What do you want your wizards to be like in D&D Next?

What do you want your wizards to be like in D&D Next?


For instance, do you think D&D Next should be a high fantasy setting in which wizards cast dramatic effects such as Wall of Fire or Meteor Swarm all day long or do you think that spells should be something special that wizards can’t cast more than a few times per day?


If the wizard can only cast spells a few times per day, the wizard needs something useful to do while he’s not casting his big spells. What kind of at-will attack would you like your wizard to have? Unlimited energy attacks like in Harry Potter? Fire and lightening all day long like in 4th edition? Your pathetic crossbow like in 2nd edition? Sword and staff like Gandalf? Crossbow at low levels and then a magical wand or staff with at-will attacks at higher levels? Any other ideas?


What about spells that take time to cast like in 2nd edition? Do you like the idea of a game where a wizard needs one full round to cast his spells during which he can be interrupted? Think “oh crap, somebody get that wizard before he obliterates us!”

I would prefer that high level Wizards could only cast effects such as Meteor Swarm or Wall of Fire as an extremely limited resource when talking about a high-tension, rapidly-changing, tactical combat environment.

However, I would also like to see tangible ritualistic effects that could be generated and strengthened over long periods of time, such as a less microscopically controlled meteor shower occurring over vast acreages, cities, or battlefields.  The wizard (or wizards) involved in such rituals should have to expend considerable effort and submit to a high level of risk for his own safety when attempting to use magic of such ferocity.

I feel D&D has never well expressed the failed Control Weather spell or summoned demon.  I think 3e was worst at depicting the risk to reward ratio that so commonly exists in classic literature when attempting to accomplish such extreme feats.  When bending reality to one's will, I think it appropriate if reality slaps back once in a while.

Beyond that, I am not very excited about anything beyond the simplest of prestidigitations being usable 24/7 (psionicists perhaps having more liberal use).

I do have a bit of a preference for full-round casting, where the spell does not occur until the beginning of the next turn, for both arcane and divine spellcasting classes.  Sometimes I forget that 3e was what changed that first, since I indirectly houseruled that aspect away more often than not.  I do feel it could readily be used to help different classes feel different from a system-use perspective.

Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Set 1 — Somnia
Set 2 — TBD
Set 3 — TBD
Planeswalker's Guide to Somnia

Build Around This
A weekly MTG Cards and Combos forum game.
Build Around This #1 - Sage's Starfish Wish
BAT #1 was built using the Legacy format with Spiny Starfish, Sage's Knowledge, and Make a Wish. Winner: Dilleux_Lepaire with Fishy Starfishies. Runner-Up: JBTM

I do have a bit of a preference for full-round casting, where the spell does not occur until the beginning of the next turn, for both arcane and divine spellcasting classes.  Sometimes I forget that 3e was what changed that first, since I indirectly houseruled that aspect away more often than not.  I do feel it could readily be used to help different classes feel different from a system-use perspective.



How did you house rule it? I'm asking because the casting time mechanism of 2nd edition only works if you roll for initiative every round.
We did roll initiative every round in 3e.  In fact, both my gaming groups (of which one plays 4e) still do it that way; effects that would end at the end of a character's next turn do so based on the previous initiative number.

However, the method in 3e by which I indirectly handwaved that away was using a mechanic I built called Webshaping.  It caused the majority of spell casts to require more than just the standard action.  For all the recent talk about "reflavoring" and "reengineering" this is actually a system constructed for the express purpose of doing both.

Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Set 1 — Somnia
Set 2 — TBD
Set 3 — TBD
Planeswalker's Guide to Somnia

Build Around This
A weekly MTG Cards and Combos forum game.
Build Around This #1 - Sage's Starfish Wish
BAT #1 was built using the Legacy format with Spiny Starfish, Sage's Knowledge, and Make a Wish. Winner: Dilleux_Lepaire with Fishy Starfishies. Runner-Up: JBTM
More than anything, balanced.  No 'linear fighters, quadratic wizards'.

Definitely 4e-style at-will attacks.  A wizard should never run out of magic, not be relegated to a crossbowman.

