arguments that compare game systems to tech). I was talking about stylistic developments. To me the more appropriate musicial anology is the 80s fusion of baroque and 1950s musical sensibilities and techniques. There is nothing inherently better about using baroque scales and counter point over say the more bluesie pentatonic scales and arrangements that were in vogue in the 70s. You are talking about trends. Many of the things we attribute to modern design (focused concepts, unified mechanics, etc) I wuld label trends, not objective improvements.


----------



## Hussar

Abraxas said:


> Attributing it to nostalgia is an understandable mistake.
> Is it so hard to believe that those older systems are liked because the people find them better than newer systems? That people feel they were actually well designed and served the game better? That just because something is newer doesn't mean that it is well designed?
> Unfortunately, equating newer with better happens all too frequently around here.




The problem here is you are conflating "I like it" with some sort of judgement of quality.  That you or I might like X does not preclude it from being a horrible kludge of design.

I would hope that after thousands of hours of play, and more thousands of man-hours of design, the later edition of anything would be better designed than what came before.

Heck, compare the 1e DMG to the 3e DMG.  We could talk about flavour and writing styles and that's fine.  But, at the end of the day, the 3e DMG is a better designed book.  It's layed out better, it's easier to reference, it's easier to use, it's better indexed.  By any reasonable judgement of quality, the 3e DMG is a better designed DMG than the 1e DMG.  

Now, whether or not you happen to like one or the other is a separate issue.  but, as the saying goes, the tendency to conflate personal taste with quality is extremely common.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Keldryn said:


> I'm of the opinion that modern games are largely over-designed. This applies to video games and RPGs like 4e. Modern games are "scientifically" well-designed and you can recognize where established design principles have been applied. Unfortunately, they've often lost something in the process. It's hard to say exactly what that "something" is, but the slick presentation, well-thought-out-balance, empirically-proven pacing and reward cycles leave me a little cold.




Now take it the next step.  The evolution of techniques is often:

Learn new technique.  Use it for the sake of the technique itself and/or over use it for things it isn't designed for.
Learn the proper balance of the technique in the whole. Integrate it into the craft.
Now, with the fully integrated new technique, see that something is still missing.  Start looking for the next technique.
Repeat the cycle ad infinitium.   Meanwhile, the art of the thing is using whatever techniques you have, best you can, and recognizing that somethings don't have a technique (either yet or ever--it really doesn't matter much which when you don't have it right now).

There was no humanly possible way, for example, that we would ever get thoughtful, balanced use of CGI special effects in film until a bunch of people had pushed the envelope so hard that CGI became "the thing" in their projects. It's theoretically possible to do it, but humans aren't wired that way.   I'm sure the same principle applies in any field that is part art, part evolving techniques.


----------



## mcintma

Tony Vargas said:


> That something is the familiar way the games sucked when they weren't as well designed.  It's part nostalgia, part missing the 'lawless wild west' factor.  Actually living in the wild west sucked, some jerk might come and shoot you for your boots or steal your horse or jump your claim at any moment.  But, that adversity was exciting to read or watch movies about long after it was over.  Heroic fantasy is also about characters dealing with extreme adversity.  Conflating the adversity the hero faces due to heroic challenges, and the adversity the player faces due to bad rules is an understandable mistake.




Well, you may take comfort in the fact that your line of reasoning will soon apply to 4e. Since 5e will be 'newer = better', 4e must by definition be archaic design and join the quaint and antique 'nostalgia' versions 1-3e


----------



## Hussar

mcintma said:


> Well, you may take comfort in the fact that your line of reasoning will soon apply to 4e. Since 5e will be 'newer = better', 4e must by definition be archaic design and join the quaint and antique 'nostalgia' versions 1-3e




Again, you're equating something you like with something of quality.

Look, there's no escaping that a new car is better than an old car.  It just is.  In every single measurable way, a 2012 car is better than a car produced in 1965.  

But, I know which one I'd rather own, a 2012 Prius or a 1965 Mustang.  

However, I'm under no illusions that that classic car is better designed than the new one.  It just isn't.  It can't be.  Many of the things that the new car has simply didn't exist back then.

The same applies to RPG's.  The idea, for example, of action points.  That players could have authorial control over events in the game didn't exist in 1978 when AD&D came out.  No one, as far as I know, had come up with that idea in an RPG.  Now, move forward a few years and you have the James Bond RPG, which did have something like Action Points.  It was a very cool idea.

And, lo and behold, years later, we see that concept incorporated into many RPG's.

Is newer always better?  No of course not.  Some new ideas fail.  That's a given.  However, "because I like it" is NEVER a valid judgement of quality.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Again, you're equating something you like with something of quality.
> 
> Look, there's no escaping that a new car is better than an old car.  It just is.  In every single measurable way, a 2012 car is better than a car produced in 1965.
> 
> But, I know which one I'd rather own, a 2012 Prius or a 1965 Mustang.
> 
> However, I'm under no illusions that that classic car is better designed than the new one.  It just isn't.  It can't be.  Many of the things that the new car has simply didn't exist back then.
> 
> The same applies to RPG's.  The idea, for example, of action points.  That players could have authorial control over events in the game didn't exist in 1978 when AD&D came out.  No one, as far as I know, had come up with that idea in an RPG.  Now, move forward a few years and you have the James Bond RPG, which did have something like Action Points.  It was a very cool idea.
> 
> And, lo and behold, years later, we see that concept incorporated into many RPG's.
> 
> Is newer always better?  No of course not.  Some new ideas fail.  That's a given.  However, "because I like it" is NEVER a valid judgement of quality.




but any measure of quality in an rpg is going to be subjective. And all you are doing here is equating newer with quality. You seem to be arguing it isn't possible for a game made the 80s to be better designed than a game in 00s simply because there were fewer mechanics to choose from. How well designed a game is entirely depends on what criteria you are using for quality. Diversity of design options is one among many possible measures. And anytime you evaluate the quality of design you are subjectively selecting which measures to include. I would argue that 1e and 2e are more soundly designed in many respected than 3e (which has a lot of issue due to its multi class system and its unfied mechanic with uncapped math). 

I also dont think you can totally divorce quality from " i like it".


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Heck, compare the 1e DMG to the 3e DMG. We could talk about flavour and writing styles and that's fine. But, at the end of the day, the 3e DMG is a better designed book. It's layed out better, it's easier to reference, it's easier to use, it's better indexed. By any reasonable judgement of quality, the 3e DMG is a better designed DMG than the 1e DMG.
> .




Better layout, better organization and better index have less to do with the design side of the hobby. Those are entirely on the editorial/layout and graphic design side of the hobby. Arguably organization is a part of design, but even that is really a basic component of good writing. People were quite capable of writing clear and well organized paragraphs in 1978 (even if Gary's unqiue style tended away from this). 

There are two issues here though. Again you are focusing on things you regard as essential features of quality design. Not everyone agrees. And there is the inescapable fact that the 1E DMG (for all its flaws) continues to be read even by people who don't play 1E because it has a great deal of utility and warmth. 

But 1e was first and is bound to be less polished...but that is a writing issue not an issue of game design (you will note a similar tendancy in many RPG or book lines where later editors and writers polish up the first manuscript to make it clearer and better organized). Instead take the 2E versus 3E dmgs. Those are seperated by about ten years of development. Personally I don't think there is anything particularly notable about 3E DMG's quality of the 2E DMG, even using the criteria you have laid out (2E DMG is well organized, well indexed, etc).


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Heck, compare the 1e DMG to the 3e DMG.  We could talk about flavour and writing styles and that's fine.  But, at the end of the day, the 3e DMG is a better designed book.  It's layed out better, it's easier to reference, it's easier to use, it's better indexed.  By any reasonable judgement of quality, the 3e DMG is a better designed DMG than the 1e DMG.




I hope you actually mean the 3.5 DMG there, because the 3.0 one wasn't very good for layout and reference by comparison. 3.5 was much better. That said, I'm still faster at finding stuff in my 1e DMG than with 3.5.
And the indexing of the 1e DMG is actually quite good.


----------



## The Shadow

Bedrockgames said:


> but any measure of quality in an rpg is going to be subjective.




Not quite.  Mind you, your other statement:



> I also dont think you can totally divorce quality from " i like it".




has an element of truth to it as well.  Nevertheless, judgment of quality is not wholly subjective.  It is possible to tell when a game system is *getting in your way*.

I had many hours of fun with AD&D, and have a lasting treasure of memories of those hours.  I would not willingly part with them.

Nevertheless, when I moved from AD&D to other systems, it became clear that AD&D had serious design flaws.  It was, in a word, clunky - it was constantly getting in my way, drawing attention to itself.  It had too many fiddly rules that were unnecessary.  I got frustrated with it.

Of course, those other systems had their own flaws.  I can't see myself playing Champions again, now that I have Mutants & Masterminds.  M&M is just plain better at what it does - deliver fun superhero gaming - with very little downside.  Still, Champions (and GURPS, and others) showed me what was wrong with AD&D, because their warts were in different places.

I reiterate:  I had many, many hours of fun with AD&D.  But likewise I can't see myself ever playing it again, because there are newer systems that just plain deliver the gaming experience better.

That said, I do agree that rule codification has been carried to far, and I applaud the 5e designers for trying to get back to more GM adjudication;  it's a positive effort to recover something that I agree has been lost.  But the excessive codification of 3e was an overreaction to a real problem in AD&D as I see it.  For the most part, and not without flaws, it was a real improvement.

Then there's 4e.  Here is a clear example of the non-subjectivity of quality judgment:  I think 4e is a completely brilliant example of game design.  I am in awe of the ambition of the effort and the degree to which it succeeded.  Not to say that 4e doesn't have its own problems, but wow, there's no question the design is amazing.  And I can't stand the game. 

The problem?  All that brilliance was directed at producing a type of game I have no interest in playing.  I'm just not interested in tons and tons of tactical options - it bores me to tears.  If it floats other people's boats, more power to 'em, but it doesn't float mine.

I haven't actually played D&D in a while.  (A little bit of Pathfinder, but mostly M&M and True20.)  I'm here excitedly talking about 5e because AD&D was my first love.  I can see now we weren't meant for each other, but that doesn't change the fact that we had a great time together.  So I can't help but hope that this time it will all work out.


----------



## Hussar

Sigh.  Ok, let's look at a specific then

1e Initiative rules.  Compared to any later edition.  I think there's a pretty clear example of where newer=better.  

Whether or not the book is more flavourful, or widely read or anything like that is irrelavent.  That's entirely subjective.  For every person singing praises of Gygaxian language, you've got another that loathes it.  And, while yes, people were perfectly capable of writing coherent paragraphs in 1978, those people weren't writing D&D.

As far as finding material in the books, well, I'd say that's likely a result of the fact that you've been reading, and rereading the same book for 30 years.  It certainly isn't because of good organization.  Good grief.  Are you really going to try to argue that the 1e DMG is well organized?

But, all that aside, I do disagree.  Layout is part of design.  It has to be.  How the rules are presented is every bit as important as the rules themselves.  You can have the greatest rules in the world, but, if the layout is bad, the game doesn't work.  Particularly if you have to reference the book during play.

Once upon a time, the height of game design was basically to freeform anythign that wasn't combat.  You want to talk to the guard?  Other than some very rudimentary starting points with reaction tables, the mechanics were largely silent on the whole thing.  You just "talked it out".  

Later on, people started adding frameworks for detailing this kind of interaction.  Even early RPG's other than D&D had skills like fast talk and whatnot.  That's been in RPG's and largely standard in most RPG's since the 80's.  Social mechnanics aren't new with 3e.  They've been a staple of RPG's other than D&D since the 80's.  

If they were truly bad design, why does virtually every RPG out there, and certainly almost all mainstream RPG's, have social mechanics.  It's just that D&D had such a very long edition cycle that it took 3 editions and almost 25 years, to catch up to every other game out there.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Again, you're equating something you like with something of quality.
> 
> Look, there's no escaping that a new car is better than an old car.  It just is.  In every single measurable way, a 2012 car is better than a car produced in 1965.
> 
> But, I know which one I'd rather own, a 2012 Prius or a 1965 Mustang.
> 
> However, I'm under no illusions that that classic car is better designed than the new one.  It just isn't.  It can't be.  Many of the things that the new car has simply didn't exist back then.




You know that 1965 Mustang? It doesn't require a whole lot of electronic gizmos to diagnose problems with it. That Prius does. That means the 1965 Mustang is a whole lot better designed for the automotive enthusiast who likes to get in and work on fixing up and modifying cars. It also means, when it needs service, a wider variety of placs can do it. Chances are, someone will be able to keep it running YEARS longer than anyone will keep that Prius running, in part because its design will tolerate more variances than the newer models will.


----------



## DMKastmaria

Hussar said:


> Again, you're equating something you like with something of quality.
> 
> Look, there's no escaping that a new car is better than an old car.  It just is.  In every single measurable way, a 2012 car is better than a car produced in 1965.
> 
> But, I know which one I'd rather own, a 2012 Prius or a 1965 Mustang.
> 
> However, I'm under no illusions that that classic car is better designed than the new one.  It just isn't.  It can't be.  Many of the things that the new car has simply didn't exist back then.
> 
> The same applies to RPG's.  The idea, for example, of action points.  That players could have authorial control over events in the game didn't exist in 1978 when AD&D came out.  No one, as far as I know, had come up with that idea in an RPG.  Now, move forward a few years and you have the James Bond RPG, which did have something like Action Points.  It was a very cool idea.
> 
> And, lo and behold, years later, we see that concept incorporated into many RPG's.
> 
> Is newer always better?  No of course not.  Some new ideas fail.  That's a given.  However, "because I like it" is NEVER a valid judgement of quality.




We're talking about the Quality of Ideas, here, not Cars or other manufactured items (see below for more on that.) RPG ideas bear their main fruit in the psychic imagination, though this will spill-over into objective reality. 

Their result, their worthiness can only be measured by the individual. No physical instruments exists, which can measure those ideas, though you can measure some of the effects upon those _individual subjects_. 

It's not about "because I like it." It's about _the reasons why I like it. _

And you can argue that the ideas of later designers are of higher quality, until doomsday, but you'll never prove it objectively true. 

If you were to do so, you would perforce have also solved so many problems in philosophy, religion, psychology, and numerous other fields, that it would qualify you for the Nobel Prize. 

A lot of people claim the unified mechanic of d20 games, is better than the sub-systems of older versions. I disagree. Makes it a pain to kitbash and tweak the system. It may be prettier, but it makes the game almost useless, for my purposes.

Ditto, for d20's three save system. People say it's "elegent." For myself, it just hamstrings my imagination. I don't want, nor do I need all saves, tied to those three ability scores. 

Feats. Most of the worthwhile ones, I'd let a player attempt, anyway. Once you 86 those that _only make sense_ within the context of the d20 rules.

Cleave is great, though! *Best idea that the 3e designers swiped from Dave Arneson's old campaign. *

Balance. A lot of people like 4e's balance. For others, it sucks the life out of the game. 

We can discuss, examine, pick apart and argue the quality of the ideas that create 4e's Balance. We'll go  for tat. Point for counterpoint. 

And the best we'll do, is discover some part of the Intent, plans and purposes, which makes 4e useful for you and 1e useful for me. 

For my intent, 4e's ideas just aren't suitable. 1e's ideas are, though  adjustments are necessary. 

4 more things. 

1. The quality of the idea of "seizing narrative control" in RPG's is most definitely, debatable. For many, it moves the game into not-rpg territory. It doesn't serve the intent of what they're trying to create. 

2. For an example of a manufacturing process going provably, _objectively_ backwards, quality-wise, see Book Making/Binding.

3. In order to prove that the ideas of 4e are qualitatively better than any other edition, the best you could possibly do is to prove those ideas to be more suitable to the intent of just over half of all gamers. This would necessitate complete knowledge of the nervous system of every rpg gamer who has ever lived and ever will live. And would only prove those ideas to be superior, in that one aspect alone. 

4. Technology. The technology behind automobile manufacturing has increased, considerably. For RPG's? It's still Pencil, Paper, Dice, Your Imagination. Mini's optional, dependent upon edition. That last sentence, is the only change at all!


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Sigh. Ok, let's look at a specific then
> 
> 1e Initiative rules. Compared to any later edition. I think there's a pretty clear example of where newer=better.
> 
> .




I am more familiar with 2E initiative rules. If those are the same, then no newer doesn't equal better and I have made this argument many times. 3E is more streamlined (roll a d20 + modifer for both attack and initiative). But in my opinion the AD&D 2E method of rolling low on a d10 is superior for a number two reasons: counting up is easier than counting down on initiative---at least for me it is and 1-10 is much more manageable a range for the GM to track than 1-20+. I can't comment on the 1E initiative as the last time I used it was 1988. But just comparing 2e to 3e, I don't think you can say 3E is automatically better just because it is newer or more unified and streamlined. You could argue a unified system is easier to remember, but that is traded off with some of the benefits you gain from a less unified system.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> If they were truly bad design, why does virtually every RPG out there, and certainly almost all mainstream RPG's, have social mechanics. It's just that D&D had such a very long edition cycle that it took 3 editions and almost 25 years, to catch up to every other game out there.




And social mechanics have been one of the most controversial inclusions in D&D. There are valid arguments for them and against them. But they are not objectively better than an approach that demands less layers between the experience of the PC and player. And social mechanics are not exactly new. They've been around for decades. They are only new to D&D.


