I agree with the table-to-table thing. I think, though, that one of the primary things that is being overlooked is roleplaying; in the past, Wizards could use their magic for roleplay applications (use grease to waterproof your gear and clothes, for example), or use suggestion to set up a delayed effect for say, when the player sees a really annoying recurring NPC approaching with the intent accosting the player with conversation, the player could suggest for a different NPC to come buy after a few minutes to interrupt or something similar.
Basically, I feel like, because Next is so focused on combat, it's missing the forest of magic for the trees of combat; Wizards are pretty much getting nothing for utility, and while combat is fine and all, it's not really an RPG unless there's actual roleplay, because if I wanted to go dungeon crawling, I could do that with a video game, whereas there still hasn't been a video game made that's as good as D&D roleplay because no computer can react to all the possible choices a player could make the same way a living DM can.
In less words, I care less about the combat application of wizards, and more about what they can do outside of it, and right now, they've pretty much got nothing. They can't transport the party because fly is concentration and touch range (so one at a time only), they can't set up elaborate traps (or pranks) with their magic because most charm/persuasion spells last about a few minutes at best, and require concentration, meaning something like a conversation or navigating a crowd can conceivably trigger a concentration check, and even the high end powers have few creative uses except for Disintegrate and maybe Gate.
The spell lists for all casting classes need expansion beyond this seeming tunnel vision of combat orientation; combat can be tinkered with, but casters in general need an expansion in spell selection, if only to give tables focused on roleplay a reason to care about the casters.
That is a total load of bologna. Next is not "all about combat." There are lots of non-combat class powers. If you need me to prove as much, I can start listing them. Wizard's in next have plenty of out of combat utility spells. What is more, as they no longer need to memorize those spells into a particular slot (and only need to memorize them), and can cast what they need to based on the situation at hand, their utility spells are easier to use than they were in 3e or Pathfinder. That becomes doubly true when you consider the existence of rituals.
The claims in the post I just quoted are completely illogical and unfounded. I understand those claims when they are made about 4e. They are not completely true, but I understand why they are made, and came to feel that the game was too focused on combat over time as well. But, Next's mechanics are currently no more focused on combat than 3e or 2e’s were.
I agree with the table-to-table thing. I think, though, that one of the primary things that is being overlooked is roleplaying; in the past, Wizards could use their magic for roleplay applications (use grease to waterproof your gear and clothes, for example), or use suggestion to set up a delayed effect for say, when the player sees a really annoying recurring NPC approaching with the intent accosting the player with conversation, the player could suggest for a different NPC to come buy after a few minutes to interrupt or something similar.
Basically, I feel like, because Next is so focused on combat, it's missing the forest of magic for the trees of combat; Wizards are pretty much getting nothing for utility, and while combat is fine and all, it's not really an RPG unless there's actual roleplay, because if I wanted to go dungeon crawling, I could do that with a video game, whereas there still hasn't been a video game made that's as good as D&D roleplay because no computer can react to all the possible choices a player could make the same way a living DM can.
In less words, I care less about the combat application of wizards, and more about what they can do outside of it, and right now, they've pretty much got nothing. They can't transport the party because fly is concentration and touch range (so one at a time only), they can't set up elaborate traps (or pranks) with their magic because most charm/persuasion spells last about a few minutes at best, and require concentration, meaning something like a conversation or navigating a crowd can conceivably trigger a concentration check, and even the high end powers have few creative uses except for Disintegrate and maybe Gate.
The spell lists for all casting classes need expansion beyond this seeming tunnel vision of combat orientation; combat can be tinkered with, but casters in general need an expansion in spell selection, if only to give tables focused on roleplay a reason to care about the casters.
That is a total load of bologna. Next is not "all about combat." There are lots of non-combat class powers. If you need me to prove as much, I can start listing them. Wizard's in next have plenty of out of combat utility spells. What is more, as they no longer need to memorize those spells into a particular slot (and only need to memorize them), and can cast what they need to based on the situation at hand, their utility spells are easier to use than they were in 3e or Pathfinder. That becomes doubly true when you consider the existence of rituals.
The claims in the post I just quoted are completely illogical and unfounded. I understand those claims when they are made about 4e. They are not completely true, but I understand why they are made, and came to feel that the game was too focused on combat over time as well. But, Next's mechanics are currently no more focused on combat than 3e or 2e’s were.
Let's go into the utility spells, then, shall we? And to be clear, when I say "utility spell", I mean, "spells with more than one function", meaning, something "Knock" is not a utility spell, because all it does is open windows and doors.