I would prefer spells intended to be cast in-combat simply take the wizard's standard action (more to the point, I hope full-round actions do not return at all).
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Wizards should be feeble in the beginning. Frail, fagile additions to the group that need to be protected. They have their uses, sure, but they don't shine right away. By  mid levels, they should be the equal of the rest of the group. Their spells compensate for their frailties, and their abilities have proven themselves to be continually useful both in and out of combat. In the later levels, they are beasts (so long as there are spells prepared). This has been the way of things in most popular fantasy fiction, and was the way of things in old versions of D&D. I love it.
I agree with Jody, Balance is not an acurate word for characters. If you want balance, give the npcs better weapons. Wizards are wimps at low levels, it's called occupational hazard. Mid level they start being bad. But to make them a little more powerful is change the magic system to a point system, as was in 2nd ed Spells and Magic. It actually made wizards cooler, and less wimpy.
Wizards should be feeble in the beginning. Frail, fagile additions to the group that need to be protected. They have their uses, sure, but they don't shine right away. By  mid levels, they should be the equal of the rest of the group. Their spells compensate for their frailties, and their abilities have proven themselves to be continually useful both in and out of combat. In the later levels, they are beasts (so long as there are spells prepared). This has been the way of things in most popular fantasy fiction, and was the way of things in old versions of D&D. I love it. 


Here, here! Huzzah! 
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

Wizards should be feeble in the beginning. Frail, fagile additions to the group that need to be protected. They have their uses, sure, but they don't shine right away. By  mid levels, they should be the equal of the rest of the group. Their spells compensate for their frailties, and their abilities have proven themselves to be continually useful both in and out of combat. In the later levels, they are beasts (so long as there are spells prepared). This has been the way of things in most popular fantasy fiction, and was the way of things in old versions of D&D. I love it. 



This is, simply put, horrible design.  The imbalances of previous editions are why you didn't need symbiosis (aka teamwork); the spellcasters could do everything, even at low levels (they just couldn't do it often, so you'd blow your spells destroying the plot, then go rest).

Furthermore, there's no benefit to 'I'm a sidekick, now you're a sidekick'.  The PCs should be equals; if one chooses to be less powerful, it should be because of decisions he's made (or the player's build decisions), not inherent to class design.

As you said in another thread, go forward, not backwards.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I want a Vancian 'feel' to casting for wizards in DDN, but with a 4e, AEDU sensibility.  That is, I'd like to see wizards be able to cast a few big spells each day, and a few interesting spells at-will and per encounter.  

I do miss the Vancian feel but I don't necessarily wanna have my wizard PC fall back to using a sling or staff for half the day.  I'd favor magic missle as an at-will.

Yeah, I'd like to see Vancian magic make a comeback; assuming of course, that they can make it play well with others (if ya know what I mean ;)).

/\ Art

My absolute favorite class is Wizard, and has been from 1e to 3.5e. When I read design notes about 4e I thought I was going to like 4e wizards but did not, and I believe it was due to the removal of the Vancian system. I do like at-wills and encounter abilities that 4e did bring, however. But, I want the Vancian system back. In fact, I need the Vancian system back to feel like the class is a wizard. I would like to see some interesting at-will abilities and encounter abilities for wizards (and all classes).

I do miss the Vancian feel but I don't necessarily wanna have my wizard PC fall back to using a sling or staff for half the day.  I'd favor magic missle as an at-will.

   
Items such as Magic Missile at will sounds like it could be implemented well. I would like to be able to use my Magic Missile every round rather than my crossbow, however, I would want it to do less damage per round than the pure melee character does per round. If I want to outdamage the melee focused character, I should have to fall back on my Vancian spells or perhaps even an encounter spell/ability. I liked the idea behind Reserve Feats in 3.5e, which were almost at-wills, other than you could expend the slot and lose the at-will. Dimensional Jaunt felt like something a wizard should just be able to do.

