I can't remember the name of the character who turns into a Bear when Belgarion is in danger but his main skills are messing things up two weapon style and sailing.
Barak, and he used an axeI think. Hettar used two weapons.
You can have a combat wizard. And he can even overshadow the fighter for a time. But Wizards are about diminishing returns, the more encounters they face in a day the weaker they get. Where as the fighter remains just as effective in the last combat as the first. Balancing D&D wizards against the non-spellcasters in the party has a lot to do with the length of your adventuring day.
But, if somehow the fighter is the best one in combat, a combat wizard would be worse than the fighter, even if it is focused on combat.
Making one class better at combat than everyone else makes all other classes trap options if you want a combat-focused character, and this applies especially to combat-heavy campaigns.
Its only a trap if you feel insecure in not being "The Best." Not optimizing for maximum efficacy does not imply ineffectiveness.
It's amazing how many people here don't understand that simple little fact.
It does implies that you could use another class for your combat-focused character. And it does implies that, despite making all your decisions in combat, you are still not so effective at combat than the other class. Again, It is not a matter of being effective, it is about making my character the best at what he does. If I want a combat focused wizard, I want him to shine in combat, in the same frequency and intensity that the fighter gets to shine in combat.
There is one advantage in class design that it’s not mentioned very often. The short version is: being a Wizard actually means something. I will try to explain this. A class is formed by several parts: It has the mechanics, which is obvious. But it also has fluff, flavor, description and legacy. Basically there are the stories about characters of that class, the class’s identity and all of such. To better represent my opinion, I shall bring to the discussion another commercial franchise: Final Fantasy. In many FFs there exists the Job system, which is really just a class system. Many times the Final Fantasy’s games uses a system different from that, but usually it’s a system unique to the game, and even so references to the Job system exist, so the Job system wins as most common system used by FF. Thing is, many people recognize FF Jobs, from classical Jobs such as Black Mage, White Mage, Warrior, Ninja, Paladin, Dragoon to less iconic Jobs such as, I don’t know, Jobs that only appeared in one to three games. Thing is, with considered time, these Jobs have all sort of Fluff and Legacy with then. Many characters not only use one Job, but also marked the series. When people talk about the Black Mage, for instance, not only they will remember the concept itself, but they will also remember all the appearances made in Job based games (which, in that specific case, are many) and also many characters like Palom from FFIV or Vivi from FFIX or Lulu from FFX. Things is, these Jobs marked the series and being one of them actually has meaning, because this Jobs have strong identities attached to them. The problem with classless systems is that, they are classless. What is a Wizard in a classless system? This really matter? In a classless system, is there some meaning in being a Wizard? The problem with classless systems is that these identities are kinda of lost, because being a Wizard is not so important, because being a Wizard does not have any mechanical marks and basically in a classless system, there is no Wizard by default, this doesn’t have meaning in a practical way. With class bases D&D, however, that is different. Being a Wizard in D&D has meaning, an when people talk about Wizards in D&D they will not only remember the current version of the Wizard, they will also remember all versions of the Wizard, and all characters and NPCs that are Wizards, and now, they will also remember the mechanical difference and the flavor, identity difference between the Wizard and the other spellcasting classes. This is something really hard to put in words, there is my best shot.