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> You know that 1965 Mustang? It doesn't require a whole lot of electronic gizmos to diagnose problems with it. That Prius does. That means the 1965 Mustang is a whole lot better designed for the automotive enthusiast who likes to get in and work on fixing up and modifying cars. It also means, when it needs service, a wider variety of placs can do it. Chances are, someone will be able to keep it running YEARS longer than anyone will keep that Prius running, in part because its design will tolerate more variances than the newer models will.




Oh, come on.

Look, the Prius is just better designed.  There's no getting around this.  That Prius will likely run for hundreds of thousands of kilometers with minimal servicing, will never rust, has emission standards that the Mustang couldn't possibly match, will have fuel economy beyond anything produced in 1965, has a better sound system, has better handling, has better brakes, is a THOUSAND times safer, is made from materials that are stronger, lighter and didn't even exist in 1965, and probably a hundred other improvements that I don't even know of.

From an engineering standpoint, you cannot possibly argue that a 1965 Mustang is a better designed car than a 2012 Prius.  In every measurable QUANTIFIABLE way, the 2012 car is better designed.

However, better designed doesn't mean that it's a better car.  Like you said, if I want something that I can work on at home, then, sure, the Mustang will work better for me.  I will like the Mustang better because of non-quantitative criteria.

But, if you think that that Mustang is a better designed car... I dunno.  It's utterly mind boggling.  

But, I think that's the issue.  When I talk about better design, I'm talking about quantifiable elements.  X is better than Y because of Z.  And Z will never vary depending on the observer because it is quantifiable.

Which is why I hate it when people try to say, "oh well, I like Y better, so, it must be better designed for me".  No, it's just that you are judging something on criteria that is not quantifiable.  You're judging it based on whether or not you happen to like it.  And, anyone who disagrees with you and says, no this is not well designed, is, in your view, only doing it because they don't like it.

Which isn't true.  I look at the layout of the 1e DMG and I say that that is poor design.  It really is.  It's all mashed together, there is very little rhyme or reason for the placement of anything in the book.  That is bad design.  Whether or not I like the book is irrelevant.

Heck, I think the 4e PHB is poorly designed because it presents the game in such a fashion that it makes many of the criticisms of 4e look reasonable.  4e is a combat centric minis game.  Well, I can totally see why someone would think that looking at the 4e PHB.  A better layout would present the game in a very different light and we'd see a lot less criticism.  For example, why in heck is the section on Rituals buried at the back of the book after the freaking GLOSSARY?  

Whether I happen to like it or not should not change my opinion on whether or not something is well designed.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But, all that aside, I do disagree. Layout is part of design. It has to be. How the rules are presented is every bit as important as the rules themselves. You can have the greatest rules in the world, but, if the layout is bad, the game doesn't work. Particularly if you have to reference the book during play.
> 
> .




My point about this was twofold: designers (especially in a company like WOTC which has seperate layout and graphic design people) are not involved in the layout. The layout has nothing to do with the state of game design and everything to do with the state of publishing. Even so, well organized is well organized. It isn't like presenting something in a clear and organized way is a new concept that earlier publishers of the game never heard of. This is a production quality issue, not a design quality issue. It certainly feeds into your experience of the game because referencing is part of play. But guys like Heinsoo and Cook are not personally laying out and indexing the books.

Arguably this hasn't improved drastically over time if you remove 1E from the equation. personally I think the 4E index is way too lean. 3E and 2E had much better indexes in my opinion.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Sigh.  Ok, let's look at a specific then
> 
> 1e Initiative rules.  Compared to any later edition.  I think there's a pretty clear example of where newer=better.




YOU think so. But better in what way? The cyclical initiative of 3e and 4e have certain advantages in smoothness of running encounters. But the side-based initiatives of 1e and 2e make it easier to coordinate player vs NPC groups, particularly for new players. The optional initiative system for 2e, modified by individual weapon speeds and casting times enables more tactical consideration between getting an early strike vs a late, but potentially stronger one, to say nothing about adding better balancing controls for magic spells in combat. When you also consider that the random element in 2e initiative is a d10, the random factor is a smaller proportion of the result, making player choice-drive modifiers more meaningful. 

"Better" always depends on certain criteria. How is something better? Under what circumstances is it better? And in gaming, whether you want something better along those criteria is typically a subjective choice.


----------



## Abraxas

> Originally Posted by *Hussar*
> Look, there's no escaping that a new car is better than an old car. It just is. In every single measurable way, a 2012 car is better than a car produced in 1965.
> 
> But, I know which one I'd rather own, a 2012 Prius or a 1965 Mustang.
> 
> However, I'm under no illusions that that classic car is better designed than the new one. It just isn't. It can't be. Many of the things that the new car has simply didn't exist back then.



A couple things
1) looking at your 2012 Prius vs 65 Mustang analogy - is the Prius better designed to give the driving experience you want from the Mustang? I think not - in just about any measurable way that would apply to why you want a mustang. Also for car analogies in general - look at the number of times new models came out that were actually worse than their predecessors. And you don't have to take my word on that just check out car reviews over the years.
2) A better analogy would be musical instruments - for example lets take violins. Using the train of thought running through this thread - A modern violin has the advantage of centuries of "improvements" in manufacturing techniques, materials, and tools - so must be better designed and therefore be better than one made by Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesù. Except, the consensus among violinists seems to be that a Stradivari is better and sets the standard modern violin makers try to emulate.


----------



## steeldragons

So we have the Wizards all balanced then?

Wut? Wrong thread?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Bedrockgames said:


> but now you are getting into actual technological advances (and I am not convinced by arguments that compare game systems to tech). I was talking about stylistic developments. To me the more appropriate musicial anology is the 80s fusion of baroque and 1950s musical sensibilities and techniques. There is nothing inherently better about using baroque scales and counter point over say the more bluesie pentatonic scales and arrangements that were in vogue in the 70s. You are talking about trends. Many of the things we attribute to modern design (focused concepts, unified mechanics, etc) I wuld label trends, not objective improvements.




I don't think it is as clear-cut as that. It is pretty hard to argue for instance that game designers in 2012 don't have a MUCH richer toolbox than the designers of 1975 did. We know a LOT more about what works, what doesn't work, why and how different game designs do certain things in more generally pleasing ways than others and work better or worse for specific types of game. We know a lot more about the range of possible RPG designs and where the limitations are in the whole genre. There's a LOT of 'tech' and industry knowledge that has evolved over 30+ years of people experimenting. 

Nobody can ever say one game or one mechanic is objectively better or worse than another, but it is quite possible in this day and age to be far more thoughtful and systematic about your game designs. The 70's stuff was basically throwing things against a wall to see what stuck. The 80's saw people sorting out the basic concepts and learning to apply them. The 90's saw development of a lot of those concepts, and now we're sort of in a period of consolidation and refinement. Of course this is only a very loose outline. There's a lot of each process still going on and they can't really be segregated chronologically very well, but you get the idea.

I think the best take-home point here is that someone today designing 5e has a LOT more options and potentially a lot more insight into the why's and wherefore's of using those options than Gygax did in 1977 writing AD&D. While it is tempting to try to just reproduce Gygax's formula in a bit cleaned up form that's leaving a LOT of potential that he couldn't have even realized existed back then on the cutting room floor. If a new game is going to be meaningfully new and worthy of a place in the market and on people's shelves and tables then it really is going to be pretty hard to do that while saying "new is just a fad" and trying to ignore 30 years of RPG evolution. A successful 5e IMHO is going to have to take those 30 years into account and really should leverage all that 'tech'. How the game plays and feels is an aesthetic choice, but aesthetics isn't created or improved simply by ignoring possibilities that didn't exist in the past.

As for D&D having 'lost something'. Well, that's a hard thing to say. I run into people who seem to be getting out of 4e what I got out of OD&D back in the day. I'm not sure the divide is all that large. However WE have changed. I know from experience that I will never quite recapture the simple wonder of OD&D, even if I play that system now today. I can have fun with it, and now and then that magic is there, but it is also there just as much in my 4e games. OTOH I can get things out of either of those systems today that I couldn't even have imagined back in the old days. I've changed. We've all changed. Just making a system based closely on say OD&D isn't going to all of a sudden bring back the feel of being 12 and playing in a tent with a Coleman lantern in the middle of the woods. 

OTOH I don't think it is incorrect to consider modern RPGs (at least some of them) possibly overthought. I think there's an art to artlessness and it would be well for game designers to learn to practice that. I am however not at all convinced that artlessness has to be mechanical. In fact I'd prefer it not to be. I think it is more something that has its real impact in terms of tone, style, background (settings and whatnot, lore, etc) than in mechanical subsystems. I do think there is a challenge here though, which is to carefully design your system in a way that makes it agile and avoids too many restrictions. 4e kind of DID get part of that right, but missed a bunch on other parts. IMHO a 5e follow-on of 4e could really hit a good spot there. I think people are overthinking their game criticism as much as anyone is overthinking the games themselves, both tend to happen nowadays.


----------



## Bedrockgames

The Shadow said:


> Not quite.  Mind you, your other statement:
> 
> 
> 
> has an element of truth to it as well.  Nevertheless, judgment of quality is not wholly subjective.  It is possible to tell when a game system is *getting in your way*.
> 
> I had many hours of fun with AD&D, and have a lasting treasure of memories of those hours.  I would not willingly part with them.
> 
> Nevertheless, when I moved from AD&D to other systems, it became clear that AD&D had serious design flaws.  It was, in a word, clunky - it was constantly getting in my way, drawing attention to itself.  It had too many fiddly rules that were unnecessary.  I got frustrated with it.





This is all well and good but once again those are subjective measures. You value something more streamlined and minimalist than ad&d tries to offer. For example you mention  "unnecessary and fiddly" as bad elements of design. But this is just an aesthetic choice. There are valid reasons to have a more fiddly systen that doesn't strive to eliminate unnecessary mechanics. Every approach has down sides and upsides. Right now streamlined and minimalist is in, but that doesn't mean this will be the case in twenty years.

Take dialogue in movies, by the late 89s screenwriters were told to be succinct and only use dialogue that advances the plot without "uneccesary" words. By the early 90s dialogue was so tight it had no life. It took guys like Tarentino to smash through that by lingering on dialogue and raw bits of conversation. Because they realized characterization is just as critical as plot. It all comes down to what you want the game to do. If you want minimalist and non fiddly, yes AD&D isn't your game. That doesn't mean it is objectively poorly designed.


----------



## ForeverSlayer

Abraxas said:


> 2) A better analogy would be musical instruments - for example lets take violins. Using the train of thought running through this thread - A modern violin has the advantage of centuries of "improvements" in manufacturing techniques, materials, and tools - so must be better designed and therefore be better than one made by Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesù. Except, the consensus among violinists seems to be that a Stradivari is better and sets the standard modern violin makers try to emulate.




As a saxophone player, I can tell you right now that newer is "not" better. A 1950's Selmer Mark VI is considered the best saxophone ever made. I can tell you right now that the consensus is right.


----------



## Bedrockgames

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I don't think it is as clear-cut as that. It is pretty hard to argue for instance that game designers in 2012 don't have a MUCH richer toolbox than the designers of 1975 did. We know a LOT more about what works, what doesn't work, why and how different game designs do certain things in more generally pleasing ways than others and work better or worse for specific types of game. We know a lot more about the range of possible RPG designs and where the limitations are in the whole genre. There's a LOT of 'tech' and industry knowledge that has evolved over 30+ years of people experimenting.
> 
> Nobody can ever say one game or one mechanic is objectively better or worse than another, but it is quite possible in this day and age to be far more thoughtful and systematic about your game designs. The 70's stuff was basically throwing things against a wall to see what stuck. The 80's saw people sorting out the basic concepts and learning to apply them. The 90's saw development of a lot of those concepts, and now we're sort of in a period of consolidation and refinement. Of course this is only a very loose outline. There's a lot of each process still going on and they can't really be segregated chronologically very well, but you get the idea.
> 
> I think the best take-home point here is that someone today designing 5e has a LOT more options and potentially a lot more insight into the why's and wherefore's of using those options than Gygax did in 1977 writing AD&D. While it is tempting to try to just reproduce Gygax's formula in a bit cleaned up form that's leaving a LOT of potential that he couldn't have even realized existed back then on the cutting room floor. If a new game is going to be meaningfully new and worthy of a place in the market and on people's shelves and tables then it really is going to be pretty hard to do that while saying "new is just a fad" and trying to ignore 30 years of RPG evolution. A successful 5e IMHO is going to have to take those 30 years into account and really should leverage all that 'tech'. How the game plays and feels is an aesthetic choice, but aesthetics isn't created or improved simply by ignoring possibilities that didn't exist in the past.
> 
> As for D&D having 'lost something'. Well, that's a hard thing to say. I run into people who seem to be getting out of 4e what I got out of OD&D back in the day. I'm not sure the divide is all that large. However WE have changed. I know from experience that I will never quite recapture the simple wonder of OD&D, even if I play that system now today. I can have fun with it, and now and then that magic is there, but it is also there just as much in my 4e games. OTOH I can get things out of either of those systems today that I couldn't even have imagined back in the old days. I've changed. We've all changed. Just making a system based closely on say OD&D isn't going to all of a sudden bring back the feel of being 12 and playing in a tent with a Coleman lantern in the middle of the woods.
> 
> OTOH I don't think it is incorrect to consider modern RPGs (at least some of them) possibly overthought. I think there's an art to artlessness and it would be well for game designers to learn to practice that. I am however not at all convinced that artlessness has to be mechanical. In fact I'd prefer it not to be. I think it is more something that has its real impact in terms of tone, style, background (settings and whatnot, lore, etc) than in mechanical subsystems. I do think there is a challenge here though, which is to carefully design your system in a way that makes it agile and avoids too many restrictions. 4e kind of DID get part of that right, but missed a bunch on other parts. IMHO a 5e follow-on of 4e could really hit a good spot there. I think people are overthinking their game criticism as much as anyone is overthinking the games themselves, both tend to happen nowadays.




I think if you really read and play the early games, there is a lot less throwing stuff at the aall to see what sticks than you might think (Gygax lays out some clear principles of design in the DMG and 2E also was quite aware of what it was doing---they knew thac0 was akward for exampke but opted for it to maintain backwards compatability and contained math---the idea of rolling a die and adding a number was not invented in 1999). 

But even if everything you say is correct, despite all this knowledge the current designers are struggling to make an edition as popular as 1E was, and are having clear problems identifying what makes D&D, D&D.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Crazy Jerome said:


> Now take it the next step.  The evolution of techniques is often:
> 
> Learn new technique.  Use it for the sake of the technique itself and/or over use it for things it isn't designed for.
> Learn the proper balance of the technique in the whole. Integrate it into the craft.
> Now, with the fully integrated new technique, see that something is still missing.  Start looking for the next technique.
> Repeat the cycle ad infinitium.   Meanwhile, the art of the thing is using whatever techniques you have, best you can, and recognizing that somethings don't have a technique (either yet or ever--it really doesn't matter much which when you don't have it right now).
> 
> There was no humanly possible way, for example, that we would ever get thoughtful, balanced use of CGI special effects in film until a bunch of people had pushed the envelope so hard that CGI became "the thing" in their projects. It's theoretically possible to do it, but humans aren't wired that way.   I'm sure the same principle applies in any field that is part art, part evolving techniques.




Yeah, you managed to say pretty much what I was trying to say, but in many fewer words, lol. The state of the art continues to evolve. While old movies may be really excellent their producers only had limited choices. We have more choices now. Does that automatically mean newer techniques = better movies? No. OTOH if you really understand the field you would have a bigger pallete to draw from when you go to make your movie. It is the same with RPGs today. You MIGHT choose to make a black and white film today, but only for a very specific effect. Likewise you might choose to make a B/X like retroclone with old-fashioned mechanics, but only for a very specific effect.


----------



## The Shadow

Bedrockgames said:


> This is all well and good but once again those are subjective measures. You value something more streamlined and minimalist than ad&d tries to offer. For example you mention  "unnecessary and fiddly" as bad elements of design. But this is just an aesthetic choice. There are valid reasons to have a more fiddly systen that doesn't strive to eliminate unnecessary mechanics. Every approach has down sides and upsides. Right now streamlined and minimalist is in, but that doesn't mean this will be the case in twenty years.




Wow.  Condescending, much?

First off, I said nothing about 'minimalist'.  'Streamlined' you could have gotten from my post, I agree, but not that.

Second, you dismiss my point as being trendy.  Excuse me, I started seeing problems with AD&D that I articulated in my previous post in the mid-80's.  That is to say, over 25 years ago.  So I hardly think I was being moved by current trends, given that I unfortunately don't have way-cool time-viewing powers.

No, I am not the slave of fashion.  I actually am capable of independent thought.  Imagine!



> If you want minimalist and non fiddly, yes AD&D isn't your game. That doesn't mean it is objectively poorly designed.




When the game is constantly drawing attention to itself rather than the imagined events, that is by my lights objectively poor design.  It's also why Champions doesn't work as well as M&M.  M&M is a better tool for the job - having fun with superhero gaming.

'Streamlining' is good design in cars, and it's good design in games as well - it avoids turbulence that holds things back and saps energy from the system.  That's not to say every design decision made in the name of 'streamlining' is a good one, of course - that's as may be.  But as a design goal it has a lot going for it - the bad 'streamlining' decisions are the ones that cause problems elsewhere in the structure.