One thing that bothered me greatly about the Vancian system was interruptibility of spells by damage. I even built a counter-spell focused character once in 3.5e ready to excel at countering spells. Then I realized all I really had to do was ready an action to cast a spell at the enemy when he or she started casting, so increasing initiative and readying single-target high-damage spells was an easier and more effective way to counterspell than actual counterspelling! I do not mind one being able to counterspell me, but I do want the one countering my spell to have to work for it. I do not want to lose my spell because someone readied an action to damage me upon casting.
Do you have an opinion on what campaign settings should be printed in D&D Next? If so, please cast your votes in this poll! Poll: What campaign settings do you want to see printed in D&D Next?
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Wizards should be feeble in the beginning. Frail, fagile additions to the group that need to be protected. They have their uses, sure, but they don't shine right away. By  mid levels, they should be the equal of the rest of the group. Their spells compensate for their frailties, and their abilities have proven themselves to be continually useful both in and out of combat. In the later levels, they are beasts (so long as there are spells prepared). This has been the way of things in most popular fantasy fiction, and was the way of things in old versions of D&D. I love it. 



This is, simply put, horrible design.  The imbalances of previous editions are why you didn't need symbiosis (aka teamwork); the spellcasters could do everything, even at low levels (they just couldn't do it often, so you'd blow your spells destroying the plot, then go rest).

Furthermore, there's no benefit to 'I'm a sidekick, now you're a sidekick'.  The PCs should be equals; if one chooses to be less powerful, it should be because of decisions he's made (or the player's build decisions), not inherent to class design.

As you said in another thread, go forward, not backwards.



I totally agree with Salla.  If classes are balanced over a campaign instead of by the day or even the encounter, I am just not interested.

Also, while I'm sure your using MMOGs was meant to be an insult, let us look at which one has the bigger numbers and larger fan base, and then consider that maybe one game has a better idea by being more inclusive, hmmm?

One last thing: games should not try and emulate all points of fantasy literature.  Just as movies are not books, and a straight translation of book to movie can be aweful, so to can attempting to make a game be a book.  Unless, you know, all the game really is is a book, but then it ceases to be a game.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
1) do you think D&D Next should be a high fantasy setting in which wizards cast dramatic effects such as Wall of Fire or Meteor Swarmall day long or do you think that spells should be something special that wizards can’t cast more than a few times per day?

2) If the wizard can only cast spells a few times per day, the wizard needs something useful to do while he’s not casting his big spells. What kind of at-will attack would you like your wizard to have? Unlimited energy attacks like in Harry Potter? Fire and lightening all day long like in 4th edition? Your pathetic crossbow like in 2nd edition? Sword and staff like Gandalf? Crossbow at low levels and then a magical wand or staff with at-will attacks at higher levels? Any other ideas?


3) What about spells that take time to cast like in 2nd edition? Do you like the idea of a game where a wizard needs one full round to cast his spells during which he can be interrupted? Think “oh crap, somebody get that wizard before he obliterates us!”





1) I definitely think some spells should be limited (great cost, taxing etc).

2) I like the low damage auto-hit action of the 4th Ed magic missle (so the wizard might blap you for 4 or 5 damage for a few rounds, then, Bam, 20 + an effect or something.

3) I do like the idea of the wizard cooking up a spell for a round or more before unleashing, but a real bummer to get interrupted because a gnome throws a carrot at you and you have to begin all over.

What do you want your wizards to be like in D&D Next?

Interesting to play would be the primary thing that the 4e wizard lacked. If I wanted to spam the same powers round after round I would be playing a sorcerer or warlock or something. Figuring out which powers are best to memorize on a particular day and how to best use a limited supply of dramatic and significant powers is the fun part of being a wizard. The 4e wizard didn't have the first and was weak on the second.

Vancian magic is a good way of getting there, but it isn't the only way. The 4e wizard could have been fine if the game didn't so heavily favor specialized characters and the spells available where better. Even a spell point system could work if the game mechanics allow for a character with a broad range of options to be effective.