Right now, I would make Vancian the standard magic system for most classes in D&D (including Wizard and Cleric). What people complained is the fact that the Wizard was Vancian-Only. If it was Vancian-Default, that would be different. I've long advocated supporting both the Points of Light setting and settings full of magic items. I had some thought on one spellcasting system. Spoiler:Show
It is basically composed of three parts: 1. The Standard System: The standard system would be classic Vancian. Wizard: classic Vancian, have to learn spells first, and then prepare them. All the 9 spells levels. Cleric: It would be Vancian, but with some differences, The Cleric would carry on the tradition of choosing spells directly from the class’s spell list, but it would have some old school disadvantages to compensate, such as 7 spell-levels for Clerics and Druids (and even less for Paladins and Rangers), and most divine’s spells would be about healing and support (the Druid and the Ranger can have more offensive spells), and, in general, they would have less spells, perhaps even having divine spells (Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Ranger) be worse than arcane spells, as I’ve told that it was like this in pre-3rd Edition. 2. The Flagships The Flagships are classes that represent one alternative magic system in the standard system. They, by default, are not Vancian, they use another system (with the possibility of using Vancian or other systems). Sorcerer: This Sorcerer would be a little different than the other casters. They would have the same spell list as the Wizard (a la 3.X) and they will use, by default, flexible spell-slots spellcasting (the current system. Very like 3.X Sorcerer, but with class benefits that make then different, a la 4th Edition. With regards to other classes, I would make Bards Vancian, but the Warlock is also a good candidate to some different spellcasting mechanics. Possibly the Witch (4e post-Essentials subclass) somewhere? 3. Modular Magic Systems And there would be a module that changes the way that the spellcasting works. This would be a module that has guidelines about altering the default spellcasting mechanics. The guidelines would consist of how the quantity of spells cast can be ported over, and from which spells they prepare, etc... Let’s give a proper example: The Wizard would be classic Vancian. Thing is, for alternative casting systems, the Wizard would have guidelines that would be something on these lines: “They always prepare spells from the list of know spells. In alternative spellcasting modules, he can prepare a number of spells equal to 1+ Wizard’s level, and the number of spells slots or equivalent is equal to the number of spells per level per day.” This is not something that will have problems of text space. All that you need is some short guidelines about which spells they can chose to cast and how much spells they cast. The rest of these mechanics would be stated only once, in the module of alternative magic system. The good points: • Not only every Vancian class would have an option to be non-Vancian, but also the non-Vancian classes would have the options to be Vancian. Why some classes in default would be Vancian while others not? Add some variety for the new players and players of things like RPGA and Encounter. That and many of the editions of D&D had it like that. • It manages to both being classic with classic Vancian and satisfy the non-Vancian fans with flagships and modules. The bad points: • Using alternative magic systems do not raise your raw power but make casters more flexible. The classes that are already flexible (such as Sorcerer) would need some more flexibility to keep up. No idea how to handle martial characters, although.
We should get rid of at-will cantrips. Spoiler:Show
Okay, now that you’ve got the first panic reaction, let me explain it. Yes, many people like at-will cantrips and they are popular. They have everything that it takes to be popular. However, I think we should remove them from the game, at least as an assumption to all caster classes. First: At-will cantrips blur up the distinction between casters and martial characters, and makes being a gish useless. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems there is an advantage in martial characters: the fact that they have abilities that they can always use. But if we give every caster at-will cantrips this blurs up the difference between classes, take out a huge advantage of martial classes. There is also the gish issue. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems, there is a huge advantage of being a gish over being a full caster. The advantage of have some reliable action when out of spells. At-will cantrips weakens that advantage. Just for you to have some idea I was talking previously about the possibility of the Wizard being weaker than the Cleric (some time ago), and when I quoted the fact that the Cleric is a gish, people talked that this is not important, that it doesn’t have such impact because it will use its at-will cantrips. Being a gish should matter. Of course when being a gish actually matters, we can rebalance the classes but it should matter.
Second: At-will cantrips go into the opposite direction of trying to balance casters. Really when we are trying to balance classic or neo Vancian casters, why give to all of them at-will cantrips? Why we cannot use the absence of at-will cantrips to provide a drawback to balance casters? Third: At-will cantrips weaken the challenge of resource management. Really when you always have magic a great part of the challenge goes away. The possibility in being out of magic is not a bug, it is a feature It is part of the system, and this challenge don’t have to go away because it is fun. The challenge of running out of magic is part of the system, and fun. Fourth: At-will cantrips do not fit properly under every system. Really is not that I don’t like at-will magic, but I don’t think we should bake in every spellcasting system. In 4e it worked because it was part of AEDU, but now, they don’t feel part of anything. They seem to be an arbitrary addition to the game. The 3.5 Warlock was special because it was a class with at-will magic in a game where it doesn’t exist, otherwise, at-will magic. We can have at-will cantrips but it should be done it right, and not being a default assumption for every caster class. I’m worried if they are going to launch a mana spell-point based magic system for spellcasters. This system should not have at-will, no mana cost magic as default for every caster class, because running out of mana is part of the mana system. In Final Fantasy they even have no MP cost magic, but they do it right, and when they use no MP cost magic, it is special because it is in a game that is otherwise MP based.
