Like many of you I have watched every video, listened to every podcast and read every blog from the developers for Dnd next and I feel I have a good understanding on where they are planning to go with Wizards and Clerics
Wizards will be Vancian, but with 4e concepts of replacing lower lvl spells with higher lvl spells. For example at lvl 9, you might have 1 lvl five spell, 2 lvl four spells, 3 lvl three spells and 3 lvl two spells. You will be able to prepare a lower lvl spell in each spot if you want as well. But there will be a limit to the total number of spells you can cast in a day. This number will be anywhere from 8 to 12 and there will be limits for each lvl of spell as well. This limit will be a balancing factor so that a wizard doesn't prepare 20 different spells each day.
Some spells will be toned down especially ones that give melee bonuses so that bull's strength for example doesn't make a cleric better than a fighter at fighting and haste doesn't make someone better than a monk at multiattacking. I honestly think spells will be toned down quite a bit while still maintaining some of the open usage (2nd and 3rd edition utility).
I don't know too much about what they will do with Fighters, but the playtest ones were the only class with action points (extra actions), and I think this type of thing will continue getting some abilities that can be used as a daily resource. Also in lvls 1-3 the fighter was imo the most powerful premade.
In 3rd editions casters ruled at higher lvls. 4th editions there was balance but it could very easily be argued that Fighters were the most powerful class. I think in 5th edition there will be more balance than 3rd, but at high lvls on a pure power lvl casters will probably be considered a little more power, but Fighters will be very useful and a balanced party with casters and melee will be better than a party full of casters, since Fighters, Monks and Rogues will be the prefered targets for many off the casters buff spells.
Like many of you I have watched every video, listened to every podcast and read every blog from the developers for Dnd next and I feel I have a good understanding on where they are planning to go with Wizards and ClericsWizards will be Vancian, but w
I'd like to see you cite some of your claims. I've been keeping up with everything and nowhere have I heard that you will swap lower level slots for higher level slots...
I'd like to see you cite some of your claims. I've been keeping up with everything and nowhere have I heard that you will swap lower level slots for higher level slots...
Like many of you I have watched every video, listened to every podcast and read every blog from the developers for Dnd next and I feel I have a good understanding on where they are planning to go with Wizards and Clerics
Wizards will be Vancian, but with 4e concepts of replacing lower lvl spells with higher lvl spells. For example at lvl 9, you might have 1 lvl five spell, 2 lvl four spells, 3 lvl three spells and 3 lvl two spells. You will be able to prepare a lower lvl spell in each spot if you want as well. But there will be a limit to the total number of spells you can cast in a day. This number will be anywhere from 8 to 12 and there will be limits for each lvl of spell as well. This limit will be a balancing factor so that a wizard doesn't prepare 20 different spells each day.
I've never heard this said by the devs. I've seen it proposed on the forums, but I've never seen it come from an official source. The closest thing to what you describe that I have heard is the answer to the quadratic problem, which forces casters to prepare spells in higher-level slots to make them more powerful.
I've never heard this said by the devs. I've seen it proposed on the forums, but I've never seen it come from an official source. The closest thing to what you describe that I have heard is the answer to the quadratic problem, which forces casters
Like many of you I have watched every video, listened to every podcast and read every blog from the developers for Dnd next and I feel I have a good understanding on where they are planning to go with Wizards and Clerics
Wizards will be Vancian, but with 4e concepts of replacing lower lvl spells with higher lvl spells. For example at lvl 9, you might have 1 lvl five spell, 2 lvl four spells, 3 lvl three spells and 3 lvl two spells. You will be able to prepare a lower lvl spell in each spot if you want as well. But there will be a limit to the total number of spells you can cast in a day. This number will be anywhere from 8 to 12 and there will be limits for each lvl of spell as well. This limit will be a balancing factor so that a wizard doesn't prepare 20 different spells each day.
Nod. It's still a big step up from 4.
Some spells will be toned down especially ones that give melee bonuses so that bull's strength for example doesn't make a cleric better than a fighter at fighting
It never did. Bull's Strength was much more effective cast on the fighter. Divine Power & Righteous Might are probably what you were thinking of.
I honestly think spells will be toned down quite a bit while still maintaining some of the open usage (2nd and 3rd edition utility).
Those in the playtest were toned down compared to 3e, yes.