Wizards should be feeble in the beginning. Frail, fagile additions to the group that need to be protected. They have their uses, sure, but they don't shine right away. By  mid levels, they should be the equal of the rest of the group. Their spells compensate for their frailties, and their abilities have proven themselves to be continually useful both in and out of combat. In the later levels, they are beasts (so long as there are spells prepared). This has been the way of things in most popular fantasy fiction, and was the way of things in old versions of D&D. I love it. 

That is traditional yes, but it is the sort of thing that makes for a good story and a bad game. If the campaign is going to run from 1st to 5th level nobody will play a wizard, if it runs 15th to 20th, everybody wants to play a spell caster.

A better design makes all classes equally valuable at the same level but in different ways, so that a balanced party of different characters with different kinds of powers and which play differently is best. That is what 4e was aiming for, but they took it a bit too far, and it ended up being balanced characters that played roughly the same no matter what class you picked.

I'd like an earlier edition Wizard.  Mysterious and very powerful but ultimately limited, delicate and very difficult to play (well).

real experience playing 4e you would know that classes play very differently than one another. 



Not in my experience DMing it consistently for 2 years (some difference between classes, but not very).


Also balance is key to creating enjoyable games, if you are playing chess and one side gets nothing but pawns then the game is not going to be fun.  Heck even if you were playing co-op on Halo and one person always got a shotgun and sniper rifle and the other could only ever use the assault rifle it wouldn't be fun.  


All of your examples sound very, very fun.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

I'd like the "Wizard" Class to be basically full-vancian.  I don't really care if they have a crossbow or an at-will "Magic arrow" that does exactly the same thing as a crossbow as their fallback, but for their non-fallback tools should be

a) Selectable.  A wizard prepares his/her spells ahead of time and is then locked into the selection
b) One-use.  A wizard burns a prepared spell when casting it (no 3.5 Spirit Shamans)
c) Few.  A sizard should be pushed to the fallback swiftly at any level (See 3.5 Shadowcasters; anything relevant had brutal usage limits).  If a wizard has 3-5 relevant spell slots at any level, either one big encounter or many little encounters ought to drain Mr. Wizard dry.
d) Not broken.  It doesn't matter how few "relevant" effects you have when "Relevant" is insta-win on the encounter (Okay, a Hadoken-spent Black Mage isn't worth much, but STILL).

As I've said before, I feel that the 15 minute work day is not in our rules, but in ourselves.  Of course, spells that provide an easy, safe rest ought to be avoided, because then you can use your last spell to recover all your others, or the problem really *is* in the rules as well.


Of course, that's just the class named Wizard.  I think there ought to be other magic classes that function in different ways.  I've always liked the idea of some sort of "wild mage" and the "Spell Brewing" scheme I and some other posters thought up seems nice...  maybe I just like casters with a chance of detonation?

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

Guys, this thread is about the flavor of wizards, not an edition war. Please stay on topic, I don't want to restart a thread on this...

I'm really surprised that nobody is allergic to the idea of a wizard going "pew pew" all the time.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I'm really surprised that nobody is allergic to the idea of a wizard going "pew pew" all the time.


As long as the "pew pew" is as woefully ineffectual as tbe 'good' old "Twang!", I'm satisfied from a mechanical viewpoint.


As a side note, I would also prefer relevant-spell cast-times of somewhere between "annoying" and "Glacial"  -- Full round at minimum, several rounds for something complex and nasty.


Fighter: Okay, I charge forward, swinging my sword...
Wizard: I Start Casting!  Antorbok pargon regredmor...
Fighter: I swing for its legs to knock it down!
Wizard: Eri phar phesta . . . um, phistor . . . er, phistara . . .
Fighter: Now it's on its back, I jump up and stab it on my way down for the kill!
Wizard: *hums elevator music*
Fighter: What?  another one jumped on my back?  I try to grab it and throw it off!
Wizard: Sint mihi Dei Acherontis propitii! Ignei, aerii, aquatani spiritus, salvete!
Fighter: Alright, I'm surrounded by how many of the little buggers?  I spin around trying to throw them all back.
Wizard: SHAZAM! *Fireball*

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

I want wizards that fit a more modern fantasy view.  D&D has been stuck with Vance for going on 40 years now, lets face it the guy is basicaly only popular among the D&D crowd.  Vancian magic at this point is self referental.  When new players join the game these days most of them know something about fantasy, the vancian system runs directly counter to what they expect from a magic system.  