----------



## Bedrockgames

The Shadow said:


> Wow. Condescending, much?




I did not intend to come off as condescending. I am sorry if my post seemed that way. 



> First off, I said nothing about 'minimalist'. 'Streamlined' you could have gotten from my post, I agree, but not that.




This is a fair point. I may have read too much into your statement about removing unecessary elements. 



> Second, you dismiss my point as being trendy. Excuse me, I started seeing problems with AD&D that I articulated in my previous post in the mid-80's. That is to say, over 25 years ago. So I hardly think I was being moved by current trends, given that I unfortunately don't have way-cool time-viewing powers.




I am not accusing your point of view of being trendy, I am saying there is currently a trend in game design toward streamlined and unified. RIght now the preference you developed 25 years ago is experiencing a good deal of popularity and that is what I was talking about. My point is in five years we may all be talking about fiddly and non-unified systems again. Because these are aesthetic design trends. 



> No, I am not the slave of fashion. I actually am capable of independent thought. Imagine!




 Again, not my intention to suggest this. 



> When the game is constantly drawing attention to itself rather than the imagined events, that is by my lights objectively poor design. It's also why Champions doesn't work as well as M&M. M&M is a better tool for the job - having fun with superhero gaming.




I agree that a system should meets its design goals. I think AD&D had very broad goals though. Your criticism of it appears to be the fiddly bits, which for some is going to be a distraction from the game, for others is going to enhance it. 



> 'Streamlining' is good design in cars, and it's good design in games as well - it avoids turbulence that holds things back and saps energy from the system. That's not to say every design decision made in the name of 'streamlining' is a good one, of course - that's as may be. But as a design goal it has a lot going for it - the bad 'streamlining' decisions are the ones that cause problems elsewhere in the structure.




I just don't think this analogy holds. Mind you I like streamlined design and strive for it in most of my own games. But I also know it has shortcomings. Streamlining can be good, because it makes the game more intuitive and easy to understand. The downside is it is harder to rig the numbers in the system and harder to achieve granularity. I point to the intiiative system in 2E as an example. It isn't streamlined, but it arguably achieves its function better than moving initiative to the d20 mechanic. Not everyone will agree with that assesment. But streamlining isn't neccessarily better than a more "clunky" system. With clunky you tend to get a lot more texture. It all depends on what you want at the end of the day. Right now I think most people want streamlined. But there are times, when I am designing I wish I didn't have to worry about streamlining at all because it would give me a lot more freedom to design individual mechanics int he game exactly as I want them.


----------



## innerdude

Ridley's Cohort said:


> You make a number of general points I largely agree with.  I think you are overstating the likely naivete of the 3e designers.
> 
> I would say their effort here was quite successful in extending play into the higher levels, however they were under pressure to preserve the feel of these classic spells close to their the original text.  To have even partially accomplished that feat was perhaps even evidence of the outright superiority of 3e to its predecessors.
> 
> In hindsight, I would vehemently argue that half those spells should have been rewritten completely from scratch, for the reasons you stated.  But at the time, such a choice would have been rated a strike against, evidence 3e was "not really D&D".
> 
> IMHO the majority of the 3.0 design problems stem from adhering too closely to the original material.  3.5 put a band-aid on a number of them, but I think it is Arcana Unearthed that shows us the real potential of a 3e-style system.  It was easier for Monte because there were no expectations other than fun.




Having now been exposed to Fantasy Craft, this is absolutely right. 3e is a fantastic core "engine," on which to build a highly "coherent" simulationist game that provides lots of "gamist" drift. 

In hindsight, D&D 3e and 3.5e simply aren't super-fantastic implementations of that core. They're good, solid, functional implementations for the first 12 levels, but don't particularly play to OGL d20's real strengths (i.e., _really _focusing on making the simulationism and gamism as naturally congruent as possible). Because 3e was really beholden to 1e and 2e's history, some of the more "incoherent" stuff just got hand-waved in to the rules, because it had to be that way to maintain fan appeal.


----------



## billd91

The Shadow said:


> When the game is constantly drawing attention to itself rather than the imagined events, that is by my lights objectively poor design.  It's also why Champions doesn't work as well as M&M.  M&M is a better tool for the job - having fun with superhero gaming.




I like M&M better than Champions, but *is it really * a better tool for the job? Champions has the ability to model some extremely subtle elements of super hero comic books. I don't think I've seen a better rendition of Cyclops and the way he operates like a solar battery than I've seen done with Champions. I don't think M&M would do it as well, in part, because it uses different mechanics. 

If modeling subtle differences in powers is your bag, I don't think there's a better tool than Champions. If generating heroes quickly and playing with a lighter rules system is your thing, Villains and Vigilantes beats the hell out of either Mutants and Masterminds or Champions.

Again, better depends entirely upon criteria. How is it better? And the importance of any particular criteria is certainly going to be subjective.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Hussar said:


> Look, there's no escaping that a new car is better than an old car.  It just is.  In every single measurable way, a 2012 car is better than a car produced in 1965.




I disagree vehemently.  I have both an 87 and a 2006 4wd pickup truck, same model.  The 87 has more undercarriage clearance, it was one of the last models when they still made them out of metal.  I've ran over trees in that thing.  I've been in creek bottoms and across muddy fields.  I've been in places where I both legally and sensibly should have never been.  I've driven across roads covered in 3 inch thick sheets of ice.  I've pulled diesel trucks up mountains in it.  The 2006 model?  It gets better gas mileage and has power windows.  And gets stuck backing the boat in at the river.  Sometimes, they really DON'T make 'em like they used to.


----------



## Doug McCrae

You guys are supposed to be talking about wizards. Not cars!


----------



## Bedrockgames

Doug McCrae said:


> You guys are supposed to be talking about wizards. Not cars!




I don't, i always suspected click and clack were gamers. Maybe their one of the posters on this thread


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> YOU think so. But better in what way? The cyclical initiative of 3e and 4e have certain advantages in smoothness of running encounters. But the side-based initiatives of 1e and 2e make it easier to coordinate player vs NPC groups, particularly for new players. The optional initiative system for 2e, modified by individual weapon speeds and casting times enables more tactical consideration between getting an early strike vs a late, but potentially stronger one, to say nothing about adding better balancing controls for magic spells in combat. When you also consider that the random element in 2e initiative is a d10, the random factor is a smaller proportion of the result, making player choice-drive modifiers more meaningful.
> 
> "Better" always depends on certain criteria. How is something better? Under what circumstances is it better? And in gaming, whether you want something better along those criteria is typically a subjective choice.




It's better because it doesn't require fifteen pages of explanation and clarification.  CF:  http://www.multifoliate.com/dnd/ADDICT.pdf


----------



## Hussar

BRG said:
			
		

> am not accusing your point of view of being trendy, I am saying there is currently a trend in game design toward streamlined and unified. RIght now the preference you developed 25 years ago is experiencing a good deal of popularity and that is what I was talking about. My point is in five years we may all be talking about fiddly and non-unified systems again. Because these are aesthetic design trends.




Well, anything's possible I suppose.  But, the continuous trend for the past thirty years is more streamlining and unification of systems, so that would require a complete reversal of all game design over the past three decades.

IOW, I really, really doubt it.

As far as the car analogy goes.  Well, are you actually using the vehicle as it was intended?  Bill91 talks about the strength of the Mustang being a "tinkers car".  But, that was never a design goal of a Mustang which was to provide an affordable high performance car.  That you can tinker with it is simply a side effect, but never a design goal.

Musical instruments I don't know about, so, I cannot comment.  

But, my question would be, why are the older instruments considered better and why can we not replicate or improve that?  Is it simply nostalgia (I doubt it), or are there elements from those old instruments that just cannot be reproduced using modern techniques.  And, are those elements applicable to this situation?

The idea that Old=always better is just as ludicrous as the idea that new=always better.  I'm not arguing that newer=better.  I'm arguing that, from a design perspective, having tens of thousands of man-hours testing a particular design tends to result in improvements in the next design.

Is it always true?  Nope.  The car example of newer models being worse than older models is certainly true.  But, as a general trend?  That's pretty much inescapable.  We might be slow, but, people tend to learn things over time.


----------



## slobster

Hussar said:


> It's better because it doesn't require fifteen pages of explanation and clarification.  CF:  http://www.multifoliate.com/dnd/ADDICT.pdf




 Holy crap. I only played one campaign in AD&D, and I was a beginning player and not the GM. I was always a bit hazy on how some of the more arcane bits worked, and since 3E came out at pretty much exactly the point where I became interested in actually learning the system instead of just playing a single character I never read much AD&D rules . . . 

Holy crap. I don't remember things being that crazy!


----------



## Herschel

Abraxas said:


> 2) A better analogy would be musical instruments - for example lets take violins. Using the train of thought running through this thread - A modern violin has the advantage of centuries of "improvements" in manufacturing techniques, materials, and tools - so must be better designed and therefore be better than one made by Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesù. Except, the consensus among violinists seems to be that a Stradivari is better and sets the standard modern violin makers try to emulate.



Actually this is a very poor example. Modern instruments have better design tools to do the things master craftsmen did in the past and with better precision, but you can't age wood artificially to emulate  the sound and tone of those instruments until they age, for example. I can pull out a set of DW drums with better everything than an old set of Radio Kings or a new Robot Les Paul vs. a late 6o's Gold Top and the new pieces will be easier to tune, stay in tune better, have a more consistent sound and generally be within specifications (and not out-of-round) but there's a warmth in that old wood as it has seasoned for decades.  In some cases it may not sound right in close recording either but for live application or certain less-stringent applications they are desired. 

Heck, a number of players still swear by the classic Ludwig Speed King pedal even though they all sqeak right out of the box or worn in. Recording with those things is a royal pain though the feel of them brings a familiar comfort to many players. 

Musicians tend to be a horribly nostalgic lot.


----------



## SkidAce

As a side note, the Mustang will go faster than the Prius...which one is better again?


----------



## Savage Wombat

I'll just add that recent studies of various types determined no quantifiable difference between the sound from a Stradivarius and a modern high-quality violin, nor could experts reliably discern the difference between the two.


----------



## The Shadow

Okay, first off:  Bedrockgames, it's clear I misunderstood you and I'm sorry I reacted in haste.

Having processed a bunch of recent posts, I think I have a better grip on just where both the subjective and objective layers of design lie.

Can everyone agree on this statement of things:

The types of game an individual likes is a matter of taste.  Some people like a given type of game, others dislike it.

But _given a type of game a designer wants to create,_ it can be assessed with at least some degree of objectivity whether a design succeeds or fails.

As Exhibit A, I present my assessment of 4e earlier:  That it is a notably successful example of design (not perfect, but really good);  but that it is a game I personally don't much like at all.  Despite my dislike of it, I can - I think objectively - judge that it successfully produces the sort of game the designers were trying to make.  (Well, as objectively as I can judge without having played it much at all, anyway.)  Certainly I find that people who like tactical skirmish games seem to like 4e a lot - and more power to 'em.

What I said earlier about M&M and Champions?  Was partly my taste and partly (I think) objective.  The objective part is that my gaming group has had notably more fun playing M&M than Champions, and the GM has had notably more fun running it.  It's just plain win-win all around.  M&M succeeds better at delivering the sort of game experience we want to have.

We can give numerous reasons why M&M delivers that experience better.  It's not just a vague, "I like it better."  We can point to definite mechanics (or lack of mechanics) that facilitate the play experience we want to have.  However, our preference for that play experience as opposed to others is certainly our own subjective taste.

Likewise, the experience I want to have with D&D is my own taste.  But given that taste - and I think there's good evidence that I'm far from a small minority - I can assess that AD&D failed in a number of areas to deliver it.  My assessment is objective in the sense that I can with reason point to specific mechanics (or lack thereof) that make that experience less likely or less intense.  But it's subjective in the sense that others want a different experience and I have no basis to convince them otherwise.

That said, somewhat paradoxically, it was AD&D itself that gave rise to my desire.  It delivered the experience I wanted on some occasions - enough so that when it failed to deliver it on other occasions it was noticeable and annoying.  That's why I'm here - I'm very much hoping that 5e will give me a D&D that gives me the experience I want more reliably and more intensely than AD&D, or 3e, or Pathfinder.  (Though I've played a bit of PF lately, I have to say it falls down a bit regarding the experience I'm looking for as well - though in totally different ways than AD&D.)

If we're all on the same page now, can we get back to wizards? 

I found playing low-level wizards in AD&D to be... _intensely frustrating._

Don't think I don't understand what some people are saying about how they were forced to think creatively and do things outside the box.  Believe me, I do - one of my very favorite 2e campaigns was an all-thief group where the campaign premise was openly stated to be:  "Frontal assault is suicide.  You MUST be sneaky to survive."  It was an incredible amount of fun.  We had to think on our feet constantly just to keep our heads above water, and it was positively exhilarating.  (My character from that campaign, a gnomish thief/illusionist, remains my favorite D&D character of all time.)

But it's one thing for the campaign to work that way by agreement, and it's another to have it forced on you by the game saying you can only cast one spell a day.  It doesn't work well in the fiction - what master wizard would turn loose a 1st-level apprentice?  (How could he possibly support himself, especially in the days before cantrips?  How could he be expected to _live?_  As indeed, he often did not - don't even get me started on the idea of rolling a d4 for hit points...)  And it doesn't work well in play - according to my taste, anyway.  It's just frustrating.  Back in the day, we often started things off at 3rd level just to avoid the worst parts.  (Well, to be more precise, with enough xp to get the wizards to 3rd level.)


----------



## JRRNeiklot

slobster said:


> Holy crap. I only played one campaign in AD&D, and I was a beginning player and not the GM. I was always a bit hazy on how some of the more arcane bits worked, and since 3E came out at pretty much exactly the point where I became interested in actually learning the system instead of just playing a single character I never read much AD&D rules . . .
> 
> Holy crap. I don't remember things being that crazy!




You don't remember it because they aren't.  Initiative in 1E is rather simple.  Roll D6.  The winning side goes first.  Casters in melee subtract casting time from the roll.  That's pretty much it.  Most of the above document concerns surprise which is a whole 'nother animal.


----------



## LostSoul

billd91 said:


> "Better" always depends on certain criteria. How is something better? Under what circumstances is it better? And in gaming, whether you want something better along those criteria is typically a subjective choice.




I think that, once you define the subjective criteria, it's very easy to make a better or worse game.

If you're going to make a game where immersion is important, stop-motion initiative like you see in WotC-D&D isn't very helpful.  Nor 1-minute combat rounds or martial powers.  "What is my guy doing?"  "Don't worry, it's not important."

I think it's very hard to make a game that will satisfy a large number of different criteria at the same time - I think that 4E attempted by going with the heavy abstraction + tactical choices route, but I believe it failed to hit many different interests.

For instance:  In my experience, a lot of RPGers don't actually want to make meaningful choices while playing.  They want to be _entertained_.  If you make a game that relies on meaningful choices, it's going to be a problem.


----------



## Steely_Dan

The Shadow said:


> Back in the day, we often started things off at 3rd level just to avoid the worst parts.  (Well, to be more precise, with enough xp to get the wizards to 3rd level.)




In pre-4th Ed campaigns I always start the characters with double max HD at first level (wizard has 8, fighter has 20 etc), helps with the "A gnome throws a carrot at you; you die." problem.


----------



## Lanefan

Doug McCrae said:


> You guys are supposed to be talking about wizards. Not cars!



Two wizards - each perfectly at balance with themselves, each other, and the world around them - are out for a sunset cruise; one in her 1965 Mustang, the other in his 2012 Prius.  From his open windows come the rich tones of an orchestra of fine Stradivarii doing Beethoven proud; she's got the top down while rocking out to the dulcet tones of "When the Levee Breaks", hair streaming in the wind.

Side by side they roll down the gently winding road toward the city lights...

Lan-"dark moon cruiser"-efan


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> Two wizards - each perfectly at balance with themselves, each other, and the world around them - are out for a sunset cruise; one in her 1965 Mustang, the other in his 2012 Prius.  From his open windows come the rich tones of an orchestra of fine Stradivarii doing Beethoven proud; she's got the top down while rocking out to the dulcet tones of "When the Levee Breaks", hair streaming in the wind.
> 
> Side by side they roll down the gently winding road toward the city lights...
> 
> Lan-"dark moon cruiser"-efan




Yes this is about where the thread has ended. I believe it also illustrates the warning our teachers used to give us about using analogies in a debate (they are meant to clarify not convince).


----------



## SkidAce

^ Indeed.


----------



## Hussar

Let me spin it around a slightly different way then.

There is at least one published game designer in this thread, and I think there are more.  Now, for those who have taken a try at designing a game, would you say that your experience counts for anything?  Would you say that you are a better game designer now than you were when you began designing your first game?


----------



## keterys

The car analogies really fall down because they're not really paying attention to the fact that cars have been designed for different goals.

Maybe the car doesn't go faster, but it gets better mileage, is better for the environment, and is almost exponentially safer in the case of an accident. 

Maybe you don't care about that. I'll admit, it's _real hard_ to find cars that aren't designed for safety nowadays. So we get a lot more crumple zones, plastic, etc instead of solid metal construction. So that's a potential downside, unless you get in an accident - in which case it's a lifesaver. Maybe you don't ever get in accidents (though, sadly, that's based on the skill of all participants, as well as a bit of luck), but... that's still how they're designing them nowadays.

