Community

Jan 12, 2012 -- 6:25AM, Ratpick wrote:

That's actually a good point and I agree with you. I think the best way to put this is that a Wizard should be able to melee, but in doing so they'd have to sacrifice some of their utility elsewhere. Traditionally the problem has been one of the Wizard being able to melee if they want to, with the right spells, while being able to hog the spotlight everywhere else with their other spells.

So yeah, I think there should be enough space within the classes to allow for different types of Wizards, including the melee-focused gish, but the gish shouldn't overpower the Fighter and the melee-focused gish should have to sacrifice some flexibility elsewhere.

I see what you're saying and can only say I'm not 100% with you.  I personally don't care about total balance between classes but understand that a lot of folks do.  I was never of the mind that the Wizard should be hamstrung to slow him down to Fighter speed, but that the Fighter should be elevated (which is why, incidentally, I loved the ToB (still have it) and played more than a few characters either wholly from it or that dipped into it) and still remain different.  That said, I'd be fine if 5e went with what you've just described.  Really, if that's the way they go I'd not be unhappy.

Er, so I guess I agree with just a couple of ... uhh ... points or something I felt like getting out of my brain for some reason. 

Jan 12, 2012 -- 7:05AM, GelatinousOctahedron wrote:

Jan 12, 2012 -- 6:27AM, velwein wrote:

What people who liked the death of the Vanician system loved about it bringing balance to the game, was not for the sake of pvp purposes in the slightest bit. DnD is not WoW, we don't have to balance invisible rogues vs. a paladin with the 12 second ... bubble.. of.. holy goodnes.. Anyway, what we and myself included want here is for your martial characters not to sit there at high levels going. "If this guy can solve this by himself in x time, why are we here?" The core tenent of DnD is to be a team based game, and when you have the army of one who can do all of the other class' jobs but better if given time? Then that in of itself goes against the core idea of DnD being a team based game.

A lot of people don't understand what people like me mean when we say we want a balanced system.  It doesn't mean I want PCs to be able to fight each other or that I want each class to have the same structure.  I think you can have a vancian casting system that is reasonably well balanced, while your martial PCs are more designed like the slayer or knight in essentials. 

But I have played older edition PCs and seen other people play PCs that simply didn't contribute.  I made the mistake of playing a mindblade in a high level campaign with a psion and a psion/wizard in 3.5.  My PC barely contributed most combats and was less useful than the other PCs out of combat.  And it wasn't poorly built within the options that class had.  It was simply unable to do cool stuff and my turn took about 30 seconds.  He did pretty decent damage in those 30 seconds to one or two targets.  Then the other PCs would out damage him against multiple targets or shapechange into giant or whatever and then do some more with stuff like quickened castimg.  By the end of 3.5 we were as group pretty much deciding not to play casters (artificer/psion/cleric/druid mainly) past about level 5 unless everyone in the group was and that was even after my DM had banned most of the broken caster stuff.

That was the big problem with casters at higher levels.  Once you got there the guys playing the fighter or rogue simply wasn't as good at doing there own job anymore.  And the caster was better at doing both his job and their job.  That is not fun.  In some cases like the 3.5 druid this was even a problem at low levels.

There is stuff I don't like about 4E, but I have never seen a PC in play able to do it all or seen a PC that didn't meaningfully contribute to the party on a regular basis.  I am not saying you can't make a PC that doesn't contribute much (you probably could with a class like the cavalier or binder) but I have never played with one.  And I have probably seen about a hundred different PCs in play in almost all classes (excepting a few of the latest additions) and all the way into low epic.

Agreed on everything. The problem with Vancian magic isn't in the system itself, it's the fact the spells in it are broken as all the Nine Hells.

A system with 3e style Vancian magic can be balanced, the individual spells just need a lot of work.

Jan 12, 2012 -- 7:10AM, GelatinousOctahedron wrote:

Jan 12, 2012 -- 6:36AM, Zombie_Babies wrote:

(which is why, incidentally, I loved the ToB (still have it) and played more than a few characters either wholly from it or that dipped into it) and still remain different.

ToB was my favorite thing about 3.5.  The only time we used it I was DM and the only thing that disappointed me about switching to 4E was that I was never able to play a ToB PC.

I know that feel, bro. I never got to use Magic of Incarnum nor Tome of Battle in practice, and I loved the everloving hell out of those books.

Jan 12, 2012 -- 7:21AM, almius03 wrote:

I like the Vancian system, just with two exceptions: Wizards should have few or at least one pernament (at-will) spell. And fighter should be improved on higher levels. It is not funny if there is always a player who doesn't enjoy the fight. It is wizard on low levels, and fighter on higher levels.

Actually very similar to what I've suggested. The one at-will spell should be magic missile. There is no other option.