Cantrips: Minor Illusion and Prestidigtation Level 1: Nothing. You could make a case for Disguise Self, but all that does is bypass the Disguise skill. Level 2: Rope Trick. Level 3: Fly. Level 4: Polymorph. Level 5: Telekinesis Level 6: Disintegrate. Level 7: Nothing. Level 8: Nothing. Level 9: Gate.
That's at total of 8 utility spells in 10 levels of spells. Sure, you can light and identify and rope trick, but those aren't utility spells; those are situational spells.
With the power of the spells in the current spell list, giving the wizard the same number of spells as a 3e/Pathfinder wizard (even without bonus spells for int) would make the wizard a horribly overpowered class.
Possibly, though that's not what I was recommending in the first place.
The current spellcasting model (which I will lovingly refer to as Wizerer/Sorcard) is not to my liking. If it is the assumed method for the rest of the game, then they will have lost me (and probably a great many like me) off jump. The overly restricted spell slot list removes the versatility and risk/reward relationship Wizards had previous to 4th edition, which is what attracts me to the class so much. Even so, I'm not trying to insist that "my Wizard" be the only Wizard. I just want it to be a presented option. If their idea of modularity in classes is simply how you choose to add feats/backgrounds/specialties/etc. to a character rather than different levels of complexities/playstyles, then I feel like I've been misled.
Let's go into the utility spells, then, shall we? And to be clear, when I say "utility spell", I mean, "spells with more than one function", meaning, something "Knock" is not a utility spell, because all it does is open windows and doors.
Sorry, what!? No. Just no. "Utility spell," around here, does not mean a spell with more than one use. It means a spell that is used for something other than combat. And, based on the post I quoted, that was how you were using it. Your claim was that next is focused on combat. Your claim was that wizards do not have utility spells that exist on the opposite end of the spectrum focused on combat. Your claim was that the wizard can do nothing outside of combat. Those claims are false. They also have nothing to do with individual spells being usable for more than one single task.
Once again, this game has lots of class powers that are either usable, effectively, outside of combat, or are explicitly designed to be used (effectively) out of combat. Wizards have many such spells. Wizards can cast many of those spells as rituals. And, when they memorize such spells, they don't need to pick a particular spell slot which is used up in the process. They are more effective out of combat than they were before. The fact that spells tend to achieve one singular result does not change that.
Meanwhile, even your most recent claim is not really true. Move Earth is a great example of a spell with a very open ended list of uses. Of course, you didn't name it. Same with Divination. Same with Suggestion and Mass Suggestion. I could name more.
And I am sure that we will see the return of grease.
Possibly, though that's not what I was recommending in the first place.
The current spellcasting model (which I will lovingly refer to as Wizerer/Sorcard) is not to my liking. If it is the assumed method for the rest of the game, then they will have lost me (and probably a great many like me) off jump. The overly restricted spell slot list removes the versatility and risk/reward relationship Wizards had previous to 4th edition, which is what attracts me to the class so much. Even so, I'm not trying to insist that "my Wizard" be the only Wizard. I just want it to be a presented option. If their idea of modularity in classes is simply how you choose to add feats/backgrounds/specialties/etc. to a character rather than different levels of complexities/playstyles, then I feel like I've been misled.
I don't know what to tell you. I think that they are between a rock and a hard place, as based on what I have seen in this thread, what you want will cause them to lose people like me. We are not a small demographic either.
I am fine if they stick an optional spell casting system that appeals to you in the "advanced rules" section. More slots, but you have to memorize spells in specific slots. Fine. But if that system is part of the basic or standard rule sets I will jump ship. I find that system as offensive as many find the AEDU wizard. I think the optional, advanced, alternative rule sets are where both those two models of casting should exist.
Let's go into the utility spells, then, shall we? And to be clear, when I say "utility spell", I mean, "spells with more than one function", meaning, something "Knock" is not a utility spell, because all it does is open windows and doors.
Sorry, what!? No. Just no. "Utility spell," around here, does not mean a spell with more than one use. It means a spell that is used for something other than combat. And, based on the post I quoted, that was how you were using it. Your claim was that next is focused on combat. Your claim was that wizards do not have utility spells that exist on the opposite end of the spectrum focused on combat. Your claim was that the wizard can do nothing outside of combat. Those claims are false. They also have nothing to do with individual spells being usable for more than one single task.
Once again, this game has lots of class powers that are either usable, effectively, outside of combat, or are explicitly designed to be used (effectively) out of combat. Wizards have many such spells. Wizards can cast many of those spells as rituals. And, when they memorize such spells, they don't need to pick a particular spell slot which is used up in the process. They are more effective out of combat than they were before. The fact that spells tend to achieve one singular result does not change that.