But if you do want to make a speed/muscle car equivalent, you can do a lot better with modern gear, if you know what you're doing. 

Anyhow, you get the same question in RPGs. Part of the problem is that folks want different things (speed, safety, etc) out of their RPG. There is a certain amount of nostalgia, as well, but let's not overlook that some things that folks liked are getting sacrificed at the altar of improvements in other areas. Hopefully they'll also not willfully disregard that there were very good reasons to want those improvements, too.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> There is at least one published game designer in this thread, and I think there are more.  Now, for those who have taken a try at designing a game, would you say that your experience counts for anything?  Would you say that you are a better game designer now than you were when you began designing your first game?




Sure. But saying experience counts for something is different from a straight comparison to game mechanics as evolving tech. I dont discount the value of experience over the course of a game line. What I reject is the idea that 4.0 represents a more technologically advanced state of gaming than 1E. Personally I would compare it more to writing. Over time you hone your process. But having a good process doesn't always yield the best material (some writers do their best work when they are hacking blind in the woods, and decline once they have a framework in pkace). Sometimes too many lenses are created over the years and it makes more problems. so where I do agree is that designers do have more options to pull from now because others have helped establish new approaches. I disagree that an aesthetic or style choice (like unified mechanics) is objectively better than another (like non unified mechanics)---for the reasons I posted above. i agree unified mechanics is a strong trend (though I think saying it is a three decade trend is very much overstating things). But yes experience counts. 

At the same time, my first published game (the one where I had the least experience) remains my most popular game (outselling games I personally think are better designed). At the end of the day what matters is how many people play a game, and how many people like it. If I make a game that is deemed the best designed by a small cabal of game designers, but is rejected entirely by the people who actually play rpgs, it isn't much of an achievement in my mind. So while I think you raise a good point here, the danger (and the this is one I see wotc constantly fall into) is the designers will design to please their own egos as designers rather than make a game that people want ("first, do no harm").


----------



## Crazy Jerome

keterys said:


> The car analogies really fall down because they're not really paying attention to the fact that cars have been designed for different goals.
> 
> Maybe the car doesn't go faster, but it gets better mileage, is better for the environment, and is almost exponentially safer in the case of an accident.




OTOH, one place where the car analogy holds is that there are at least two different types of design, and people not infrequenly confuse them.  That's not all that surprising, either, because the different types of designs impinge on each other.  

The "lines" of a car are part aesthetic choice, part a concession to aerodynamics, and then whatever limits of materials, costs, weight, etc. that emerge from that.  Liking or not liking the resulting "lines" is a subjective appreciation thing, but those *exact same lines* can be discussed from completely objective aerodynamic principles and constraints.  

I sometimes see complaints about systems, objectivity, and so forth that seem to make no such distinctions about competing limits.  For example, in a much older argument, you'd sometimes see people complain bitterly about D&D using a d20 to govern the attack calculation, usually favoring replacement with some kind of bell curve die set, such as 3d6, on the grounds that "crit on a 20" happened "too frequently" or other complaints about a linear result set divided into 5% increments.  Such people are usually impervious to any discussion of the design trade-offs that such switches necessarily entail, and what that means for the rest of the system.  (I'm particularly aware of this one, because I happen to share their sensibilities on the feel of the d20 to a large degree, while still managing to appreciate some of the design decisions that make the d20 not so easily dismissed.)

So does it appear to me a lot of the unconcious design advocated for the wizard and other such issues. It is almost as if some get so caught up in the aesthetics of the "lines" that no other, more objective design issues are allowed to have much real purchase.  They'll receive a few nods, the same way that people will allow that, "of course, handling time and other playability issues need to be addressed," but then will systematically ignore such issues beyond a bit of lip service.

It is as if someone had gone to an engineer and demanded marble counter tops on the hood of an economy car, and then expected the rest of the vehicle to somehow make up for this choice. The engineer might attack it as an interesting challenge, but he'll never consider the project itself to be representative of good design.  

And all of that, doesn't even touch the fact that some of us appreciate good design as itself part of an aesthetic reaction.  We are the "form follows function" crowd, and forever divided from those that see it the other way around.  Yep, Shakespeare's sonnets really are objectively superior to that hack Emily Dickenson in one sense, whatever you may subjectively appreciate or not in other senses.  The sonnets use a form more likely to produce a pleasing result when rendered in English.  Iambic pentameter really is a better choice for poetry than iambic tetrameter.  I understand it's the reason why medieval French poetry is so difficult to translate into English, the pleasng sound in medieval French being the opposite (though not reading medieval French, I'm going on authority here).


----------



## Steely_Dan

Bedrockgames said:


> At the end of the day what matters is how many people play a game, and how many people like it. If I make a game that is deemed the best designed by a small cabal of game designers, but is rejected entirely by the people who actually play rpgs, it isn't much of an achievement in my mind.




Very good point, just like many musicians do not always want to hear other musician's opinions about music.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun

What would people think if the Wizard gets a feat at 1st level? They can use that feat to turn their cantrips at-will, or they can use it for whatever the heck else they want. Or perhaps instead of at-will cantrips, the wizard gains proficiency in crossbows and can use them well.

That way the people who don't want at-will cantrips(something both successors to 3.5E, 4E and Pathfinder, use BTW), while people who do want at-will cantrips are allowed to do so, at the expense of some versatility.

EDIT: Forgot something.  I would also like to have cantrips be something that is decided at the beginning of the day (like they are in Pathfinder).  You could choose three or four from a pretty short list of spells (Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Ghost Sound, Magic Missile, an energy ray attack [one for each energy type, because, well, SCREW FIRE I WANT LIGHTNING!] and a few others).


----------



## billd91

keterys said:


> Anyhow, you get the same question in RPGs. Part of the problem is that folks want different things (speed, safety, etc) out of their RPG. There is a certain amount of nostalgia, as well, but *let's not overlook that some things that folks liked are getting sacrificed at the altar of improvements in other areas.* Hopefully they'll also not willfully disregard that there were very good reasons to want those improvements, too.




Emphasis mine above. 
I don't think there's any doubt, game design is a balancing act between competing demands of the players. And we're really seeing that now with 5e because I believe WotC has now realized that, while they lost sight of much of it in 4e. Frankly, I find this as much as anything else to be a good argument for incremental, evolutionary design (along the lines of 1e to 2e) rather than revolution (3e to 4e).

Back on the car analogy, there are even competing issues with respect to improvements in multiple areas, not just old-style features. Designing for fuel economy undermines improvements in safety because it generally necessitates lighter materials while heavier materials, even in the crumple zones, do a better job of absorbing energy rather than transmitting it to the passengers. And I think you can see the same in game design too.


----------



## Hussar

Out of curiosity Bill91:



			
				Bill91 said:
			
		

> (along the lines of 1e to 2e) rather than revolution (3e to 4e).




How would you characterize the design change from 2e to 3e?

I would call it very much revolutionary, since 3e is at least as different from 2e as 4e is from 3e.  But, that may just be my own personal filters in place.


----------



## Lanefan

Bedrockgames said:


> At the same time, my first published game (the one where I had the least experience) remains my most popular game (outselling games I personally think are better designed). At the end of the day what matters is how many people play a game, and how many people like it. If I make a game that is deemed the best designed by a small cabal of game designers, but is rejected entirely by the people who actually play rpgs, it isn't much of an achievement in my mind. So while I think you raise a good point here, the danger (and the this is one I see wotc constantly fall into) is the designers will design to please their own egos as designers rather than make a game that people want ("first, do no harm").



An analogy here is movies: do you make a movie to please the critics or the ticket-buying public; as rarely if ever are both the same.

Often, if the general public takes something to heart the critics will eventually come around: best example is the 1977 Star Wars - critically scorned on release, 35 years later it regularly appears on all-time top-100 lists.  D&D 1e has suffered the reverse fate: almost universally loved on release, 35 years later some people have made an art form out of poking holes in it.

A more recent example is James Cameron.  Like him or not, his critics-be-damned style movies tend to be outrageously successful at selling tickets - Titanic, anyone?  Avatar?

Lan-"then again, with the LotR movies the critics and public both got it right"-efan


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Out of curiosity Bill91:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you characterize the design change from 2e to 3e?
> 
> I would call it very much revolutionary, since 3e is at least as different from 2e as 4e is from 3e.  But, that may just be my own personal filters in place.




More evolutionary than revolutionary, but a bigger jump than 1e to 2e. I'd say it's about as far a shift it can be without really being revolutionary.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

billd91 said:


> Emphasis mine above.
> I don't think there's any doubt, game design is a balancing act between competing demands of the players. And we're really seeing that now with 5e because I believe WotC has now realized that, while they lost sight of much of it in 4e. Frankly, I find this as much as anything else to be a good argument for incremental, evolutionary design (along the lines of 1e to 2e) rather than revolution (3e to 4e).
> 
> Back on the car analogy, there are even competing issues with respect to improvements in multiple areas, not just old-style features. Designing for fuel economy undermines improvements in safety because it generally necessitates lighter materials while heavier materials, even in the crumple zones, do a better job of absorbing energy rather than transmitting it to the passengers. And I think you can see the same in game design too.




Yeah, I think the issue of tradeoffs is far too often not understood. Look at the oodles of posts over on the DDN forum that amount to "I want AD&D except with TONS of character options, but it has to be simple!" lol. You can only fit 10 pounds of stuff into a 10 pound bag. No amount of trying for the last 100 years has yielded a flying car. Some things just aren't possible and some goals are diametrically opposed. 

At the same time game design is both an art form and a discipline subject to logical engineering-like constraints which arise out of, well, logic, but also human factors, practical constraints, etc. Nobody REALLY knows when they start on a game design exactly what is going to come out the other side. You make some decisions and trade-offs based on intuition and experience, and some based on logic, and you TRY to make aesthetic choices to create what you want, but truthfully you don't often end up with exactly what you went in looking for. You may often end up far from the original goal, or you may miss it by a hair and still be off by a mile.

I really think 4e falls into the category of only really missing by a small percentage. I think the people designing it, because it was a pretty large team and surrounded by a layer of closely associated playtesters and whatnot just started out to make something closer to maybe say a better AD&D. After you spend a year inside that you've made lots of decisions and committed yourself to a lot of approaches, and you've played the death out of all the parts and figured out how to make it do what you wanted to do. So you have this great thing, but when you go and put it in front of a whole other audience they may not 'get' what you're doing. Furthermore they don't use it like you did, they don't interpret it like you did, and it doesn't work the same way for them. It is almost a completely different thing.

I think from a pure perspective of just making a game that could do something much closer to what say AD&D does than what 4e does though, 4e isn't actually all that far off. It isn't really about the sort of mechanics you're using, that's a side issue. It is about how does it feel and what things does it encourage you to do. If you rewrote 4e and say made the combat system faster and cut back on some things and just polished and re-presented some things that would make a huge difference. The fan base isn't in the mood for that now, so it isn't really quite that easy NOW, but if you were Mike Mearls back in your time machine to 2007 (or whenever) to say "hey, lay off on that and make this simpler, and present this like so and not like such" you could easily have a hit game that is recognizably 4e. It just never happens that way in the real world.


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> More evolutionary than revolutionary, but a bigger jump than 1e to 2e. I'd say it's about as far a shift it can be without really being revolutionary.




I think this goes a LONG way towards explaining the difference of opinion that floats around.  To me, 4e is very much an evolutionary change for 3e.  Virtually all the systems in 4e come from 3e.  There are very few elements in 4e that didn't appear in almost exactly that form, at some point in 3e.  Skills work the same, combat is largely the same, although saving throws are an obvious change, as well as NAD's.  Most of the task resolution systems are ported over largely unchanged from 3e to 4e.

Whereas I look at 2e to 3e and see that as truly revolutionary.  Virtually none of the systems in 3e appear in 2e.    Feats are a completely new addition.  The skill system is completely different.  Combat is changed in a thousand different ways - 5 foot grid, AOO's, out of turn actions (something that is greatly increased in 4e), on and on.  Heck, even the meaning of the base stats are entirely different and on a different scale.  A 16 Str in 3e and 4e means exactly the same thing.  And it's completely different from what a 16 Str means in AD&D (1e or 2e).  There's a reason that your 18 Str character got converted to like a 22 or 24 Str in 3e using the WOTC conversion rules.  

So, yeah, I think this, right here, gets right to the heart of the different ways of seeing the games.  After all, flavour wise, 3e and 1e  are a lot closer together.  I'll totally cop to that.  The cosmology, alignments, the races, monsters, etc.  are pretty much pulled directly forward.  And 4e's flavour changes are significant and probably rightly called revolutionary rather than evolutionary.  

It's all about what you see as "the game".  To me, the flavour bits are usually an afterthought because I almost always run homebrew settings.  Great Wheel cosmology?  Never used it.  Alignment?  Well, used it and it caused me WAY too many headaches.  Tolkien Races?  Haven't had a pure Tolkien group in about twenty-five years.  Whenever the Dragonlance player's book came out which had Minotaurs in it.  That would have been about the last time I saw a group with all standard races.

So, yeah, it's all about perception.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> I think this goes a LONG way towards explaining the difference of opinion that floats around.  To me, 4e is very much an evolutionary change for 3e.  Virtually all the systems in 4e come from 3e.  There are very few elements in 4e that didn't appear in almost exactly that form, at some point in 3e.  Skills work the same, combat is largely the same, although saving throws are an obvious change, as well as NAD's.  Most of the task resolution systems are ported over largely unchanged from 3e to 4e.
> 
> Whereas I look at 2e to 3e and see that as truly revolutionary.  Virtually none of the systems in 3e appear in 2e.    Feats are a completely new addition.  The skill system is completely different.  Combat is changed in a thousand different ways - 5 foot grid, AOO's, out of turn actions (something that is greatly increased in 4e), on and on.  Heck, even the meaning of the base stats are entirely different and on a different scale.  A 16 Str in 3e and 4e means exactly the same thing.  And it's completely different from what a 16 Str means in AD&D (1e or 2e).  There's a reason that your 18 Str character got converted to like a 22 or 24 Str in 3e using the WOTC conversion rules.
> 
> So, yeah, I think this, right here, gets right to the heart of the different ways of seeing the games.  After all, flavour wise, 3e and 1e  are a lot closer together.  I'll totally cop to that.  The cosmology, alignments, the races, monsters, etc.  are pretty much pulled directly forward.  And 4e's flavour changes are significant and probably rightly called revolutionary rather than evolutionary.
> 
> It's all about what you see as "the game".  To me, the flavour bits are usually an afterthought because I almost always run homebrew settings.  Great Wheel cosmology?  Never used it.  Alignment?  Well, used it and it caused me WAY too many headaches.  Tolkien Races?  Haven't had a pure Tolkien group in about twenty-five years.  Whenever the Dragonlance player's book came out which had Minotaurs in it.  That would have been about the last time I saw a group with all standard races.
> 
> So, yeah, it's all about perception.




For me, the game is the flavor every bit as much as the mechanics. I don't really see how it can be otherwise because then there's little to keep D&D distinct from other games. I also see some of the evolutionary strains from 2e to 3e. Feats are weapon proficiencies from the earlier editions, including the style feats from Complete Fighter's Handbook and wacky stunts from the Celts semi-historical greenbook campaign setting. AoOs come directly from smacking a PC if he turns tail and runs from a melee. The 5' grid is just the old 1e 3' space PCs used to require with a little required weapon space built in.

But for me, a very important element of 3e not being revolutionary is the obvious devotion to keeping a lot of 1e/2e structures and lore intact - the spell levels, spell slots, spellbooks, differences in attack bonuses, alignments, standard 1e race mix, relatively few changes to the mix of classes even if some details of the classes change, wish spells, bless spells, fly spells, teleport spells, good storm giants, good unicorns, charmy dryads, LG paladins, and a *bunch* of other stuff. Shift the mechanics - you may just be evolutionary. Shift the mechanics *and* the flavor and you've broken out of evolutionary territory.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Lanefan said:


> Often, if the general public takes something to heart the critics will eventually come around: best example is the 1977 Star Wars - critically scorned on release, 35 years later it regularly appears on all-time top-100 lists.  D&D 1e has suffered the reverse fate: almost universally loved on release, 35 years later some people have made an art form out of poking holes in it.



Yeah, "the test of time."


----------



## Hussar

See, Bill91, to me, all 4e did was shift the flavour.  The mechanics are still very much recognizably 3e.  Particularly late 3e if you used Tome of Magic and Bo9S (which we did).  Flavour changes?  Oh yeah, got that in spades.  Mechanics?  That's just 3e with a new coat of paint AFAIC.  

Whereas 2e to 3e is the reverse, for me.  The flavour is largely there.  But mechanics?  Virtually nothing is the same.  The change to grid based combat is probably the largest shift there, again, for me.  So, no, the "space requirements" mechanics of 1e, which are most certainly not 3 feet required - it depended on what weapon you used and were virtually abandoned from any other explanation after the PHB came out, bear virtually no resemblance to the grid based combat of 3e.

As I said, I'm not a flavour guy.  I couldn't care less what the flavour is in the core books.  It simply has never mattered to me.  That's not what D&D is about, for me.  It's the mechanics that I'm looking at.  Which, I suppose, goes a long ways towards why I would see this as a much more objective issue.  The artsy stuff - how tall is a halfing - doesn't matter one whit to me.  I couldn't care less because, as soon as I sit down to play, most of the flavour stuff is going to go out the window anyway.