Flavor neutrality is actually one of the strong points of the AEDU system, throw in a spellbook aspect and it starts looking a lot like vancian.  Give people a pool of "Mana Points" that enhance at-will spells into what are effectivly encounters and dailies and it looks like an MP system.  Give them the option to spend healing surges to get aditional encounter or daily powers and you have a fatigue system. 

Personaly I would love it if a magic system like The Dresden Files has became the standard assumption.  Combat magic is quick and dirty, magical force given form by the mind of the caster, most small effects are almost effortless and can be repeated over and over again, bigger effects start to take their toll on your mind and body.  Things that are more complex fit under the header of Ritual magic that takes time and concentration to prep and use, not something that can be done in the middle of a fight.
I want wizards (and all classes) to be balanced, and I say this as someone who plays mostly casters.  I experimented with non-casters in past editions, but the experience of playing them always blew (IMO) compared to the casters.  I never actually enjoyed playing non-casters until I played 4e.  I want a game where all the classes, and not just casters, are attractive options.

I want spells that don't need to be cast in the heat of the moment to be presented as rituals.  There's no reason for purify food and water, a spell that doesn't need to be cast as a standard action, to take up a resource that is better spent on spells for combat or dealing with social/exploration challenges.

I want wizards (and all classes) to always have something interesting to do (i.e. at-will spells).  I don't want wizards to run out of magic (firing magical bolts from your wand just feels more magical than pulling out a sling or crossbow because you X'd off all the spell slots on your sheet), and I don't want fighters who can be played by setting up an "I swing my weapon" sign while you use the bathroom or make a pizza run.

I want a module, preferably in the core PHB, for replacing the Vancian system with at least one other system (AEDU, point-based, etc).  The only reason I think wizards should be presented with Vancian casting is because DDN is trying to recruit fans of past editions and (as the edition wars have taught us) they will call any edition without Vancian wizards a fake version of D&D.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.


real experience playing 4e you would know that classes play very differently than one another. 



Not in my experience DMing it consistently for 2 years (some difference between classes, but not very).



Sounds like a player problem to me.

I'm really surprised that nobody is allergic to the idea of a wizard going "pew pew" all the time.



Gauntlet Legends FTW. ;) Also, the pew pew had better not suck.  If it's only as useful as "out of spells, take out the sling/crossbow/whatever", then it's kind of pointless. The point is that the wizard is magic, and should be magic all the time, at least a little bit.  Nothing grand or anything, but they should always have magic on hand.



"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]

Gauntlet Legends FTW. ;) Also, the pew pew had better not suck.  If it's only as useful as "out of spells, take out the sling/crossbow/whatever", then it's kind of pointless. The point is that the wizard is magic, and should be magic all the time, at least a little bit.  Nothing grand or anything, but they should always have magic on hand.



That's exactly one of the underlying topics of this thread!

Some people see magic as something that easily flows through you if you  know how to channel it. Anybody can creatre magical fire or lightening with a little training. This is more of an "at-will" magic system with mana points to increase the effects. Some forms of magic are just easy.

To others, magic is something difficult that requires complex rituals and produces spectacular effects. These rituals cannot be cast in combat because they take too much time. Some highly trained individuals learned a way to memorize these spells in a way that when they need them in combat, the chanting and gestures come so naturally that they can cast the spell at an accelerated speed. The formulas are so complex that even a veteran wizard can never learn more than a dozen of these rituals at the same time. That's the type of magic Jack Vance suggested (if I'm not mistaken, I never read the books, only Internet articles).

So that's 3 types of magic so far: "at-will intuitive magic", "combat rituals" (vancian) and "rituals".

The consequences of this "intutive magic" on the game world are drastic. It's the difference between people exposed to magic in their everyday lives and magic that is something difficult to master that people know of but look at with suspicion.