I don't know too much about what they will do with Fighters, but the playtest ones were the only class with action points (extra actions), and I think this type of thing will continue getting some abilities that can be used as a daily resource.
They've as much as said the playtest fighter was a place-holder, so we'll just have to see. Extra action, though, are only as good as your actions, and the playtest fighter's actions were simply high-damage. Strong, but one-dimensional.
In 3rd editions casters ruled at higher lvls. 4th editions there was balance but it could very easily be argued that Fighters were the most powerful class.
Not too easily. It did have the most powers for quite a while, but those powers were pretty limitted in scope - virtually all melee, all weapon, at most close burst 1. Caster classes had much more range and breadth among their fewer powers. And, wizards have, thanks to all the wizard sub-classes in Essentials and later, passed fighters as the class with the most powers. They've always been the class with the most varied and situationally potent powers (the incongruous hallmark of the 4e controller).
I think in 5th edition there will be more balance than 3rd, but at high lvls on a pure power lvl casters will probably be considered a little more power, but Fighters will be very useful and a balanced party with casters and melee will be better than a party full of casters, since Fighters, Monks and Rogues will be the prefered targets for many off the casters buff spells.
3.0 did, I think, a little better than it's given credit for at making power flow from casters to non-casters via buff spells. Spells like Bull's Strength had hours-long durrations, making them a no-brainer, but there were no caster-stat versions, so three of the very best (most efficient/optimal) spells were most effective if cast on a fighter or rogue rather than on yourself (that the bonus from Bull's STR didn't stack with Divine Power helped, too). 3.5 reduced those durrations and added caster-stat versions and that little bit of partial balance evaporated. I could see 5e trying a similar stunt - and I could see it being errata'd or worked around pretty quickly, too. It's hard to imagine /less/ balance than 3.5, though - even AD&D took stabs at balance that had some effect - so yes, I'm sure 5e will do better.
Nod. It's still a big step up from 4. It never did. Bull's Strength was much more effective cast on the fighter. Divine Power & Righteous Might are probably what you were thinking of.Those in the playtest were toned down compared to 3e, yes.They'v
I'd like to see you cite some of your claims. I've been keeping up with everything and nowhere have I heard that you will swap lower level slots for higher level slots...
I have been spending the last 2 hours looking for that reference. Maybe it just my mind playing tricks on me. I will continue to look for it.
I have been spending the last 2 hours looking for that reference. Maybe it just my mind playing tricks on me. I will continue to look for it.
With the vancian magic system you could get to the point where wizards had a great number of spells per day. How are balancing that and gauging encounter design with that in mind? Friday January 27, 2012 1:24 Comment From Dreamstryder In 1e, different classes had different options when reaching "name level," like building a Wizard's tower, running their own manor, etc. Is that being looked at as perhaps alternate to Epic Destinies? Friday January 27, 2012 1:24 Monte: Addressing the idea that high level play you'll end up with lots of optoins and more abilities, we are definitely looking at the direction we're taking high level play. The idea we're looking at is cashing in a lot of your low level abilities or spells and kind of trade them in for one interesting higher level ability.
With the vancian magic system you could get to the point where wizards had a great number of spells per day. How are balancing that and gauging encounter design with that in mind? Friday January 27, 2012 1:24 Comment From Dreamstryder In 1e, different classes had different options when reaching "name level," like building a Wizard's tower, running their own manor, etc. Is that being looked at as perhaps alternate to Epic Destinies? Friday January 27, 2012 1:24 Monte: Addressing the idea that high level play you'll end up with lots of optoins and more abilities, we are definitely looking at the direction we're taking high level play. The idea we're looking at is cashing in a lot of your low level abilities or spells and kind of trade them in for one interesting higher level ability.
That's sounds pretty optional to me. Not to mention vague...
[/quote]That's sounds pretty optional to me. Not to mention vague...
I guess its just my mind putting 2 and 2 together to get 5. But, the idea does make sense and when I read this I just naturally thought they would be allowing you to cast higher level spells at the expense of lower level spells. You don't have to learn higher level spells but if you do, you can't cast as many low level spells.
I guess its just my mind putting 2 and 2 together to get 5. But, the idea does make sense and when I read this I just naturally thought they would be allowing you to cast higher level spells at the expense of lower level spells. You don't have to l
I guess its just my mind putting 2 and 2 together to get 5. But, the idea does make sense and when I read this I just naturally thought they would be allowing you to cast higher level spells at the expense of lower level spells. You don't have to learn higher level spells but if you do, you can't cast as many low level spells.
to me it sounds more like you get all your spells normally following the vancian curve but can trade all your 1st level slots to be able to cast a 2nd level spell at-will or something like that...