So, when I talk about good design or bad design, I'm not talking about the flavour stuff.  I'm talking about whether or not mechanic X works at the table better than mechanic Y.  Which mechanic produces smoother play, is easier to understand and is less likely to cause problems down the road?  Cause that one?  That's the better designed mechanic.

And flavour can go sob in the corner for all I care.


----------



## Bluenose

billd91 said:


> For me, the game is the flavor every bit as much as the mechanics. I don't really see how it can be otherwise because then there's little to keep D&D distinct from other games.




So, you might play Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Planescape, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Mystara, Eberron, or any of half a hundred published settings or thousands of homebrews. Do you expect the flavour to be the same in all of those? Because it really, really, shouldn't be.


----------



## pemerton

AbdulAlhazred said:


> While old movies may be really excellent their producers only had limited choices. We have more choices now. Does that automatically mean newer techniques = better movies? No. OTOH if you really understand the field you would have a bigger pallete to draw from when you go to make your movie.



With movies it is more complex than that, though. It's not just about creating a visual effect. Part of what a movie does is play on the viewer's knowledge of how the visual effect was created, and what that required.

So part of what is amazing about the railroad scene in Lawrence of Arabia is that you (the viewer) know that they blew up a train!

On the whole I think Eyes Wide Shut is a bad film, but it would be even less interesting if you (the viewer) didn't know that, when it was shot, the lead performers were a married couple.

That's one reason, I think, why CGI-ish cinema can have trouble evoking the same depth of emotional response.



LostSoul said:


> In my experience, a lot of RPGers don't actually want to make meaningful choices while playing.  They want to be _entertained_.  If you make a game that relies on meaningful choices, it's going to be a problem.



To relate this to my movie point: It's sometimes said that "the story" of an RPG game is the post-session transcript. That may be true for some meaining of the phrase "the story", but there's more to it than that. The participants - who, as a general rule, are the only ones to pay any attention to the story - know how it was produced.

At least for me, the _way_ it was produced matters. I want it to have not been pre-packaged, but likewise to not just be the product of chance. I want it to emerge from decisions that the particpants - both players, playing their PCs, and the GM, adjudicating action resolution (including sometimes by playing NPCs/monsters) - have made during the course of actual play.

These decisions become meaningful because, upon subsequent reflection, they matter in this way.


----------



## billd91

Bluenose said:


> So, you might play Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Planescape, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Mystara, Eberron, or any of half a hundred published settings or thousands of homebrews. Do you expect the flavour to be the same in all of those? Because it really, really, shouldn't be.




And thanks to the flavor of D&D in the core rules, most of those share A LOT in common. And I'm grateful they do. I don't want to have to relearn everything whenever a new campaign starts up in another person's homebrew or published setting game.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Hussar said:


> I think this goes a LONG way towards explaining the difference of opinion that floats around.  To me, 4e is very much an evolutionary change for 3e.  Virtually all the systems in 4e come from 3e.  There are very few elements in 4e that didn't appear in almost exactly that form, at some point in 3e.  Skills work the same, combat is largely the same, although saving throws are an obvious change, as well as NAD's.  Most of the task resolution systems are ported over largely unchanged from 3e to 4e.
> 
> Whereas I look at 2e to 3e and see that as truly revolutionary.  Virtually none of the systems in 3e appear in 2e.    Feats are a completely new addition.  The skill system is completely different.  Combat is changed in a thousand different ways - 5 foot grid, AOO's, out of turn actions (something that is greatly increased in 4e), on and on.  Heck, even the meaning of the base stats are entirely different and on a different scale.  A 16 Str in 3e and 4e means exactly the same thing.  And it's completely different from what a 16 Str means in AD&D (1e or 2e).  There's a reason that your 18 Str character got converted to like a 22 or 24 Str in 3e using the WOTC conversion rules.
> 
> So, yeah, I think this, right here, gets right to the heart of the different ways of seeing the games.  After all, flavour wise, 3e and 1e  are a lot closer together.  I'll totally cop to that.  The cosmology, alignments, the races, monsters, etc.  are pretty much pulled directly forward.  And 4e's flavour changes are significant and probably rightly called revolutionary rather than evolutionary.
> 
> It's all about what you see as "the game".  To me, the flavour bits are usually an afterthought because I almost always run homebrew settings.  Great Wheel cosmology?  Never used it.  Alignment?  Well, used it and it caused me WAY too many headaches.  Tolkien Races?  Haven't had a pure Tolkien group in about twenty-five years.  Whenever the Dragonlance player's book came out which had Minotaurs in it.  That would have been about the last time I saw a group with all standard races.
> 
> So, yeah, it's all about perception.




Seems like there are elements of 'truth' to both ways of looking at it. In SOME respects 3e maintains closer contact with the feel and lore of older editions, but in some ways not at all. The basic lore is taken pretty much from late 2e, and many of the rules innovations are too, as well as the "lots of options for your character" basic concept. Spellcasting wasn't really materially changed. Everything else is pretty much mechanically all new in 3e. It is certainly mechanically IMHO as big a jump as 4e, maybe more in some ways. 

The main thing with 3e though to me is that fundamentally up to that point the ENTIRE focus of the game was aimed at the table and at what happened IN the game. While the last bit of 2e did kind of bridge over (we never used any of 2e past the core books basically) fundamentally before 3e you just picked your race/class and got what the book said. Creating a unique character was all RP and story telling. 

I really think that 3e marks the big watershed. It is a whole different KIND of game. The whole concept of what engages the players with the game is different. No longer is it about telling stories and playing a role, it is also in a huge way about fiddling with the rules and optimizing characters. That also required a shift in attitude about the rules from being a tool that told you how you could do stuff to a set of restrictions that you had to follow and master so you could play better. 

I think 4e is kind of the logical endpoint of that sort of development. People complain, but they're really ultimately complaining about the entire concept behind post-AD&D system. 

OTOH my experience is that my 2e and my 4e campaigns have actually run pretty much the same. There's a bit of difference at the level of what sort of encounters and scenarios they best handle, but the basic concept is intact. I'm like you as well, I could give a rat's patooty about old D&D lore. Never ran anything but homebrew, never paid much attention to GW cosmologies and whatnot. Couldn't care less about that stuff. Actually the 4e lore is pretty close to what I used starting in around 1979, lol. I could care less pretty much what they use for 5e though as it is just all fluff.


----------



## Tony Vargas

mcintma said:


> Well, you may take comfort in the fact that your line of reasoning will soon apply to 4e. Since 5e will be 'newer = better', 4e must by definition be archaic design and join the quaint and antique 'nostalgia' versions 1-3e



It would be lovely if 5e were to continue the trend and be an improvement over 4e.  

Every other full edition has managed it.  From D&D to AD&D to 2e to 3e to 4e the game improved.  OK, there were stutters within an edition, 1e UA had issues, as did many 2e supplements, Essentials was a definite step down from the rest of 4e, and 3.5 was only about on par with 3.0 (better in some ways, worse in others).  But new editions, if only by dropping rules bloat in their early incarnations, were always getting better.  

So, empirically, there's every reason to hope for that.  Past performance is no guarantee, though, and, the strong emphasis on retro-nostalgic 'feel' over balance and playability we keep hearing from WotC is not encouraging in that regard.


----------



## slobster

Tony Vargas said:


> It would be lovely if 5e were to continue the trend and be an improvement over 4e.
> 
> Every other full edition has managed it.
> 
> So, empirically, there's every reason to hope for that.




I have no problem with your post so long as you present it as your opinion. Once you say that "empirically" those opinions are true, though, it smacks a little of flame-baiting.

I honestly think that the designers have pretty wide latitude in rethinking some basics of the D&D game system so long as the game's traditions and culture are treated with reverence. I could be wrong of course, but we'll see how it turns out.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I really think that 3e marks the big watershed. It is a whole different KIND of game. The whole concept of what engages the players with the game is different. No longer is it about telling stories and playing a role, it is also in a huge way about fiddling with the rules and optimizing characters. That also required a shift in attitude about the rules from being a tool that told you how you could do stuff to a set of restrictions that you had to follow and master so you could play better.




3e operated from the premise that the player should be the one to decide how his character would mechanically progress.  3e may have offered too much of a good thing here, but it does not automatically make for less or more roleplaying.  It could cut either way.


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> And thanks to the flavor of D&D in the core rules, most of those share A LOT in common. And I'm grateful they do. I don't want to have to relearn everything whenever a new campaign starts up in another person's homebrew or published setting game.




Really?  Greyhawk and DL share a lot in common?  Completely different feel, very different sub-genre, races are different, history is totally different, etc. etc.  Even presumed play - massive dungeon crawls vs plotsy, story based games, are at 90 degrees to each other.  

Considering how much of the flavour of D&D that gets stripped out and replaced by Dragonlance (D&D has ALWAYS used Greyhawk as the baseline), I'd say that it's pretty difficult to say that these are sharing a whole lot.

As someone who is currently playing a Darksun (4e) game, I can say that it is a lot of work relearning a whole bunch of the game to play a different system.  But this Darksun game is very, very different from our previous campaign, and very, very different from the Eberron (3e) game we played.  And it shares virtually nothing with our Savage Tide or World's Largest Dungeon campaigns.  At least not by flavour.

Mechanically?  Oh yeah, all d20 based games.  Heck, today our 4e monk was just like a 3e monk, fifteen attacks, missing every time.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Really?




Yes, really.



Hussar said:


> Greyhawk and DL share a lot in common?




Yes they do. Do I really need to repeat this?



Hussar said:


> Completely different feel, very different sub-genre, races are different, history is totally different, etc. etc.  Even presumed play - massive dungeon crawls vs plotsy, story based games, are at 90 degrees to each other.




"Presumed" play? What's this "presumed" play? There are lots of GH modules but, oddly enough, you can generate a whole lot of story with them and have a plot driving lots of them together. Remember the supermodule versions?



Hussar said:


> As someone who is currently playing a Darksun (4e) game, I can say that it is a lot of work relearning a whole bunch of the game to play a different system.  But this Darksun game is very, very different from our previous campaign, and very, very different from the Eberron (3e) game we played.  And it shares virtually nothing with our Savage Tide or World's Largest Dungeon campaigns.  At least not by flavour.




Of all of the published campaigns mentioned above, Dark Sun really is the  red-headed step child that does the most to replace the default lore of D&D. The rest all share a lot of flavor, which should be expected since they aren't entirely rewriting everything involved with the flavor of monsters, races, classes, spells, magic items, and so on. They certainly aren't rewriting as much as Dark Sun is rewriting.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Libramarian said:


> Well then clearly the solution is to go back to the math of 1e/2e.



The thing is, it doesn't solve the problem either.  When I first started playing it might have.  I got so wrapped up in role playing and the idea that "of COURSE Wizards were more powerful...they got to use MAGIC, how could that NOT be more powerful?" that I didn't stop to think about whether it was FAIR that they were more powerful.

But after dealing with constant arguments about one player dominating a session and people feeling completely useless when they show up to play the game for a couple of years and then reading articles in Dragon magazine and here on ENWorld about how 3e was going to fix that by making things BALANCED....well, it changed my way of thinking forever.

There's no going back to ignorance now.  If the game had the math of 1e/2e I would simply find the most broken options in the game and exploit them.  It would feel wrong to purposefully create a poor character.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Hussar said:


> I want my wizard to look like this:
> 
> legend of the seeker - zeddicus zu'l zorander - YouTube



I was going to use Zedd as an example as well.  I like him as the archetypical D&D Wizard.

He can cast a number of very powerful spells but they require concentration and magic words, they can be interrupted simply by distracting him and he can't finish them.  The more powerful of them require special components and take longer to cast.

However, at the same time he appears to have 2 nearly at-will spells that he uses throughout the series:  Wizard Fire[the ability to shoot a column of fire](which all Wizards appear to have as an at-will ability in this universe) and the ability to knock people backwards.  He often uses both repeatedly in the same battle.

I've always felt like this model seemed appropriate for D&D.  I think Zedd would have felt very out of place if he'd started using a crossbow or darts when they were in danger.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Hussar said:


> Really?  Greyhawk and DL share a lot in common?  Completely different feel, very different sub-genre, races are different, history is totally different, etc. etc.  Even presumed play - massive dungeon crawls vs plotsy, story based games, are at 90 degrees to each other.



They are very similar, I agree with him.  What it comes down to is they are both fairly similar in terms of technology and culture.

Orcs are Orcs in both universes.  Most creatures have similar backgrounds and histories.  DL tended to take standard GH monsters and give them a slight spin to fit into the history of DL...but for the most part the worlds themselves were the same.

Sure, most of the actual adventuring in each of the worlds were quite different.  DL concentrated on large stories that affected the entire world and the fate of every race on it.  While GH often involved simple stories of looting an ancient tomb.

However, the worlds themselves are very similar.  A number of stories you could come up with would feel completely at home in both worlds with almost no changes:  "Orcs are attacking a nearby city and you need to stop them", "There is an ancient tomb of a powerful warrior who was said to possess a powerful sword", "A merchant hires you to protect his caravan" are all very plausible stories.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Ridley's Cohort said:


> 3e operated from the premise that the player should be the one to decide how his character would mechanically progress.  3e may have offered too much of a good thing here, but it does not automatically make for less or more roleplaying.  It could cut either way.




Oh, I agree. There's no reason to think that RP is 'less good' or anything in 3e over 2e. It is just that with AD&D (at least before some of the later 2e supplements) was ENTIRELY about what you did at the table. The choices you could make in chargen were trivial, few in number, and had little real impact on your character's effectiveness. Granted, that put a lot of control in the hands of the DM since basically customization options for a fighter amounted to nothing but items. Wizards had choices of what spells to put in their books, so they were a bit ahead of the pack, but mostly you took what you could get anyway. 

I think my main point is that the cat is out of the bag on that. 5e isn't going to put that cat back. It WILL have a lot of options, and thus in some fundamental way it is going to be more like 3e/4e than like 1e or most of 2e. Maybe you will be able to play it in a 'retro' mode where you only get a few simple options, but my guess is even then it will be a lot more about character building than something like B/X. 

The details of what the choices players have and how the mechanics work exactly is a lot less significant IMHO than the fact that all those choices exist for the players.


----------



## FireLance

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Orcs are Orcs in both universes.  Most creatures have similar backgrounds and histories.



Sadly, you picked a bad example.  Apparently, there are no orcs on Krynn. From Wikipedia:



> There is some controversy regarding orcs in the Dragonlance. The 1st edition AD&D Dragonlance Adventures hardbound rulebook states that orcs do not exist on Krynn, with ogres and minotaurs largely replacing their typical role. Second and 3rd edition Dragonlance supplements also remove orcs from the world of Krynn. The main confusion on the subject has occurred from a few Dragonlance novels and/or adventures in which the writer has accidentally included orcs. In particular, the novel Kendermore by Mary Kirchoff, where one of the main characters is a half-orc. This has occurred with other iconic races of Dungeons & Dragons, such as drow, that are not native to the Dragonlance setting. Some suggest that the presence of orcs in Dragonlance can be explained through planar or space travel as Krynn is connected to other Dungeons & Dragons worlds (where orcs exist) through the Planescape and Spelljammer settings.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

FireLance said:


> Sadly, you picked a bad example.  Apparently, there are no orcs on Krynn. From Wikipedia:



Oops...I had forgotten.  But that's not true of many, many other creatures.


----------



## DMKastmaria

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I was going to use Zedd as an example as well.  I like him as the archetypical D&D Wizard.
> 
> He can cast a number of very powerful spells but they require concentration and magic words, they can be interrupted simply by distracting him and he can't finish them.  The more powerful of them require special components and take longer to cast.
> 
> However, at the same time he appears to have 2 nearly at-will spells that he uses throughout the series:  Wizard Fire[the ability to shoot a column of fire](which all Wizards appear to have as an at-will ability in this universe) and the ability to knock people backwards.  He often uses both repeatedly in the same battle.
> 
> I've always felt like this model seemed appropriate for D&D.  I think Zedd would have felt very out of place if he'd started using a crossbow or darts when they were in danger.




If those nearly at will spells were the result of 5 or 6 1st level spell slots, then the description fits a 1e MU fairly well.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

DMKastmaria said:


> If those nearly at will spells were the result of 5 or 6 1st level spell slots, then the description fits a 1e MU fairly well.



Well, somewhat.  If you've watched the series, it's fairly evident that he can cast Mage Fire over and over again.  It's easy and it's something all mages learn during their basic training.

Then again, it's evident in that series that Zedd can cast as many spells as he wants each day.  He isn't limited by number of usages.  But any time a spell has a large effect he often has to rest a little while before doing it again.

And the kind of thing that you'd see higher level spells do in 1e-3e, he has required special components and multiple minutes to cast.  None of them are the kind of things you'd see him cast in the middle of combat with enemies trying to attack him or his allies.  They act much more like 4e rituals.


----------



## DMKastmaria

Majoru Oakheart said:


> And the kind of thing that you'd see higher level spells do in 1e-3e, he has required special components and multiple minutes to cast.  None of them are the kind of things you'd see him cast in the middle of combat with enemies trying to attack him or his allies.  They act much more like 4e rituals.