The wizard needs something to do when out of combat. It could be as simple as training in the staff or some kind of sword and staff training or it could be "at-will magic". It could be rare magical wands and staves that give the wizard unlimited attacks. Depending on your choice, the game world will feel very different. As a side note, that's why this thread is in flavor.
Sounds like a player problem to me.




Why, and in what way?

Wizards should be feeble in the beginning. Frail, fagile additions to the group that need to be protected. They have their uses, sure, but they don't shine right away. By  mid levels, they should be the equal of the rest of the group. Their spells compensate for their frailties, and their abilities have proven themselves to be continually useful both in and out of combat. In the later levels, they are beasts (so long as there are spells prepared). This has been the way of things in most popular fantasy fiction, and was the way of things in old versions of D&D. I love it. 



What popular fantasy fiction? Harry Potter, I suppose, and maybe the Dresden Files (although Harry rarely casts more than two or three spells in a fight.) In most popular fantasy fiction, wizards are either the enemy, or a deus ex machina. And most fantasy fiction is analogous to only a few levels in D&D. I honestly can't think of a book, or even series of books, where characters go from anything close to low-to-high level. Heck, even Steven Brust's novels,which, IIRC, are strongly based on his AD&D game, and cover maybe ten years, are probably about a character who gains maybe three levels in the entire series.

Sounds like a player problem to me.




Why, and in what way?




Why/in what way: Because others including myself have seen the classes being different, while you have not.  Since the variable here are the players, specifically the DM and their players, it must be those variables, interpreting the constant (the ruleset) that is the issue.  Thus the issue is the experience of the individual or groups of individuals, not the game system.  Not because the game system cannot be wrong (it could possibly be in other circumstances), but because the system in this case is not our variable.  People are.  Thus it's a people problem and not a system problem.

Note, the people problem can stem from the idea that they are familiar with other or older systems, which then could make people consider the current system a variable as well;  with that in mind, though, the other systems are a secondary source.  They are input before our test begins, and much like any other personal bias, they are part of the experiences the test group has before they come ot the test, the test being are 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons classes all similar in play.  If the answer were all yes or mostly yes or mostly no or all no, we could draw conclusions that the system was the reason for this.  But with so many people with differing experiences, it is obvious that it is the players that inform how the classes feel, not the system.  The system is neutral in this because of the wide experiences of the player base as a whole.


"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
 I'm just a simple man with simple wizardly needs:

  1. A wizards hat and robes,no thank you Mr Fighter I don't need mundane armor but I need my robes some of us do have a sense of style.

  2. Magic I can rely upon, not one the DM will strip away from me because "it's a chalenge" or "your making your allies look bad" I know this comes with limitations to my god-wizardness but it's only fair

  3. Magic that can last me all my day I don't want to go nova then just be your sub average joe.

  4. Muggles which to look upon me with awe and fear.

  5. A church which wants to eliminate all Arcane users eveywhere.

  6. Aknowledgement that I studied damn hard for my diploma.

  7. Also that zero to hero thing yeah that hapened in MU I'm allready a hero sure I still have much to learn and I will get more powerfull but I did not sign up for "being a useless after I use my two spells for 5 lvs then for the next 15 I make my rogue and fighter comrades cry in shame" it should be obvious why

  8. Acknowledgement that I may not have studied martial tactics and strategems exactly but I have a sharp mind and I desserve a place at the strategy table.

  9. To see my enemies's staffs broken before me and to hear the lamentation of their women.


What do you want your wizards to be like in D&D Next?



I want them to be fragile and limited, at least at first.

By the end, I want them to be somewhat less limited, but still fragile when compared to the other classes.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.


What do you want your wizards to be like in D&D Next?



I want my wizard to be terrifing to the general public, but squishy when compared physically to his warrior brethern.  I want wizards to be scary to peasants, but only challenging to PCs.  Give them the ability to attack every round with a Magic Missle, but that missle then does only minimal damage for the wizards level, say 1D4 plus some kind of level bonus.  As this is a magic attack, it satisfies my urge to "cast" spells, but doesn't overshadow a fighter/rogue/ranger attacks either.  Yes true spells should be limited per day, not encounter/extended rest.  You are wrestling for control of a basic force of nature, it is tiring.