I don't understand how this is a question still, and I really don't understand what people are arguing about at this point. I suppose it boils down to two points.
Q1: Can you have one character designed for in-combat aptitude, and another character designed for out-of-combat aptitude, and is this "balanced"?
A1: No, unless you have people in your group that are pretty cool with taking a back seat in half the encounters (and are willing to call that "balanced").
The question then becomes
Q2: How do you allow balance both in-and-out of combat while supporting a variety of character backgrounds?
A2: You mechanically differentiate between class (combat skills) and -some other thing here- which covers out-of-combat skills. You can use background, theme, or a combination of the two to do that.
Anybody have points other than these that don't involve petty squabbling?
Want the tl;dr of my posts? Read the bold text; I put it there to highlight the main points for ease of skimming.
It does implies that you could use another class for your combat-focused character. And it does implies that, despite making all your decisions in combat, you are still not so effective at combat than the other class.
So what. Every class doesn't have to be worth 1 million dollars. It's okay for some to be worth 1,090,000 and others to be worth 987,000.
Again, It is not a matter of being effective, it is about making my character the best at what he does.
No it isn't. That's a personal goal of SOME players. It's not a system goal in the slightest.
If I want a combat focused wizard, I want him to shine in combat, in the same frequency and intensity that the fighter gets to shine in combat.
This is irrelevant a discussion about optimization. It's okay for there to be variations in power, so long as they are not to wide.
It does implies that you could use another class for your combat-focused character. And it does implies that, despite making all your decisions in combat, you are still not so effective at combat than the other class.
So what. Every class doesn't have to be worth 1 million dollars. It's okay for some to be worth 1,090,000 and others to be worth 987,000.
Again, It is not a matter of being effective, it is about making my character the best at what he does.
No it isn't. That's a personal goal of SOME players. It's not a system goal in the slightest.
If I want a combat focused wizard, I want him to shine in combat, in the same frequency and intensity that the fighter gets to shine in combat.
This is irrelevant a discussion about optimization. It's okay for there to be variations in power, so long as they are not to wide.
It is about making my character the best at what he does. It is about my character shining, It is about a combat focused wizard that or somehow is worse than the fighter even if he uses all his resources to combat or it's not. It is about a combat-heavy campaign that you can choose more than fighter or not. It is about making a combat-focused wizard a trap option or not. Again, If I want a combat focused wizard, I want him to shine in combat, in the same frequency and intensity that the fighter gets to shine in combat. Don't make my combat focused wizard worse than the fighter just because "the fighter should be the best at combat". No, every class should get the chance to shine in combat, and if you want a combat focused character, you should be able to choose any class, and that character should be so good at combat than a combat focused fighter. Combat focused wizards and combat focused fighters should be balanced in combat. Two combat focused characters should be balanced in combat, even in the case of different classes.
There is one advantage in class design that it’s not mentioned very often. The short version is: being a Wizard actually means something. I will try to explain this. A class is formed by several parts: It has the mechanics, which is obvious. But it also has fluff, flavor, description and legacy. Basically there are the stories about characters of that class, the class’s identity and all of such. To better represent my opinion, I shall bring to the discussion another commercial franchise: Final Fantasy. In many FFs there exists the Job system, which is really just a class system. Many times the Final Fantasy’s games uses a system different from that, but usually it’s a system unique to the game, and even so references to the Job system exist, so the Job system wins as most common system used by FF. Thing is, many people recognize FF Jobs, from classical Jobs such as Black Mage, White Mage, Warrior, Ninja, Paladin, Dragoon to less iconic Jobs such as, I don’t know, Jobs that only appeared in one to three games. Thing is, with considered time, these Jobs have all sort of Fluff and Legacy with then. Many characters not only use one Job, but also marked the series. When people talk about the Black Mage, for instance, not only they will remember the concept itself, but they will also remember all the appearances made in Job based games (which, in that specific case, are many) and also many characters like Palom from FFIV or Vivi from FFIX or Lulu from FFX. Things is, these Jobs marked the series and being one of them actually has meaning, because this Jobs have strong identities attached to them. The problem with classless systems is that, they are classless. What is a Wizard in a classless system? This really matter? In a classless system, is there some meaning in being a Wizard? The problem with classless systems is that these identities are kinda of lost, because being a Wizard is not so important, because being a Wizard does not have any mechanical marks and basically in a classless system, there is no Wizard by default, this doesn’t have meaning in a practical way. With class bases D&D, however, that is different. Being a Wizard in D&D has meaning, an when people talk about Wizards in D&D they will not only remember the current version of the Wizard, they will also remember all versions of the Wizard, and all characters and NPCs that are Wizards, and now, they will also remember the mechanical difference and the flavor, identity difference between the Wizard and the other spellcasting classes. This is something really hard to put in words, there is my best shot.