From the AD&D DMG by GG page 65

_"Thus, casting a spell requires that a figure be relatively motionless and concentrating on the effort during the entire course of uninterrupted casting."

"Spells cannot be cast while violently moving - such as running, dodging a blow, or even walking normally."

"It can thus be understood that spell casting during a melee can be a tricky business, for a mere shove at any time can spoil the dweomer!"_

From a strict reading of the text, an AD&D MU isn't able to cast a spell at all, when someone's waving a sword in their face! 

As I run it, an MU can't cast a spell with a casting time longer than 1 segment, if he's directly threatened in melee. 

Many higher level AD&D spells require rare components, though perhaps not enough of them. The vast majority of combat spells can be cast within the 1 minute round, though higher level spells often take several segments, up to 9.

Of course, then there's Power Word Kill!


----------



## Hussar

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Oops...I had forgotten.  But that's not true of many, many other creatures.




Kinda sorta.  Obviously draconians play a fairly large role in DL which is absent in GH.  But, ogres are entirely different - the Irda are a peaceful agrarian bunch of ogres.  Minotaurs are sailors in Krynn.  Most of the stock Greyhawk baddies - giants for example, are largely absent in Krynn.  

Heck, for much of the early history of the playable era of Krynn, there's no clerics at all.  Wizards are all tied very tightly to specific mechanics (moon changes for example) which are absent in Greyhawk.  There is no analog of the City of Greyhawk in DL (while there is one in Forgotten Realms, obviously).  

DL caps classes at 18th level.  Although that is edition dependent.  I don't know the 3e DL stuff at all.

And the feel of the settings are completely different.  DL is all about epic fantasy, cast of thousands, grand sweeping changes, etc.  Greyhawk is firmly planted in Sword and Sorcery traditions.

DL's cosmology is entirely different from Greyhawk.  ... I could go on and on but, I've got the feeling that it's not going to make much difference.

Could you play DL with a Greyhawk style?  Sure, I suppose so.  But, it kinda defeats the purpose of DL in the first place.  In Greyhawk, I get shanghaid by local barons to deal with their giants menace.  In Dragonlance, I get tapped by gods to deal with incursions by armies of dragons.

I don't know about you, but I see some very large differences here.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Kinda sorta.  Obviously draconians play a fairly large role in DL which is absent in DL.  But, ogres are entirely different - the Irda are a peaceful agrarian bunch of ogres.  Minotaurs are sailors in Krynn.  Most of the stock Greyhawk baddies - giants for example, are largely absent in Krynn.
> 
> Heck, for much of the early history of the playable era of Krynn, there's no clerics at all.  Wizards are all tied very tightly to specific mechanics (moon changes for example) which are absent in Greyhawk.  There is no analog of the City of Greyhawk in DL (while there is one in Forgotten Realms, obviously).
> 
> DL caps classes at 18th level.  Although that is edition dependent.  I don't know the 3e DL stuff at all.
> 
> And the feel of the settings are completely different.  DL is all about epic fantasy, cast of thousands, grand sweeping changes, etc.  Greyhawk is firmly planted in Sword and Sorcery traditions.
> 
> DL's cosmology is entirely different from Greyhawk.  ... I could go on and on but, I've got the feeling that it's not going to make much difference.
> 
> Could you play DL with a Greyhawk style?  Sure, I suppose so.  But, it kinda defeats the purpose of DL in the first place.  In Greyhawk, I get shanghaid by local barons to deal with their giants menace.  In Dragonlance, I get tapped by gods to deal with incursions by armies of dragons.
> 
> I don't know about you, but I see some very large differences here.




i agree they both are very different if you know them. But I do think GH, DL and GH all resemble one another in that they are somewhat standard D&D type fantasy. So to someone who is just skimming through the various worlds for the first time, they will kind of look the same (while spelljammer, darksun and ravenloft will all kind of stand out as different).


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> i agree they both are very different if you know them. But I do think GH, DL and GH all resemble one another in that they are somewhat standard D&D type fantasy. So to someone who is just skimming through the various worlds for the first time, they will kind of look the same (while spelljammer, darksun and ravenloft will all kind of stand out as different).




Now that I'd largely agree with.  

But, I double dare you to head over to Candlekeep and tell them that Forgotten Realms looks like Greyhawk.    Or, better yet, head over to Canonfire and tell them that you cannot, at first blush, tell the difference between Dragonlance and Greyhawk, they're just too much the same.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

DMKastmaria said:


> From the AD&D DMG by GG page 65
> 
> _"Thus, casting a spell requires that a figure be relatively motionless and concentrating on the effort during the entire course of uninterrupted casting."
> 
> "Spells cannot be cast while violently moving - such as running, dodging a blow, or even walking normally."
> 
> "It can thus be understood that spell casting during a melee can be a tricky business, for a mere shove at any time can spoil the dweomer!"_
> 
> From a strict reading of the text, an AD&D MU isn't able to cast a spell at all, when someone's waving a sword in their face!
> 
> As I run it, an MU can't cast a spell with a casting time longer than 1 segment, if he's directly threatened in melee.
> 
> Many higher level AD&D spells require rare components, though perhaps not enough of them. The vast majority of combat spells can be cast within the 1 minute round, though higher level spells often take several segments, up to 9.
> 
> Of course, then there's Power Word Kill!




Well, virtually all AD&D spells required a number of segments equal to the spell level. There are a few 'ritual like' exceptions, most of those require 5 minutes or more to cast (and a few require long casting times). Once in a while there's also one that goes quicker than the norm. PWK is a good example, but it was also pretty limited in other ways. The enemy had to have less than 60 hit points (in the 2e version) or you could hit up to 120 hp worth of enemies of considerably lower level. As a 9th level wizard spell it didn't let you actually kill major plot enemies you were likely to face at that level, unless they happened to be NPC spell casters. In that case of course they would be well advised to have strong magical defenses.

I think the general consensus on how AD&D casting works is that your spell goes off unless you actually take damage, so you can cast in combat, it is just problematic. You'll lose DEX mods to AC and many casters will be hit without much problem. Of course even some level 1 spells are pretty useful anyway, like MM, which is a 1 segment spell. It wasn't a huge issue anyway, as any old wand would be 1 segment activation and there's no spoiling magic item activation (well, death).

The bigger impact was needing to be still and stable. You can't cast from horseback, on a pitching boat, etc. I think a lot of groups didn't really follow that too closely. Heck, the "Emerikol the Chaotic" illustration in the DMG is technically not a rules legal situation in AD&D (Emerikol casting something, MM maybe, from horseback). 

I could see a setup where casting slotted spells was like that in 5e, hard to do, but cantrips (which I guess would include your basic at-will attacks like MM) would be less restricted.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Now that I'd largely agree with.
> 
> But, I double dare you to head over to Candlekeep and tell them that Forgotten Realms looks like Greyhawk.    Or, better yet, head over to Canonfire and tell them that you cannot, at first blush, tell the difference between Dragonlance and Greyhawk, they're just too much the same.




Fortunately, I don't think anybody's saying that. I'm saying they *share a lot in common* thanks to commonalities in D&D flavor.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Here's the thing about the 'combat restrictions' on spells in AD&D. They aren't really a restriction that should be counted as some sort of disadvantage. Every other class has equally serious (usually much more so) conditions on using their abilities. A thief can't hide or sneak unless the conditions are right, they can only climb walls that exist, etc. Fighters can only use their abilities when an enemy is in weapon reach of them, etc. By that measure wizard's casting restrictions are a mild conditional restriction. 99% of the time you can cast something. Really in the grand scheme of things casters get off light on restrictions in AD&D. In post-AD&D they have almost no restrictions at all. Even 4e is still quite favorable to the casters, they STILL have powers that are useful most of the time, and the fighter is STILL relying on almost 100% combat-use-only stuff. Still score one for the wizard. I think in a sense that's the main advantage of magic. I don't see why the actual spells need to be more powerful than what non-casters can do in at least some situation.


----------



## DMKastmaria

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think the general consensus on how AD&D casting works is that your spell goes off unless you actually take damage, so you can cast in combat, it is just problematic. You'll lose DEX mods to AC and many casters will be hit without much problem. Of course even some level 1 spells are pretty useful anyway, like MM, which is a 1 segment spell. It wasn't a huge issue anyway, as any old wand would be 1 segment activation and there's no spoiling magic item activation (well, death).
> 
> The bigger impact was needing to be still and stable. You can't cast from horseback, on a pitching boat, etc. I think a lot of groups didn't really follow that too closely. Heck, the "Emerikol the Chaotic" illustration in the DMG is technically not a rules legal situation in AD&D (Emerikol casting something, MM maybe, from horseback).




Not to be argumentative, but no matter what the "consensus" was, the rules are a lot clearer than that. 

"...dodging a blow."

Because you just can't be still and concentrate, when some madman is waving a sword in your face.

But, that's really the whole issue. People chaffed at the restrictions upon spellcasters, complained, complained and complained, until, when designing 3e, WotC removed oh, so many of those pesky restrictions.

We all know what happened then. 

Edit: to be fair, that particular restriction was probably loosened in 2e, but I can't say for certain.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

DMKastmaria said:


> Not to be argumentative, but no matter what the "consensus" was, the rules are a lot clearer than that.
> 
> "...dodging a blow."
> 
> Because you just can't be still and concentrate, when some madman is waving a sword in your face.
> 
> But, that's really the whole issue. People chaffed at the restrictions upon spellcasters, complained, complained and complained, until, when designing 3e, WotC removed oh, so many of those pesky restrictions.
> 
> We all know what happened then.




But that is what the whole casting time/speed factor/initiative thing is about. The rules also explicitly state that spells are spoiled IF YOU TAKE DAMAGE. So as far as I know the 'correct' interpretation is that what you quoted is flavor text, and then there are rules that implement that flavor. The rules are if you take damage your spell is spoiled, and speed factor etc will determine if you got the spell off before anyone could attack you or not. They still have to HIT or at least effect your character. It is never really stated clearly in any rule what would happen if say someone pushed you (1e doesn't have rules for that at all, though I think 2e does). Presumably the RAI is that your spell would be disrupted, but again there's just no actual mechanical statement of that fact in AD&D. It is often very hard to tell when Gary was stating a RULE, when he was describing what the rules were intended to do, and when he was just giving some kind of guideline for doing something.

There's not really a clear wrong or right here, but I think the people (like me and most others I suspect) who played with you have to be hit to lose your spell have a pretty solid argument that they're playing as intended (else why would the damage spoils spell and speeds etc even exist).


----------



## DMKastmaria

AbdulAlhazred said:


> It is never really stated clearly in any rule what would happen if say someone pushed you (1e doesn't have rules for that at all, though I think 2e does).
> 
> There's not really a clear wrong or right here, but I think the people (like me and most others I suspect) who played with you have to be hit to lose your spell have a pretty solid argument that they're playing as intended (else why would the damage spoils spell and speeds etc even exist).




You mean a rule like this? From GG's DMG? That I already quoted, above?

"It can thus be understood that spell casting during a melee can be a tricky business, for a mere shove at any time can spoil the dweomer!"


----------



## DMKastmaria

P.S. GG did explicitly hard code the "damage" thing into the casting procedure. I disagree that the preceding four or so paragraphs were just fluff, though.


----------



## Balesir

DMKastmaria said:


> "It can thus be understood that spell casting during a melee can be a tricky business, for a mere shove at any time *can* spoil the dweomer!"



(Added emphasis mine) - what does this mean, as a rule, exactly? That a push _might_ happen and _will_ spoil the spell? Or that, should the caster be shoved, that _might_ spoil the dweomer?

I see issues either way, if this is supposed to be a "rule". For the second, we are given no clue as to how the chance of spell failure might be tested; in the first we have few clues elsewhere in the rules concerning when and why a "shove" might be deemed to happen. Except, maybe, that in the first case the "Push" spell moves from being a useless party trick to being a puissant counterspell...


----------



## Neonchameleon

billd91 said:


> It's a group endeavor. If I'm trying to play in a reasonably immersive LOtR manner I don't necessarily want Bugs Bunny, Buddy Weiser, or Doctor Strange sitting at the same table. We should work toward being on the same wavelength as far as style.
> 
> This is why I think the idea of different players _at the same table_ on different rule modules will face stiff challenges.




But that's a setting rather than rules issue.  I routinely ban classes in 4e, not because I think they are bad classes but because they don't fit the setting.  There's nothing wrong with this.



DMKastmaria said:


> Once upon a time, in the late 90's and near the end of 2e's reign, rpg boards would be rife with ridicule, at the suggestion that anyone, but anyone approach PC creation from a min/max, powergaming, optimization perspective.
> 
> "How dare you not put roleplaying first!"
> 
> Now, I've never had an issue with someone being a little powergamey. And my gaming aesthetics are far and away closer to 1e than 2e.




I remember those days.  And I remember my thoughts on people saying that.  "Methinks the lady doth protest too much."  They didn't like optimisation because they wanted to not think of the elephant.



> And this is why so-called "Old Schoolers" tend not to get all in a tizzy about "balance." Because in the face of player skill, that balance just doesn't mean as much as it does in other versions of the game.




I disagree.  The reason IMO "Old Schoolers" don't get in a tizzy about balance is _Gygax prioritised balance._  And said as much.  What do you think the differing XP charts were about?  Why do you think weapons did more damage against large monsters?  Why do you think UA had such big boosts for the fighter-types? (Weapon specialisation, Cavaliers, Barbarians).  Balance, balance, and balance.  Balance is like oxygen.  You only really worry about it when you get deprived of it.



Elf Witch said:


> I could see the minor stuff. My issue with at will attack is this it should not be an auto hit like magic missile and the damage should be the same as a crossbolt and you have to roll to hit. I could buy that things like this are so fundamental that the wizard just remembers the formula for them all the time.
> 
> If that is not good enough and you want to be able to match what the damage a fighter can put out all the time then don't play a wizard play a warlock you never run out of eldritch blasts.




This is exactly what everyone who wants at will attacks for wizards wants.  It's about being magical not DPR.

For the record, if crossbows hit two thirds of the time there's nothing really wrong with having autohit magic missiles that do half the damage of a crossbow.  It makes it useful and cool - and you'll come nowhere near to stepping on the fighter's toes.  (And in practice this is the way it works with the 4e Mage - they get autohitting magic missiles for free - but don't use them much because even the humble Ray of Frost is better DPR).



Lanefan said:


> The dangerous ground here is that if an at-will is anything more than marginally useful it'll either get broken in a heartbeat or dramatically change how the game gets played.
> 
> At-will _Light_? So much for low-level types having to worry about how long their torches and lanterns will last.




And?  That style of play is ... rare these days.  From the 3.5 SRD's alchemical equipment:

Sunrod2 gp1 lb
*Sunrod*

This 1-foot-long, gold-tipped, iron rod glows brightly when struck. It clearly illuminates a 30-foot radius and provides shadowy illumination in a 60-foot radius. It glows for 6 hours, after which the gold tip is burned out and worthless.

People haven't been worrying about how long torches last since that thing was added to core 3.5



> At-will _Detect Magic_? Having played a character in 3e who had this (via _Permanence_) I can tell you it's extremely powerful at high levels and pretty much broken at low...




Actually IME it's much _more_ useful at high levels than low.



> At-will _Mage Hand_? I'd have a field day finding ways to abuse this; and many many others would find better abuses than I ever could.



From the 3.5 SRD: 
*Hand of the Mage*

This mummified elf hand hangs by a golden chain around a character’s neck (taking up space as a magic necklace would). It allows the wearer to utilize the spell mage hand at will. 
Faint transmutation; CL 2nd; Craft Wondrous Item, mage hand; Price 900 gp; Weight 2 lb. 

It was _extremely_ useful.  But not gamebreaking.



Janaxstrus said:


> Incorrect. No components I've seen provide bonuses to your spells. Implements are another potential set of bonuses to track.




4e believe it or not has components that provide bonusses to spells.  And are expensive.  (And not that well implemented - but people don't like spending money).



> If the at-will cantrips become options, I'm 100% fine with it. I have an issue with it in core. I honestly couldn't care less what they put in a 4e type option book, or a 2e or a hardcore, my only real concern is what they decide is the CORE of the game. That is the stuff that is hardest to deal with and change.




If at-will cantrips are not in core, front and centre, I'm going to have issues.  It's a strike Bob Crow would dream of against the game.  And people who've been playing D&D longer than I've been alive have, at my table (and spontaneously) said that at will spells are something they really like.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

DMKastmaria said:


> You mean a rule like this? From GG's DMG? That I already quoted, above?
> 
> "It can thus be understood that spell casting during a melee can be a tricky business, for a mere shove at any time can spoil the dweomer!"




You're IMHO confusing commentary with a RULE. This is stating that it 'can' (this should be MAY or IS really) be tricky. Thus there is SOMEWHERE a rule which describes mechanically how it is tricky.



			
				1EPHB100 said:
			
		

> Most spells can be cost during the course of a single melee round,
> although some - porticularly high level ones - require more time.
> Casting a spell requires certain actions, and if these are interrupted, the
> spell cannot be cast and it is lost from memory. A good example of this is a
> magic-user about to cost a fireball spell being struck by on arrow when in
> the midst of the spell. Magical silence or physical gagging will prevent
> verbal (V) spell completion. Magical immobility prevents any spell
> casting. Physical restraint, including grappling, grasping, binding, etc.
> prevents proper somatic (S)spell completion, for gestures must be exact
> and movements free and as prescribed. Despite these restrictions, there is
> no doubt that spells in general are potent offensive and defensive
> weapons, providing the caster does not hesitate, i.e. he or she must know
> which spell is being cast when the melee round begins.