On the balance issue, the classes are not/should not be balanced soley for combat.  They should be balanced for the entire game.  The worst times that I have played are when the spell caster's dominate the role playing scenes because they have the skill points to invest in skills and then dominate combat because their spells wipe out the enemy before the warrior types have a chance to engage. 

NO MORE GENERALISTS.

If you force wizards to specialize and only be able to cast spells from 1-3 of 7+ schools (wrecan's nonants of magic system is ideal), then you do a lot to solve the overpowered wizards problem.

If a wizard can do everything, there's no reason to have non-wizards in the party.
For me, the defining characteristic of the wizard vs. other spell casters is his studiousness. He is first and foremost, a scholar of magic. His approach is always intellectual. The wizard may be mad yet experimentative, reclusive yet obsessed, combative yet calculating. It is not magic for its own sake he craves, but knowledge of magic, knowledge of all the secrets of the universe.

Also real wizards don't wear anything underneath their robes.
There should be way many different kind of wizard. If we go for the spell's specialization i hope it's better then it was in 3.x (i never played 4e). But every kind of specialist should be different. And generalist must be present as well. A generalist is one who loves magic such as a prime forse of the univers, and see binding it to limitate effect a terrible act of blindness.

There are also fighter/wizards, or rogue/wizard, and must be present as well. This one see magic as a usefull tool to reach theire goal.

Physicaly a wizard is weaker and mor frail then other ones, he sees no need for armors, whith rare exceptions, and is feared by everyone.

At low level a wizard is the weak member, his spells are not that usefull in combat, and a singol blow could finish him.
As he gows his powers become more and more mighty, and, in the end, no figher can hope to stand against them if not backed by other magical defences. But this comes at a cost: even when his powers reach their top level he can be killed by a single blow of an aprentice fighter, as i strongly oppose to game balance.

Long spellcasting time is welcome, as well as the possibility to stop a wizard from casting a spell.

Of all things damaging spells should be the least dangeros of the spell list, I love save or die, or similar, such as save or be turned into a ston/frog/whatever comes into mind, be cast into another plane and so on. Also I see foundamental the presence of spells useless in combat but with many application in other moment of the game.

I'd love to see possibles rituals run by one or more mages, that can last even for days, and bring in unthinkable effects.

Spells are limited, if by mana or such or daily slot it doesen't matter,no wizard has an endless pool of power. And when you are out of spells... whel, go with the ridicolus crossbow/bow (i always play wizards as elfs, so i never use crossbows, but bows) for the low levels, change it with rods, staffs and thigns at higher levels.

An interesting thig could be to give a wizard the possibility to drain from his own life, sucking away his life/characteristics, and not only xp, in order to make his spells stronger, or to use spells once you run out of them. 
I want them to be fragile and limited, at least at first.

By the end, I want them to be somewhat less limited, but still fragile when compared to the other classes.



I agree, the HP ratio in 4th Ed is a little narrow, IMO, I prefer to give all classes triple max HP (HD) at first level (Fighter has 30, Wzard has 12 etc) and average rounded up HP for levelling (Fighter gets 6, Wizard gets 3 etc).
NO MORE GENERALISTS.

If you force wizards to specialize and only be able to cast spells from 1-3 of 7+ schools (wrecan's nonants of magic system is ideal), then you do a lot to solve the overpowered wizards problem.

If a wizard can do everything, there's no reason to have non-wizards in the party.


I don't mind generalizing if it means he can cast from all schools at a base level, but he never gets better at any beyond that unless he specializes.
NO MORE GENERALISTS.

If you force wizards to specialize and only be able to cast spells from 1-3 of 7+ schools (wrecan's nonants of magic system is ideal), then you do a lot to solve the overpowered wizards problem.

If a wizard can do everything, there's no reason to have non-wizards in the party.


I don't mind generalizing if it means he can cast from all schools at a base level, but he never gets better at any beyond that unless he specializes.