That's the problem they keep it just vague enough to stir up the edition wars and then come on here and complain about it...
to me it sounds more like you get all your spells normally following the vancian curve but can trade all your 1st level slots to be able to cast a 2nd level spell at-will or something like that...That's the problem they keep it just vague enough to s
With the vancian magic system you could get to the point where wizards had a great number of spells per day. How are balancing that and gauging encounter design with that in mind? Friday January 27, 2012 1:24 Comment From Dreamstryder In 1e, different classes had different options when reaching "name level," like building a Wizard's tower, running their own manor, etc. Is that being looked at as perhaps alternate to Epic Destinies? Friday January 27, 2012 1:24 Monte: Addressing the idea that high level play you'll end up with lots of optoins and more abilities, we are definitely looking at the direction we're taking high level play. The idea we're looking at is cashing in a lot of your low level abilities or spells and kind of trade them in for one interesting higher level ability.
So they didn't say they were doing it, but that they were looking at it? Also, they said they were looking at it "for high levels of play." I'm sure a lot of 3e, and earlier, wizards had wished they could trade in a bunch of lvl 1 slots for another level 9 slot or the ability to apply a metamagic feat without increasing spell level (notice that they did say abilities and spells not just spells).
[/quote]So they didn't say they were doing it, but that they were looking at it? Also, they said they were looking at it "for high levels of play." I'm sure a lot of 3e, and earlier, wizards had wished they could trade in a bunch of lvl 1 slots for
Well it makes complete sense that you would have a limit to the number of spells you could cast per day. It seems like much of 5e is to make the combat and play simpler. So this and catching the direction in everything that the designers are saying makes complete sense to me. If a Wizard had 20+ different spell prepared each day at higher levels then it wouldn't be simple and the rest of the players at the table would feel like we all did in 4e when my wife's ranger was deciding what to do with her minor action (in all fairness the 4e Wizard a friend played took just as long).
So I'm sorta going with a feel as well as the ambiguous quote above.
Well it makes complete sense that you would have a limit to the number of spells you could cast per day. It seems like much of 5e is to make the combat and play simpler. So this and catching the direction in everything that the designers are saying
Wizards will be Vancian, but with 4e concepts of replacing lower lvl spells with higher lvl spells. For example at lvl 9, you might have 1 lvl five spell, 2 lvl four spells, 3 lvl three spells and 3 lvl two spells. You will be able to prepare a lower lvl spell in each spot if you want as well. But there will be a limit to the total number of spells you can cast in a day. This number will be anywhere from 8 to 12 and there will be limits for each lvl of spell as well. This limit will be a balancing factor so that a wizard doesn't prepare 20 different spells each day.
No really sure this is how DDN will handle this, but what you are describing is the method 13th Age uses: upon gaining levels the caster drops his lower level slots and gets higher level ones. The higher level slots can be used either for new spells of the respective level or upgraded version of the lower level spells. A wizard starts with 5 lv1 spell slots and ends up with about 12 spells slots of lv8-9 at cap. The slots can be used for at-wills, encounters, daily and rechargeable spells.
No really sure this is how DDN will handle this, but what you are describing is the method 13th Age uses: upon gaining levels the caster drops his lower level slots and gets higher level ones. The higher level slots can be used either for new spells
what i personaly would like to see is spell slot levels as a more liqid recource.
so you could chose to prepare 3 3rd level spels or 9 st level spells depending on what you prefer.
what i personaly would like to see is spell slot levels as a more liqid recource. so you could chose to prepare 3 3rd level spels or 9 st level spells depending on what you prefer.
what i personaly would like to see is spell slot levels as a more liqid recource.
so you could chose to prepare 3 3rd level spels or 9 st level spells depending on what you prefer.
I don't think they'll do that because that basically turns spell slots into spell points. I don't consider this a bad thing, as I like spell points far more than traditional vancian, but they are different enough that the two casting systems will likely get relegated to separate classes.
I don't think they'll do that because that basically turns spell slots into spell points. I don't consider this a bad thing, as I like spell points far more than traditional vancian, but they are different enough that the two casting systems will li