Note that this is purely descriptive, but does contain an example of being hit and thus damaged and unable to finish the spell. 



			
				1EPHB104 said:
			
		

> Unless combat is spell versus spell, many such attacks will happen near the
> end of a melee round. This is because the spell requires a relatively
> lengthy time to cast, generally longer os spell level increases, so high
> level spells may take over a full melee round to cast. Furthermore, if the
> spell caster is struck, grabbed, or mogicolly attacked (and fails to make the
> requisite saving throw - explained later), the spell will be spoiled and
> fail. Spell combat includes cleric and magic-user, as well as monster-
> oriented spells. Curative spells are handled likewise.




Reiteration of the same points, with a bit more precision. Notice how in THIS case a save is mentioned and the criteria is spelled out as 'struck, grabbed, or magically attacked'. Of course this may not be ALL possible conditions, so now, we can go on to the DMG

Page 65 of the 1e DMG contains the RULES for spell casting in melee (labeled as such). They specify the concrete things that will actually prevent or spoil spell casting. As far as enemy action goes the only things specified is that the caster cannot be HIT by an attack or fail a save during casting. It is quite clear that it is POSSIBLE to cast spells in melee, otherwise why would the section even be labeled 'casting spells in melee combat'? 

There's no ambiguity at all whatsoever. In 1e (and I could dig up the corresponding rules for 2e but it is redundant) you CAN cast spells while being meleed. You cannot gain your dex bonus and your spell is spoiled if you are hit, that's it. Now, presumably pushing someone requires some sort of hit. 1e doesn't have a rule for that actually, so we're left to our own devices there, at least until 2e, which does have such rules.


----------



## Lanefan

Anecdote re unbalanced high-level wizards:

Last weekend I ran a session where a couple of lowish-level types were raiding the lair of a high-level wizard (and had been amazingly lucky to get that far).  The wizard teleported in, the two remaining PCs were not surprised and got in his face right away, and he never cast another spell.  He was reduced to physical melee for the rest of his (rather short) life simply because he could not cast in combat - all he'd accomplish would be to generate wild magic surges when - not if, but when - he got interrupted by the two people trying to beat his face in. (note that he could not outrun the PCs either)  The PCs had some magic but nothing specific vs. wizards.

And the level disparity between the PCs and their foe was immense!

Nope, 1e balances them just fine, thank you.

Re: needing torches in a dungeon:







Neonchameleon said:


> And?  That style of play is ... rare these days.  From the 3.5 SRD's alchemical equipment:
> 
> Sunrod2 gp1 lb
> *Sunrod*
> 
> This 1-foot-long, gold-tipped, iron rod glows brightly when struck. It clearly illuminates a 30-foot radius and provides shadowy illumination in a 60-foot radius. It glows for 6 hours, after which the gold tip is burned out and worthless.
> 
> People haven't been worrying about how long torches last since that thing was added to core 3.5



OK, so 3.5 messed it up.  5e can still fix it. 



> If at-will cantrips are not in core, front and centre, I'm going to have issues.  It's a strike Bob Crow would dream of against the game.  And people who've been playing D&D longer than I've been alive have, at my table (and spontaneously) said that at will spells are something they really like.



This is one of those odd situations where something being widely liked doesn't necessarily indicate it to be the best option.

At-will cantrips - where cantrip is defined in the 1e UA trivial-effect sense - aren't that big a deal*.  At-will cantrips using the 3e definition of cantrip as a fairly useful effect is overkill - particularly if the intent is to scale back wizard power rather than augment it.

* - well, except _Present_, which I broke so badly back in the day it got promoted to a 2nd-level spell. 

Lanefan


----------



## Sunseeker

Sunrods should really be far less revalent and much more expensive than they are.  They certainly shouldn't come for free in a backpack.

I could live with a "glowstick" that sheds dim light in 10-15 feet as a non-burning, easily available light source, but sunrods really are too much.


----------



## Hussar

Meh, really?  We want to worry about light?  3rd level cleric makes permanent light sources.  So, we're only talking about tracking light for 2 levels.  Is it really an issue?

Lanefan - if the wizard was so much higher level, why didn't he have stoneskin up?  No daily buffs at all?  No wands or potions?  Not really a surprise that he gets ganked then.

High level wizard should be running an AC in the early negatives - Bracers of Defense, Ring of Protection, Cloak of Protection, etc -  how did the PC's actually hit him?

Anecdotes that "Well, there's no problem with balance because my group managed not to have a problem" don't really prove anything.  For every anecdote you bring up, someone can bring up a counter one where wizards totally owned the situation.


----------



## slobster

Hussar said:


> Anecdotes that "Well, there's no problem with balance because my group managed not to have a problem" don't really prove anything.  For every anecdote you bring up, someone can bring up a counter one where wizards totally owned the situation.




No single anecdote should prove anything, but it's still nice to hear them. For all that I have big theoretical ideas about what DDN should do, a little bit of actual playtesting (even of a past edition) can do a lot to illuminate why some things that seem like they should work fine cause problems in play, or the inverse where things that look terrible on paper resolve themselves with no fuss come gameday. If nothing else it provides some illumination on where you might find some simple solutions that you wouldn't have necessarily come up with yourself.

And hey, we all like to talk about the game. Sharing war stories is just fun.

I worry that I spend too much time theoreticallizing and loose sight of the fact that I've had great fun with the game so far, and taking a step back sometimes gives me a much better perspective.

Now I'm going to invalidate all that high-minded claptrap I just said and admit that I still have a problem with the balance of spellcasters, and have a lot of hope that DDN will fix that .


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Hussar said:


> Meh, really?  We want to worry about light?  3rd level cleric makes permanent light sources.  So, we're only talking about tracking light for 2 levels.  Is it really an issue?
> 
> Lanefan - if the wizard was so much higher level, why didn't he have stoneskin up?  No daily buffs at all?  No wands or potions?  Not really a surprise that he gets ganked then.
> 
> High level wizard should be running an AC in the early negatives - Bracers of Defense, Ring of Protection, Cloak of Protection, etc -  how did the PC's actually hit him?
> 
> Anecdotes that "Well, there's no problem with balance because my group managed not to have a problem" don't really prove anything.  For every anecdote you bring up, someone can bring up a counter one where wizards totally owned the situation.




Yeah, I had a 2e group that was like 4th level gank a 12th level wizard that had very little equipment too. OTOH my SECOND encounter that I made in 4e was the party taking on a level 7 Carrion Crawler. Clever tactics, they beat that bad boy good and hard. Went on through the rest of the dungeon too without a rest. It was fun! AD&D has no monopoly on you can set up situations, works in all editions. I've had numerous encounters with 6-7 or more level higher opponents. Many of them don't require killing the guy too, that's the fun. Much harder to do in AD&D as you can't ignore a source of damage at all. And just the way you can get unstuck and move around in 4e is such a boon.


----------



## MacMathan

Lanefan said:


> Anecdote re unbalanced high-level wizards:
> 
> Last weekend I ran a session where a couple of lowish-level types were raiding the lair of a high-level wizard (and had been amazingly lucky to get that far).  The wizard teleported in, the two remaining PCs were not surprised and got in his face right away, and he never cast another spell.  He was reduced to physical melee for the rest of his (rather short) life simply because he could not cast in combat - all he'd accomplish would be to generate wild magic surges when - not if, but when - he got interrupted by the two people trying to beat his face in. (note that he could not outrun the PCs either)  The PCs had some magic but nothing specific vs. wizards.
> 
> And the level disparity between the PCs and their foe was immense!
> 
> Nope, 1e balances them just fine, thank you.
> 
> Lanefan




So you went easy on the PCs and did not play the wizard up to his Int score? 
Anyone can do that with any monster as a DM and give  players an easy win.

 I thought you were a Combat as War guy also? That wizard sure did not act like it. 

To suffice random anecdote is random meanwhile across all editions people are polling almost 3 to 1 as having experienced the issue in this same forum.

Don't mean to be harsh but I am very tired of people stating that if something is so at their own table it must be true for an entire editions experience with out any rational to back it up.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Hussar said:


> Lanefan - if the wizard was so much higher level, why didn't he have stoneskin up?  No daily buffs at all?  No wands or potions?  Not really a surprise that he gets ganked then.
> 
> High level wizard should be running an AC in the early negatives - Bracers of Defense, Ring of Protection, Cloak of Protection, etc -  how did the PC's actually hit him?




I'm not Lanefan, but I'll take a gander.  Maybe he doesn't know stoneskin.  Stoneskin is not a core spell.   Also, He may have blown his chance to learn roll.  Even a 16 int leaves you with a 35% chance to blow a learn spell roll.  Perhaps he wasn't expecting them.  He may have simply been returning home, not expecting company.  Or he might have been alerted by some alarm type spell that'd gone off countless times due to rats, weather, the occasional farm boy, etc and his guard was down.   Blow all your spells just to magic missile a rat?  

As for his ac, I never had a magic user get an ac into the negatives.  Ever.  A fighter/mu, yes, but not a straight up magic user.  Bracers ac 6, rop +2, that's still an ac of 4.  I think by the book, a cloak stacks with a ring (I always ruled they didn't stack, much like wearing two rings of protection.)  Still, a cloak +2 gets him down to ac 2.  A 5th level fighter hits that on a 14, and one of the two would have been on the flank for a +1 bonus, or from the rear for a +2.  Hard to hit, but not impossible.  Especially with a strength bonus or a magical weapon or two.  Or if (shudder) UA weapon specialization is used.


----------



## Hussar

slobster said:


> No single anecdote should prove anything, but it's still nice to hear them. For all that I have big theoretical ideas about what DDN should do, a little bit of actual playtesting (even of a past edition) can do a lot to illuminate why some things that seem like they should work fine cause problems in play, or the inverse where things that look terrible on paper resolve themselves with no fuss come gameday. If nothing else it provides some illumination on where you might find some simple solutions that you wouldn't have necessarily come up with yourself.
> 
> And hey, we all like to talk about the game. Sharing war stories is just fun.
> 
> I worry that I spend too much time theoreticallizing and loose sight of the fact that I've had great fun with the game so far, and taking a step back sometimes gives me a much better perspective.
> 
> Now I'm going to invalidate all that high-minded claptrap I just said and admit that I still have a problem with the balance of spellcasters, and have a lot of hope that DDN will fix that .




Oh, hey, I totally agree that sharing war stories is fun.  However, they should be weighed in accordance to how much value they actually bring to the discussion.  Like I said, for every "We ganked the wizard" story, there's one where the wizard got the party.  



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> I'm not Lanefan, but I'll take a gander. Maybe he doesn't know stoneskin. He may have blown his chance to learn roll. Even a 16 int leaves you with a 35% chance to blow a learn spell roll. Perhaps he wasn't expecting them. He may have simply been returning home, not expecting company. Or he might have been alerted by some alarm type spell that'd gone off countless times due to rats, weather, the occasional farm boy and his guard was down. Blow all your spells just to magic missile a rat?
> 
> As for his ac, I never had a magic user get an ac into the negatives. Ever. A fighter/mu, yes, but not a straight up magic user. Bracers ac 6, rop +2, that's still an ac of 4. I think by the book, a cloak stacks with a ring (I always ruled they didn't stack, much like wearing two rings of protection.) Still, a cloak +2 gets him down to ac 2. A 5th level fighter hits that on a 14, and one of the two would have been on the flank for a +1 bonus, or from the rear for a +2. Hard to hit, but not impossible. Especially with a strength bonus or a magical weapon or two. Or if (shudder) UA weapon specialization is used.




High level wizard.  No day long buffs at all.  Bracers AC 6?  I thought he was a high level wizard - why not 2?  No Dex bonus at all?  At these levels, it's not all that hard to hit negatives.  

He's a high level wizard, in his home, and random farm boys can wander into his house?  What kind of campaign do you run?  Good grief.  No wonder your baddies get ganked.  They apparently have the self preservation instinct usually reserved for lemmings.

No Guards and Wards on his home?  No homonculus?  Not a wand on his person - something that can't be interrupted.  Loses initiative every single round.  Etc.  Etc.

Wow, I want to play in your D&D games JRRNeiklot.  I've never played AD&D on easy mode before.

/edit to add.

I'd point out JRRNeiklot, your argument doesn't really even prove what you think it does.  Ok, THIS wizard failed his learn check for Stoneskin.  However, using your math, 2/3rds of wizards DON'T fail.  So, if we were to use this set up as a test subject, running it over and over again, the wizard will win 2:1 over the low level characters.  Even granting the fighters huge advantages - always gaining initiative for example, the wizard should win twice as often as he loses.

How is this an argument that wizards aren't very powerful?


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Hussar said:


> Oh, hey, I totally agree that sharing war stories is fun.  However, they should be weighed in accordance to how much value they actually bring to the discussion.  Like I said, for every "We ganked the wizard" story, there's one where the wizard got the party.
> 
> 
> 
> High level wizard.  No day long buffs at all.  Bracers AC 6?  I thought he was a high level wizard - why not 2?  No Dex bonus at all?  At these levels, it's not all that hard to hit negatives.
> 
> He's a high level wizard, in his home, and random farm boys can wander into his house?  What kind of campaign do you run?  Good grief.  No wonder your baddies get ganked.  They apparently have the self preservation instinct usually reserved for lemmings.
> 
> No Guards and Wards on his home?  No homonculus?  Not a wand on his person - something that can't be interrupted.  Loses initiative every single round.  Etc.  Etc.
> 
> Wow, I want to play in your D&D games JRRNeiklot.  I've never played AD&D on easy mode before.




Lol.

A barred stone door is usually enough to keep most people out.  For instance, my door is locked when I leave home, but that's easily enough circumvented with a good swift kick.  So why don't I reinforce my door, buy a fancy alarm system and hire a rentacop?  After all, I have things here I'd rather not see stolen.  

Your average wizard with a tower is not going to be much different.  I don't think Lanefan's wizard was some overlord, just a local wizard who built himself a tower.  A tower is generally secure enough on it's own.

And yes, a magic user generally loses initiative every single round.  He adds casting time.  Fighter's don't.  Even a lowly magic missile gives him an effective minus one to his roll.  Flame arrow is minus 3, confusion minus 4.

You are assuming this was a wizard prepared for a fight and that he generally had access to battle spells.  You are also assuming that he had access to every fricking magic item in the dmg.  As random treasure, miscellaneous stuff like bracers rarely show up.   So, a 25% chance of getting a miscellaneous item, a 3% chance it's the table with bracers, and then a 15% chance of getting bracers ac2.  Yep, that's why every mu has bracers ac2. 

Where all all these wizards getting 18 dex's?  Hell, if he has an 18 dex, he chose the wrong vocation.  

It's funny you are calling my game a cakewalk, when a few weeks ago you were calling me out for being an anomaly with my Basic game with dozens of deaths.  My game is far from a cakewalk, it's just not some superpowered game where everyone has 6 18s and their pick of both spells and magic items.  In other words, 1e as it was intended.




> I'd point out JRRNeiklot, your argument doesn't really even prove what you think it does. Ok, THIS wizard failed his learn check for Stoneskin. However, using your math, 2/3rds of wizards DON'T fail.




No, 2 3rds of mus with at least a 15 int won't fail.
Also, stoneskin blocks ONE attack.



> Even granting the fighters huge advantages - always gaining initiative for example, the wizard should win twice as often as he loses.




Yes, but he will lose sometimes.



> How is this an argument that wizards aren't very powerful?





It's not.  Wizards are VERY powerful.  Just not the instant win button a lot of people seem to think they are.

Now, if this was Vecna or Elminster we're talking about, then the fight would be different, but the jive I got was this was just your general wizard in a generic tower somewhere.  Not one min maxed to provide a challenge for 16th level characters.  Perhaps Lanefan will grace us with more details.


----------



## Tony Vargas

JRRNeiklot said:


> tting 18 dex's?  Hell, if he has an 18 dex, he chose the wrong vocation.



AD&D?  Brownie familiar or magic boots or magic gloves or a combination of a few other things.  3.5?  14 DEX plus Cat's Grace.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Like I said, for every "We ganked the wizard" story, there's one where the wizard got the party.




If that is strictly the case... then we have a balanced game.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Anecdotes that "Well, there's no problem with balance because my group managed not to have a problem" don't really prove anything.  For every anecdote you bring up, someone can bring up a counter one where wizards totally owned the situation.




Taken alone? It proves nothing much except that the result is possible. Taken collectively and you've got play testing that will help you gauge whether the result is probable and how probable. An even split among results and you've got reasonable balance.


----------



## Bluenose

billd91 said:


> If that is strictly the case... then we have a balanced game.




Assuming you think one person being able to defeat a group represents some sort of balance. And that you think a Fighter/Cleric/Thief/Other Class of the same level would be as likely to get the same result.


----------



## nogray

JRRNeiklot said:


> And yes, a magic user generally loses initiative every single round.  He adds casting time.  Fighter's don't.  Even a lowly magic missile gives him an effective minus one to his roll.  Flame arrow is minus 3, confusion minus 4.




You've made this sort of statement before, and I am genuinely curious as to where it is coming from. I read and reread the sections on initiative and combat in my 1e DMG and PHB, and I just can't find it (or anything like it).