I'm absolutely against this. Specialized reach the top of the power in what they can do faster, and generaly are stronger in it than a generalist, ok, but why, in the heavens and hells, a generalist must be limited in the powers he can reach!?
You know, thinking about it, if we're going to be stuck with spell slots and the like again ... I want the 3e sorcerer-style spontaneous casting to be the standard.  No spell-swapping, no spellbooks, no cleric/druid access to every spell on the list, no preparation.  'These are how many spells you know, these are how many spells you can cast'.  With at-will spells, too, of course; a wizard should never run out of magic.

Once you know a spell, you KNOW it.  None of this 'well, it went away' weirdness.  It also solves the problem of casters being able to leave slots open and pull an 'I win' button out of their butts in mid-adventure.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I would like wizards and sorcerers to play like pathfinder... 

I am currently playing pathfinder and 4th ed, and I think PF did an awesome job comparatively. They still have a few things to iron out... e.g. Black Tentacles are too powerful compared to other spells of the same level but mostly they play really well.

I love the way the classes can intermingle with utility spells at the lower level ranges allowing for really different builds.

I have played 3 sorcerers in pathfinder, one working team assistance (battlefield control, buffs, debuffs), one primal elemental sorcerer that have nothing but fire spells, and one dragon disciple sorcerer that only uses magic for selfbuffs and fights with nothing but claws.

They are all sorcerers but play completely different. If 5th edition pulls off allowing spells to be very versatile I think it will be awesome, and grant much freedom in letting players create characters of their choice.

I'd like a lot of utility/flavor spells to be at lower levels allowing people to dip into caster classes to fetch the spells they need to round off their character concepts. Spells such as vanish, ghost sound and obscuring mist can do wonders for other classes who wants a sens of mystique.

I also think they got much of the balance right... The sorcerers are glass turrets, and as soon as you dip into their powers with another class you will feel the penalty quickly, but it gives you other strengths. I.e. my claw fighter stinks in melee compared to other classes but on the other hand it can fly and breathe smoke (obscuring mist) and ignite stuff with its breath (spark etc) which is absolutely awesome.

I don't know... I am not much of an opter... maybe you could create a caster build in PF that absolutely destroys other classes. But as long as you don't, the freedom of character concepts are awesome and I want that freedom in 5th.


The Character Initiative


Every time you abuse the system you enforce limitations.
Every time the system is limited we lose options.
Breaking an RPG is like cheating in a computer game.
As a DM you are the punkbuster of your table.
Dare to say no to abusers.
Make players build characters, not characters out of builds.




NO MORE GENERALISTS.

If you force wizards to specialize and only be able to cast spells from 1-3 of 7+ schools (wrecan's nonants of magic system is ideal), then you do a lot to solve the overpowered wizards problem.

If a wizard can do everything, there's no reason to have non-wizards in the party.


I don't mind generalizing if it means he can cast from all schools at a base level, but he never gets better at any beyond that unless he specializes.



I'm absolutely against this. Specialized reach the top of the power in what they can do faster, and generaly are stronger in it than a generalist, ok, but why, in the heavens and hells, a generalist must be limited in the powers he can reach!?



Because no generalist should ever be able to reach the peak of power that someone can reach through focused study.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
I don't know if I'd call it 'specialization', but I like the idea of having limited spell access as the basic assumption.  Whether based on old-fashioned spell schools or things like fire spells, ice spells, light spells and so forth ... start with access to just one, then gaining access to another school/type of spell requires spending some character resource ... maybe a multiclass, maybe a feat.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I don't know if I'd call it 'specialization', but I like the idea of having limited spell access as the basic assumption.  Whether based on old-fashioned spell schools or things like fire spells, ice spells, light spells and so forth ... start with access to just one, then gaining access to another school/type of spell requires spending some character resource ... maybe a multiclass, maybe a feat.



Spell schools sounds good. Setting it up like the Mage from Essentials. That is one of the only E-classes that I thought was done rather well. Sure, they can take spells not related to their specialty, but it won't be as good as someone who specializes in that field using it.