Right now, I would make Vancian the standard magic system for most classes in D&D (including Wizard and Cleric). What people complained is the fact that the Wizard was Vancian-Only. If it was Vancian-Default, that would be different. I've long advocated supporting both the Points of Light setting and settings full of magic items. I had some thought on one spellcasting system. Spoiler:Show
It is basically composed of three parts: 1. The Standard System: The standard system would be classic Vancian. Wizard: classic Vancian, have to learn spells first, and then prepare them. All the 9 spells levels. Cleric: It would be Vancian, but with some differences, The Cleric would carry on the tradition of choosing spells directly from the class’s spell list, but it would have some old school disadvantages to compensate, such as 7 spell-levels for Clerics and Druids (and even less for Paladins and Rangers), and most divine’s spells would be about healing and support (the Druid and the Ranger can have more offensive spells), and, in general, they would have less spells, perhaps even having divine spells (Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Ranger) be worse than arcane spells, as I’ve told that it was like this in pre-3rd Edition. 2. The Flagships The Flagships are classes that represent one alternative magic system in the standard system. They, by default, are not Vancian, they use another system (with the possibility of using Vancian or other systems). Sorcerer: This Sorcerer would be a little different than the other casters. They would have the same spell list as the Wizard (a la 3.X) and they will use, by default, flexible spell-slots spellcasting (the current system. Very like 3.X Sorcerer, but with class benefits that make then different, a la 4th Edition. With regards to other classes, I would make Bards Vancian, but the Warlock is also a good candidate to some different spellcasting mechanics. Possibly the Witch (4e post-Essentials subclass) somewhere? 3. Modular Magic Systems And there would be a module that changes the way that the spellcasting works. This would be a module that has guidelines about altering the default spellcasting mechanics. The guidelines would consist of how the quantity of spells cast can be ported over, and from which spells they prepare, etc... Let’s give a proper example: The Wizard would be classic Vancian. Thing is, for alternative casting systems, the Wizard would have guidelines that would be something on these lines: “They always prepare spells from the list of know spells. In alternative spellcasting modules, he can prepare a number of spells equal to 1+ Wizard’s level, and the number of spells slots or equivalent is equal to the number of spells per level per day.” This is not something that will have problems of text space. All that you need is some short guidelines about which spells they can chose to cast and how much spells they cast. The rest of these mechanics would be stated only once, in the module of alternative magic system. The good points: • Not only every Vancian class would have an option to be non-Vancian, but also the non-Vancian classes would have the options to be Vancian. Why some classes in default would be Vancian while others not? Add some variety for the new players and players of things like RPGA and Encounter. That and many of the editions of D&D had it like that. • It manages to both being classic with classic Vancian and satisfy the non-Vancian fans with flagships and modules. The bad points: • Using alternative magic systems do not raise your raw power but make casters more flexible. The classes that are already flexible (such as Sorcerer) would need some more flexibility to keep up. No idea how to handle martial characters, although.
We should get rid of at-will cantrips. Spoiler:Show
Okay, now that you’ve got the first panic reaction, let me explain it. Yes, many people like at-will cantrips and they are popular. They have everything that it takes to be popular. However, I think we should remove them from the game, at least as an assumption to all caster classes. First: At-will cantrips blur up the distinction between casters and martial characters, and makes being a gish useless. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems there is an advantage in martial characters: the fact that they have abilities that they can always use. But if we give every caster at-will cantrips this blurs up the difference between classes, take out a huge advantage of martial classes. There is also the gish issue. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems, there is a huge advantage of being a gish over being a full caster. The advantage of have some reliable action when out of spells. At-will cantrips weakens that advantage. Just for you to have some idea I was talking previously about the possibility of the Wizard being weaker than the Cleric (some time ago), and when I quoted the fact that the Cleric is a gish, people talked that this is not important, that it doesn’t have such impact because it will use its at-will cantrips. Being a gish should matter. Of course when being a gish actually matters, we can rebalance the classes but it should matter.