Meanwhile, even your most recent claim is not really true. Move Earth is a great example of a spell with a very open ended list of uses. Of course, you didn't name it. Same with Divination. Same with Suggestion and Mass Suggestion. I could name more.
And I am sure that we will see the return of grease.
Divination is Cleric only as of the current packet.
Move Earth is not a utility spell, because it's only use is construction, takes at least ten minutes to do anything, and requires concentration, after which it returns to its original form; it's not something you can use on the fly and has no real lasting impact, meaning the only real situations you can use it is for a temporary situation when nothing is around to distract you.
Suggestion doesn't exist yet, and Mass Suggestion has minimal utility, given that it requires concentration and has a very limited duration. I admit that it has utility applications, but as it is now, I firmly believe it's simply a boosted charm effect, given that your victim gets a save every time you suggest a course of action.
Look, I'm saying, right now, in the current packet, the Wizard has very few versatile spells; I feel like, the spell list right now is just too full of combat-oriented and situational spells, and until they expand beyond that, I'm going to feel like the wizard is really weak.
Maybe I just use a different meaning for "utility"; as far as I know, a utility player in baseball is a player who plays several positions quite well, and isn't, "Not a pitcher".
I don't know what to tell you. I think that they are between a rock and a hard place, as based on what I have seen in this thread, what you want will cause them to lose people like me. We are not a small demographic either.
I am fine if they stick an optional spell casting system that appeals to you in the "advanced rules" section. More slots, but you have to memorize spells in specific slots. Fine. But if that system is part of the basic or standard rule sets I will jump ship. I find that system as offensive as many find the AEDU wizard. I think the optional, advanced, alternative rule sets are where both those two models of casting should exist.
I agree with you about the devs being in a tough situation. The game has created two very distinct schools of thought about where D&D should go, and bringing both to the same table seems all but impossible from where I'm sitting.
The spellcasting mechanic, I think, is going to be a dealbreaker for a lot of people. It isn't just Wizards we're talking about here; Clerics are in the same boat. I can only assume that most casters will end up using the same system. My concern is not entirely selfish in that I personally dislike it, but that it's going to be less-than-desired for both pro-Vancian and otherwise. And as you've said, people are perched to jump ship if it doesn't swing their way.
Divination is Cleric only as of the current packet.
Move Earth is not a utility spell, because it's only use is construction, takes at least ten minutes to do anything, and requires concentration, after which it returns to its original form; it's not something you can use on the fly and has no real lasting impact, meaning the only real situations you can use it is for a temporary situation when nothing is around to distract you.
Suggestion doesn't exist yet, and Mass Suggestion has minimal utility, given that it requires concentration and has a very limited duration. I admit that it has utility applications, but as it is now, I firmly believe it's simply a boosted charm effect, given that your victim gets a save every time you suggest a course of action.
Look, I'm saying, right now, in the current packet, the Wizard has very few versatile spells; I feel like, the spell list right now is just too full of combat-oriented and situational spells, and until they expand beyond that, I'm going to feel like the wizard is really weak.
Maybe I just use a different meaning for "utility"; as far as I know, a utility player in baseball is a player who plays several positions quite well, and isn't, "Not a pitcher".
You are right, Divination is a cleric spell. I was naming it to point out how Next, overall, has plenty of utility magic. That spell, however, doesn’t help the wizard. Move Earth, though, is a utility spell—even by your new definition. Its first effect is instant. You need to concentrate 10 minutes in order to invoke the same effect without casting the spell again. And, while the spell is used for “construction,” it can achieve many different end results if a player is creative. It can be used to dig out 20 feet below a foe, trapping them in a pit. It can be used to make a wall collapse when you need to bypass the wall. It can be used to make a bridge when you need to cross over something or other. Those are all different end results. And you think making six creatures do what you want, even if they get saving throws each time, grants minimal utility!? Really!? Because, I can think of a host of ways to use that creatively. We will have to agree to disagree.
As for your use of the word, the term “utility spell” has a particular context on these forums. The spell grants extra utility to the character, beyond combat capability, and is thus called a utility spell. It does not need to have multiple uses in and of itself. One way or the other, by granding a non-combat power it grants the character utility (as the character becomes effective at more than just combat). The U in AEDU is for utility. Those powers only had single uses. They still got called utility because of the way this board uses that term. A spell does not need to have multiple uses, in and of itself, to be termed a utility spell by these boards. And you played directly into the definition used by these boards when you talked about Next being all about combat. Having a host of spells that are not about combat, at each level, does not make this rule set all about combat even if each of those spells still only does one thing.
I don't know what to tell you. I think that they are between a rock and a hard place, as based on what I have seen in this thread, what you want will cause them to lose people like me. We are not a small demographic either.