Specifically, a while back in the thread, Hussar posted a link:



Hussar said:


> It's better because it doesn't require fifteen pages of explanation and clarification.  CF:  http://www.multifoliate.com/dnd/ADDICT.pdf




Now his statement of 15 pages of explanation is an exaggeration. (The linked document has a ten page explanation, followed by a lengthy example of a combat with surprise round. Still, your following statement was a largely inaccurate characterization of the linked document:



JRRNeiklot said:


> You don't remember it because they aren't.  Initiative in 1E is rather simple.  Roll D6.  The winning side goes first.  Casters in melee subtract casting time from the roll.  That's pretty much it.  Most of the above document concerns surprise which is a whole 'nother animal.




The linked document has two pages on surprise, then a page and about a half on determining encounter distance, then regular initiative concerns are discussed from pages four to ten; this includes spellcasting in melee. After that, there is a six-page example combat (the first three pages of which deal with the surprise segments) and some charts. Everything in the document seems to link to (giving page references) and agree with rules from the Players Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide.

The quoted section from the AD&D books is as follows:



			
				Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (1e) said:
			
		

> *PHB* pg. 104, under *INITIATIVE*:
> The initiative check is typically made with 2 six-sided dice ... [most of the time] the group with the higher die score will always act first.
> 
> *DMG* pgs. 66-67, under *Other Weapon Factor Determinants*:
> Compare the speed factor of the weapon with the number of segments which the spell will require to cast to determine if the spell or the weapon will be cast/strike first, subtracting the losing die roll on the initiative die roll from the weapon factor and treating negative results as positive. ... If combat is simultaneous, there is no modification of the weapon speed factor.




What that means to me (and this is backed up by the example that I omitted from the DMG text, above) is that one of a few things happens:


The melee side rolls higher on their d6: The attackers go first, and the spell is spoiled (assuming hits that do damage).
Both sides roll the same number on the d6s: The speed factor of the weapon(s) is compared to the casting time of the spell; that which is faster wins. (In the DMG example, it is a long or broad sword, with a SF of 5, vs. a fireball, with a casting time of 3. In this case, a tie on the init roll means that the spell goes off first.)
The caster rolls higher on his d6: You do some subtraction, here. The upshot is that the spell goes off if *abs*(SF - init roll) >= cast time. (Greater than meaning that the spell goes off first, equal to meaning that the spell and melee are resolved simultaneously; abs refers to "absolute value.")

While researching this, I did make some interesting rediscoveries (to me, anyway). Spoiler-blocks below for some amusing corner cases.

[sblock="attack routines"]Things with differing numbers of attacks in their routines don't check for initiative in the normal sense. They instead take turns. If Speedy Sally (with three attacks per round), Average Anna (with two per round), and Ponderous Pam (with just one) are in a three-way battle, you only check for initiative between Sally and Pam; their results are checked to see which goes first in the middle part of the round. Combat will always go as follows:

Sally
Anna
Sally | Pam <-- this is where initiative matters; both act, but which third and which fourth?
Anna
Sally

This most easily happens if, for example, Sally is throwing darts (Rate of Fire 3), Anna is throwing daggers (RoF 2), and Pam is throwing hand axes (RoF 1).[/sblock]

[sblock="speed factors and occasional multiple attacks -or- why awl pikes are dangerous"]On the first round, as opponents close with one another, only weapon length matters in who attacks first. Once in the general melee, regular (one die for each side) initiative commences. It's here that some interesting things can happen.

If one side or the other wins the initiative roll, combat is pretty normal, and speed factor doesn't matter one bit. One time in six, though, there will be a tie on the dice-off for init, and when that happens, the faster weapon goes first (makes sense). If the weapon speeds are more than five apart, though, the user of the faster weapon not only attacks before the slower one, he gets to attack _twice_ before the slower one. (Note that a dagger and an open hand attack both get this benefit more often. Daggers --SF of 2-- get the bonus attacks against anything with an SF of 6 or higher, and open-hand attacks --SF of 1-- get it against anything with an SF of 3 or higher, including short swords.)

Here's a common sort of example, a duel between swordsmen:
Tom uses a two-handed sword and Len uses a long sword (and shield). Assuming equal stats and gear and whatnot, Len has the higher AC, of course, and this is traded off, supposedly, in damage loss. Indeed, that is the case unless they are attacking each other. Tom does, on average, one point more per hit than Len. Five rounds out of six, that damage advantage accumulates for Tom. Every sixth round (on average), though, Len and Tom tie, and because the long sword has a SF of 5 vs. two-handed sword's SF of 10, that means on those tying rounds, Len gets two attacks against Tom. That is an average (assuming no strength or other bonus) of 4.5 damage, which just about completely makes up for the damage advantage Tom was boasting about. (Counting the fact that Tom will miss Len more often than the reverse, it actually _more than_ makes up for it.

That rule also has a mention that if the SF differs by 10 or more, the faster weapon attacks twice before and once simultaneously with the slower. Awl pikes are the only weapon with a SF more than 10, though, so they are the only weapon where this matters. Any weapon with an SF of 3 or less attacks three times on those tying rounds when used against an awl pike. While that first round is great for the awl-pike-user (what with it being the longest weapon in the game), it is the only weapon that opens you up to having to face three attacks, should you be fighting someone with a short sword (or faster weapon). Yikes. The moral? Switch weapons after that first round.[/sblock]


----------



## Neonchameleon

Lanefan said:


> Nope, 1e balances them just fine, thank you.




You mean that ambush works?  Your example is pretty much the equivalent of catching the fighter unarmed and unarmoured.



> Re: needing torches in a dungeon:OK, so 3.5 messed it up. 5e can still fix it.




Fair enough.



> At-will cantrips - where cantrip is defined in the 1e UA trivial-effect sense - aren't that big a deal*. At-will cantrips using the 3e definition of cantrip as a fairly useful effect is overkill - particularly if the intent is to scale back wizard power rather than augment it.
> 
> * - well, except _Present_, which I broke so badly back in the day it got promoted to a 2nd-level spell.




Hah!

But IMO all wizards should have three at wills.

The first At Will should be Prestadigitatation.  Or what you'd call a cantrip.

The second At Will should be a basic self defence spell - and solid alternative to the crossbow.  I'd be happy with a 1d4 autohitting magic missile assuming the crossbow did d8 damage and was expected to hit two times in three.  And probably variants a la Pathfinder for specialist wizards (Illusionists get a flash spell to blind, enchanters something to daze, etc. instead of any damage).

The third should be something either school or wizard specific.  For instance Illusionists would get "Basic Image" - a 2 dimensional illusion that's not going to fool _anyone_ (it looks like a hand-drawn cartoon).  Conjurers would get "Least Servant" - something to combine the weakest elements of Unseen Servant and Mage Hand (other perhaps than duration).  Necromancers would get Animate Rat - and no they can't animate more than one rat (or similar sized animal-intelligence non-flying creature) at a time with this.  Diviners would be a very basic clairvoyance effect - either able to see and or hear out of any part of their body if they concentrated  (stick your fingers round the corner and see out of them) or able to e.g. read a sealed letter in their hands.

The first because all wizards should be able to cast petty magic.  The second because all adventuring wizards should have some self defence.  The third for raw flavour.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Tony Vargas said:


> Every other full edition has managed it. From D&D to AD&D to 2e to 3e to 4e the game improved. OK, there were stutters within an edition, 1e UA had issues, as did many 2e supplements, Essentials was a definite step down from the rest of 4e, and 3.5 was only about on par with 3.0 (better in some ways, worse in others). But new editions, if only by dropping rules bloat in their early incarnations, were always getting better.




On a tangent, I have the following ranking: 4e Essentials < 4e Classic < 4e Classic+Essentials.  I have players at my table who are _much_ happier with the Essentials martial classes and the Elementalist Sorceror than they are with the pre-Essentials version.  And the mage is so much tastier than the arcanist that if it got ritual caster for free I'd never want to play an arcanist.  Also MV and MV: Nentir Vale are simply better than the previous monster manuals.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Neonchameleon said:


> On a tangent, I have the following ranking: 4e Essentials < 4e Classic < 4e Classic+Essentials.  I have players at my table who are _much_ happier with the Essentials martial classes and the Elementalist Sorceror than they are with the pre-Essentials version.  And the mage is so much tastier than the arcanist that if it got ritual caster for free I'd never want to play an arcanist.  Also MV and MV: Nentir Vale are simply better than the previous monster manuals.




I agree that things have generally gone uphill in a big way over the course of 4e. Even if you go back and start with PHB1 and MP1 and compare that stuff to PHB2 and then the other Power books. It gets more noticeable with the stuff they've released post-Essentials and even more so since HoS (which was a bit shaky in some areas). 

I'm not sure I would want to state anything about given specific game elements though. For instance I have a player who's playing an Arcanist right now. Mage is good, but not always the better choice. Actually my own latest wizard build is also an Arcanist. The Mage is nice, but it can be narrow. Tome of Readiness plus some focus on rituals, etc is unbeatable for utility caster for instance. You could definitely build one starting with Mage, but it takes a couple extra feats to get there, though the end result has some minor advantages too. 

Certainly is pretty clear that WotC has been lavishing a lot of love on wizards in general anyway. PHB1 wizard at low levels was pretty anemic at times.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

nogray said:


> Originally Posted by Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (1e)
> PHB pg. 104, under INITIATIVE:
> The initiative check is typically made with 2 six-sided dice ... [most of the time] the group with the higher die score will always act first.
> 
> DMG pgs. 66-67, under Other Weapon Factor Determinants:
> Compare the speed factor of the weapon with the number of segments which the spell will require to cast to determine if the spell or the weapon will be cast/strike first, subtracting the losing die roll on the initiative die roll from the weapon factor and treating negative results as positive. ... If combat is simultaneous, there is no modification of the weapon speed factor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  That's something I hadn't noticed before, or had forgotten during my sojourn with 3e.  That does make a difference, and makes daggers an intriguing choice for fighting casters; however, range weapons have no speed factor, so unless the wizard WANTS to be in melee with his d4 hd, his spells can still be interrupted quite easily.  Even then, I'd take my chances firing into melee to stop a wizard's spell from going off.  Every time I read the 1e dmg I learn something new.  I stand by my comments, though.  A wizard can be a powerful foe, but spell interruption, along with his low ac and hit points balances this quite nicely.  Especially when considering high level spells which take 7,8, or 9 segments to cast.  And it's really no skin off any fighter's ass to just punch him in the mouth instead of swinging his two handed sword.   And yes, a prepared wizard with resources will pop in stoneskinned, mirror imaged, blurred, invisible, etc.  But he can't always be prepared, nor will he always have access to those spells. For example, my magic user in the 1e game I play in (he's only level 6) has mirror image, but none of the other above spells, nor will he ever learn them unless his intelligence goes up, which is highly unlikely, at least for a long, long, time.   He's a multiclass cleric, so it's not as big a deal as it would be for a single class mu.
Click to expand...


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

I think it is safe to say that under the right circumstances you can defeat things that are much higher levels than you are. That was the original bone of contention IIRC. IME this is true in any edition. If the DM creates a situation of significant enough advantage, you can beat far more powerful opponents. I don't think this demonstrates anything useful about any edition of the game or any type of character though. It is really trivially true in general for any game. It sure as heck doesn't prove that magic users in AD&D were weak. 

In fact it kind of demonstrates the reverse, that they were lethally powerful to a degree that the ONLY way you'd get a shot at one is if the character is utterly unprepared in even the most basic ways. My thought experiment would be to compare this wizard with say a level 12 rogue. What level of competence does each require to be secure against low level intruders? 

The wizard has all sorts of ways. Given the ease of knowing and casting low level spells Wizard Lock springs instantly to mind. The rogue can buy locks and employ them too of course. Stoneskin was another obvious suggestion. It might not be available, but then again researching a 4th level spell of that degree of utility (no chance of failure there) puts it on at least the verge of 'as basic as breathing'. The rogue has no answer to this within player-controlled resources. An Alarm spell would be another basic precaution, as would some Explosive Runes, etc. Anyone can make or purchase traps of course, but that is also possible for the wizard. I'm thinking wizards come out pretty well here overall. We could debate things like the value of the rogue's network of henchmen and whatnot. That would count in their favor. Still, we can't really judge how effective they are. I'd bet every time on the wizard though.


----------



## Hussar

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Also, stoneskin blocks ONE attack.




Funny.  I seem to recall that it blocked a d4 attacks +1 attack every 3 (or 4) levels.  Is that my fuzzy memory or is JRR making up rules again?

See, this little sidebar is why it's so incredibly difficult to have this conversation.  If someone who has played a game for decades is still discovering the rules, that is a VERY poorly written game.  But, besides that, it means that any discussion needs to spend about an hour actually determining what the rules ARE before any criticisms can be brought forward.


----------



## hafrogman

Hussar said:


> Funny.  I seem to recall that it blocked a d4 attacks +1 attack every 3 (or 4) levels.  Is that my fuzzy memory or is JRR making up rules again?



It blocks that number of attacks for 2e.  In 1e it blocks one attack  or one "attack sequence" provided the attack isn't a punch or similar attack in which case it reduces the damage dealt and can still block a future attack.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> High level wizard.  No day long buffs at all.  Bracers AC 6?  I thought he was a high level wizard - why not 2?  No Dex bonus at all?  At these levels, it's not all that hard to hit negatives.



His AC was -4.

This was an odd situation where his lair - where he kept one very important thing* well away from his normal haunts so people wouldn't think to look for it there - was not his usual home; he had to come from a few hundred miles away (using shadow walk as he did not have teleport) once the alarms got set off.  He's a Necromancer, thus does not get access to Stoneskin - and even if he did, in my game SS only stops the first blow and that blow would still interrupt casting a spell.

* - this thing was a rough equivalent to a horcrux that held about 80% of his soul and vitality.



> No Guards and Wards on his home?  No homonculus?  Not a wand on his person - something that can't be interrupted.  Loses initiative every single round.  Etc.  Etc.



Guards and Wards doesn't last very long, in the grand scheme of things.  I didn't even think of a homonculus, though in this specific situation it probably would have just ended up as fodder for the undead guardians.  He did not bring a wand or other offensive device, an outright mistake on his part due in part to panic and in part because he didn't want to risk blowing up what he was trying to protect.  And it didn't matter whether he won init. or lost it; and we re-roll every round, when under melee attack all a wizard can do is a) flee, b) fight back hand-to-hand, c) use a device (but he had none on him), or d) try to cast and either fail or go wild every time.

He did have a Contingency spell in place that got set off and put everyone involved including him on another plane, but it didn't help in the end.

The one wise thing the party did when he showed up was they didn't go the movie route and let him monologue, they made their surprise check and got into his grill as soon as he arrived.

Lanefan


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Hussar said:


> Funny.  I seem to recall that it blocked a d4 attacks +1 attack every 3 (or 4) levels.  Is that my fuzzy memory or is JRR making up rules again?
> 
> See, this little sidebar is why it's so incredibly difficult to have this conversation.  If someone who has played a game for decades is still discovering the rules, that is a VERY poorly written game.  But, besides that, it means that any discussion needs to spend about an hour actually determining what the rules ARE before any criticisms can be brought forward.




I'd say 1e is a very poorly organized game, or rather that the dmg is a poorly organized book.  And I did not make up a rule, I merely wasn't aware of (or more likely forgot the existence of) a rule.

And d4+1 attacks for stoneskin is making up a rule, at least as far as 1e is concerned.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  If I couldn't make up rules, I wouldn't want to dm.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

JRRNeiklot said:


> I'd say 1e is a very poorly organized game, or rather that the dmg is a poorly organized book.  And I did not make up a rule, I merely wasn't aware of (or more likely forgot the existence of) a rule.
> 
> And d4+1 attacks for stoneskin is making up a rule, at least as far as 1e is concerned.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  If I couldn't make up rules, I wouldn't want to dm.




AD&D is definitely rather disorganized and confusing, 1e particularly, but 2e isn't exactly clear and concise either. 

The whole Stoneskin debate is getting somewhat crazy. Stoneskin wasn't even a core spell in 1e at all. It was introduced in UA, where it stops one entire attack routine etc. It became a core spell in 2e like many UA spells and as with most of them was heavily rewritten to stop 1d4+1/2 levels attacks (not attack routines). Depending on what you were fighting the later version was generally better. As a 4th level spell the UA version wasn't really worth bothering with. So it really depends on what rules you're using. 

The point stands though, a bare-arsed 12th level wizard without backup, with no spells active, and no items that will let him avoid an attack or quickly and safely withdraw is asking for it to the degree that he's not really anything close to a level 12 threat. It is a very specific (and IMHO rather odd and hard to account) situation. It certainly doesn't prove anything beyond if you put even a high level NPC in a bad situation they're hosed. A naked 12th level fighter without any henchmen or even a weapon would be an analogous situation and equally hopeless (sure, said NPC would have something like 50 hit points, but with AC 10 he'd be lucky to survive 2 rounds). 

Likewise if you want to put this kind of situation in 4e you are easily able to do so. It isn't the expected sort of scenario though. You could make the NPC a low level elite/solo or just give him bad defenses in the 'I am not at all prepared' vein. In either system this kind of thing is a DM setup, there's no reason to consider it to be 'better rules' that you can make an NPC that is STORY important but combat ineffective.


----------