Second: At-will cantrips go into the opposite direction of trying to balance casters. Really when we are trying to balance classic or neo Vancian casters, why give to all of them at-will cantrips? Why we cannot use the absence of at-will cantrips to provide a drawback to balance casters? Third: At-will cantrips weaken the challenge of resource management. Really when you always have magic a great part of the challenge goes away. The possibility in being out of magic is not a bug, it is a feature It is part of the system, and this challenge don’t have to go away because it is fun. The challenge of running out of magic is part of the system, and fun. Fourth: At-will cantrips do not fit properly under every system. Really is not that I don’t like at-will magic, but I don’t think we should bake in every spellcasting system. In 4e it worked because it was part of AEDU, but now, they don’t feel part of anything. They seem to be an arbitrary addition to the game. The 3.5 Warlock was special because it was a class with at-will magic in a game where it doesn’t exist, otherwise, at-will magic. We can have at-will cantrips but it should be done it right, and not being a default assumption for every caster class. I’m worried if they are going to launch a mana spell-point based magic system for spellcasters. This system should not have at-will, no mana cost magic as default for every caster class, because running out of mana is part of the mana system. In Final Fantasy they even have no MP cost magic, but they do it right, and when they use no MP cost magic, it is special because it is in a game that is otherwise MP based.
@blacksheepcannibal That seems to be the entire point. Which is core (race+class only) for PCs: Spotlight Passing or Spotlight Sharing?
Well, the design goal for 5e is for classes to be balanced.
Now, if balance means across pillars, that is not balance. It is just compensation. This doesn't cut it for me, at all. But I do understand some players can actually appreciate this style of play. I think it is possible to have a system where players and the DM can adjust balance to their tastes (with some caveats, like not allowing trading-off social and exploration for combat effectives), but the proper balanced option, where every class can be competent in each pillar, in its own way, has to be available (and I believe it should be the default for ease of introduction to new players and DMs).
It is about making my character the best at what he does. It is about my character shining, It is about a combat focused wizard that or somehow is worse than the fighter even if he uses all his resources to combat or it's not. It is about a combat-heavy campaign that you can choose more than fighter or not.
All of that is optimization. Take combat focused spells if you want a combat focused wizard. All classes can shine if they want. Again, variation in power level is fine so long as that variation is not too great.
It is about making a combat-focused wizard a trap option or not. Again, If I want a combat focused wizard, I want him to shine in combat, in the same frequency and intensity that the fighter gets to shine in combat. Don't make my combat focused wizard worse than the fighter just because "the fighter should be the best at combat".
This doesn't even make any sense. The fighter is not the best in combat. He never was. He's just the best overall melee class. By that I mean that while other melee classes can surpass the fighter in narrow aspects of melee combat, the fighter is the best melee fighter as a whole.
I expected that when thief became a background in the playtests and thieves tools as a class feature caught so much heat, rogues would be generalized more to a generic nonmagical skill monkey over a trickster, shrimisher, or thief.
I consider the trickster to be a pretty generalized thing.. but yes going with skill-man (wierd to me) They need to maintain consistant generalization.
In other words the method for gaining a rogues big boom flair of impact if you attempt to use your skill man competance in battle it needs to be flavor generalized not just the deception/stealth... but also complications and complexityie McGuyvering and Odysseusing perhaps.
Balance is based on spectrum. D&D Next must choose whether characters are balanced over encounters, adventures, or campaigns. Then PROVIDE modules to move balance to the two spans they didn't choose.
@Garthanos Yes, I expect the core four to be very flavor general. The fighter fights normally. The rogue uses skills and fights unconventionally. The wizard prepare and casts arcane spells. The cleric cast divine spells based on their deity.
The next level of classes (bard, ranger, paladin, monk ) are more hard in flavor but will still be general.
The lowest tier of classes (alchemists, gish, totemist) would be near setting specific and has very hard flavor and mechanics.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