I am fine if they stick an optional spell casting system that appeals to you in the "advanced rules" section. More slots, but you have to memorize spells in specific slots. Fine. But if that system is part of the basic or standard rule sets I will jump ship. I find that system as offensive as many find the AEDU wizard. I think the optional, advanced, alternative rule sets are where both those two models of casting should exist.
I agree with you about the devs being in a tough situation. The game has created two very distinct schools of thought about where D&D should go, and bringing both to the same table seems all but impossible from where I'm sitting.
The spellcasting mechanic, I think, is going to be a dealbreaker for a lot of people. It isn't just Wizards we're talking about here; Clerics are in the same boat. I can only assume that most casters will end up using the same system. My concern is not entirely selfish in that I personally dislike it, but that it's going to be less-than-desired for both pro-Vancian and otherwise. And as you've said, people are perched to jump ship if it doesn't swing their way.
If there are enough players like me, they will be fine. I like what DDN offers right now more than an AEDU wizard. It is a balanced vancien wizard. That is great. I get the balance I crave with the near flavor of 2e that I crave. Meanwhile, they can still cater to you via the optional, advanced, modules. They can cater to people who need encounter based magic the same way.
If that isn't enough, I don't know what to tell you. I leave it to them to market their game. But I am never again going to purchase an edition of D&D if its basic or standard rules are imbalanced.
Let's go into the utility spells, then, shall we? And to be clear, when I say "utility spell", I mean, "spells with more than one function", meaning, something "Knock" is not a utility spell, because all it does is open windows and doors.
Sorry, what!? No. Just no. "Utility spell," around here, does not mean a spell with more than one use. It means a spell that is used for something other than combat. And, based on the post I quoted, that was how you were using it. Your claim was that next is focused on combat. Your claim was that wizards do not have utility spells that exist on the opposite end of the spectrum focused on combat. Your claim was that the wizard can do nothing outside of combat. Those claims are false. They also have nothing to do with individual spells being usable for more than one single task.
Once again, this game has lots of class powers that are either usable, effectively, outside of combat, or are explicitly designed to be used (effectively) out of combat. Wizards have many such spells. Wizards can cast many of those spells as rituals. And, when they memorize such spells, they don't need to pick a particular spell slot which is used up in the process. They are more effective out of combat than they were before. The fact that spells tend to achieve one singular result does not change that.
Meanwhile, even your most recent claim is not really true. Move Earth is a great example of a spell with a very open ended list of uses. Of course, you didn't name it. Same with Divination. Same with Suggestion and Mass Suggestion. I could name more.
And I am sure that we will see the return of grease.
Divination is Cleric only as of the current packet.
Move Earth is not a utility spell, because it's only use is construction, takes at least ten minutes to do anything, and requires concentration, after which it returns to its original form; it's not something you can use on the fly and has no real lasting impact, meaning the only real situations you can use it is for a temporary situation when nothing is around to distract you.
Suggestion doesn't exist yet, and Mass Suggestion has minimal utility, given that it requires concentration and has a very limited duration. I admit that it has utility applications, but as it is now, I firmly believe it's simply a boosted charm effect, given that your victim gets a save every time you suggest a course of action.
Look, I'm saying, right now, in the current packet, the Wizard has very few versatile spells; I feel like, the spell list right now is just too full of combat-oriented and situational spells, and until they expand beyond that, I'm going to feel like the wizard is really weak.
Maybe I just use a different meaning for "utility"; as far as I know, a utility player in baseball is a player who plays several positions quite well, and isn't, "Not a pitcher".
Yes, you are using a different meaning of utility. What you are saying is multiple use, and in D&D Utility means support, in this case spells that have a noncombat use, like your example of Move Earth. That's considered utility because it's useful outside of combat. And inside of combat, although it's more about fortification building. Grease is another spell that's both multi-use and utilily. Sure you can turn the goblin's trap into a slip'n'slide, but it's also useful for when you need to make something work. Need to grease a wheel? It's a surface. Need to push a stone block down a sloped passage? The floor is a surface, and for laughs you could Grease the bottom of the stone block... Even Disintegrate has some non-combat use. Need to open a hole in the wall, because the door is stuck too fast? Guess who just made a 10x10x10 hole! Teleport is a utility spells, as if Fly, Levitate. Hell, I can think of a use for Sleep that's not combat. A friend whose in pain (disease, usually) , but needs bed rest, and you're both just level 3? Guess who's in happy nappy land?
And I'm not a Wizard player, those examples are bog-standard RP examples that I'm pretty sure our true Wizard Player Experts could find MUCH more inventive uses that I ever could.
