| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Xar Zarath |
Posted - 15 May 2012 : 05:30:45
As the title of this topic suggests, it is about the 5e Wizard and Sorcerer. No, I do not know anything about either or 5e, I simply seek the opinion of fellow members of Candlekeep and what they think will happen with these two classes. Thanks! |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 25 May 2012 : 05:51:03
Well, I like Wizards so far. No mention in the basic classes of sorcerer; but so far we only have Cleric, Fighter, Wizard and Thief.
I started a new thread here:
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16582 |
| Xar Zarath |
Posted - 25 May 2012 : 05:26:03
Well i did not even know about any platesting documents but then again im all the way in Malaysia so I would not know much about what the developers in DND do except by looking online. The area in which i live in has few if not no players at all... |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 24 May 2012 : 19:30:42
quote:
Originally posted by Bluenose
quote:
Originally posted by Xar Zarath
Does that mean in 5e there will be less spells listed?
The playtest document devotes more pages to spells than to equipment, combat, and exploration.
Do you have the playtest document already?
EDIT:
I'll have mine in "30-60 minutes...maybe"???
After all I went through to confirm, you would think it would be available for immediate download...weird! 
EDIT TWO:
the thrice-cursed page won't load...been trying for two hours. 
Any advice from anyone here? |
| Bluenose |
Posted - 24 May 2012 : 17:56:10
quote:
Originally posted by Xar Zarath
Does that mean in 5e there will be less spells listed?
The playtest document devotes more pages to spells than to equipment, combat, and exploration. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 24 May 2012 : 04:44:13
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
There was a section on Faeries in Magic of Faerun...well, not strictly devoted to them; but still a great deal of information.
True, but it's not a whole sourcebook -- Faeries is a wonderful sourcebook, and one I heartily recommend. I've got a couple of half-fae Realms NPCs wandering around me noggin, right now. 
Indeed. And it's doubles as a convenient source for the Realms as well, as Steven Schend -- who partly edited the book -- explains below:-
"For those interested in another take/option on Faerie, there is a D20 option from Bastion Press y'all might want to take a look at.....
Bryon Wischstadt, long-time Realms fanatic and all-around good guy, wrote this guide to Faerie (both the realm/plane and inhabitants) and yours truly edited it alongside him. As both of us (and Jim Butler, Bastion's president, CEO, and chief cook and bottle washer) all have a deep and abiding love for the Realms, there's nothing in there that wouldn't work in terms of using Faerie as a source for ancient elves (or other more modern threats). It's a mix of old folklore and modern conceptions of Faerie and even stats up Old Man Winter, Father Time, and Father Christmas if you want such.
Steven
Who apologizes profusely for plugging a product but it seems relevant to the discussion at hand"
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 May 2012 : 03:14:32
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
There was a section on Faeries in Magic of Faerun...well, not strictly devoted to them; but still a great deal of information.
True, but it's not a whole sourcebook -- Faeries is a wonderful sourcebook, and one I heartily recommend. I've got a couple of half-fae Realms NPCs wandering around me noggin, right now. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 24 May 2012 : 01:22:33
There was a section on Faeries in Magic of Faerun...well, not strictly devoted to them; but still a great deal of information. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 May 2012 : 00:52:41
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
To be fair, I think a lot of the excesses and bad rep associated with 3E/3.5E were actually not Wizbro products at all ... for every spell, feat, item, class, monster, or book released by WotC there was an entire library of d20/OGL variations.
Honestly, I don't recall anyone complaining about third-party splatbooks... All the complaints I heard about too much source material pertained to things like the endless line of Complete books, or the also endless line of Races of books. Third-party stuff rarely gets mentioned, unless it's something people have found that fit niches WotC didn't cover, like Faeries, from Bastion Press, or unless it's a third-party campaign setting, like the Iron Kingdoms. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 23 May 2012 : 22:01:42
To be fair, I think a lot of the excesses and bad rep associated with 3E/3.5E were actually not Wizbro products at all ... for every spell, feat, item, class, monster, or book released by WotC there was an entire library of d20/OGL variations. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 23 May 2012 : 20:54:46
-Hey, I've never counted more spells, items, feats, and so on as bad things. The only time I don't like their inclusion in books is when they're generic spells/items/feats/etc. that are included in Forgotten Realms books. To me, if you're going to include mechanical things like that in setting specific books, make those mechanical things relevant to the setting/book. If, in the 5e Forgotten Realms main campaign book, they include spells, make them Forgotten Realms specific spells (either things that have been featured in past Forgotten Realms products that sort of have an attachment to the setting, or something as simple as attaching a creator name, where the creator is a Forgotten Realms character); if they include weapons, make them Forgotten Realms specific monsters, and so on. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 23 May 2012 : 14:20:58
quote:
Originally posted by Xar Zarath
Hmm did they create more spells to make life easier or did they just want to sell more supplements??
I don't think it had more to do with selling supplements directly...that was just a bonus. I think they wanted to expand options and "give greater depth" to a world of fantasy.
There were some few "extra" spells made for 1e Forgotten Realms: Unearthed Arcana, the Grey Box itself, and a couple of magical oriented books printed for the Forgotten Realms.
With the coming of 2e however, the list became so long that it actually took FOUR TOMES to compile them all! It only got WORSE with later editions... |
| Xar Zarath |
Posted - 23 May 2012 : 13:40:59
Hmm did they create more spells to make life easier or did they just want to sell more supplements?? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 May 2012 : 10:43:16
quote:
Originally posted by Xar Zarath
Does that mean in 5e there will be less spells listed?
Even if there are less spells initially, there will eventually be a huge number to choose from. I think 1E was the only edition that didn't have a constant flow of new/updated spells.
Not saying this is a bad thing, just pointing out the trend. |
| Xar Zarath |
Posted - 23 May 2012 : 05:49:14
Does that mean in 5e there will be less spells listed? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 May 2012 : 04:46:53
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Very early in my gaming "career" I learned, by fighting the Drow in the Underdark as a Wizard, that the easiest thing to do with your magic when faced with a magic resistant enemy was to hit them via a "Messenger" spell.
For instance: instead of casting a fireball at the Drow, I learned it was easier to shatter the stone around them into shards that hurt non-magically. Perhaps turning the stone beneath their feet to mud...and on and on.
An object can easily be a messenger for a wizard. Magic doesn't have to travel from A to B; but often adding C is best.
A- Wizard Casts Spell
B- Cavern Chamber's roof shatters
C- Drow are covered in falling stone (or at least injured)
Magic Resistance was just too much too often back in the day (and often still is I guess!).
Indirect attacks can be very effective, and are often overlooked. I'm a fan of them, myself. Having not played D&D in a while, I've not been able to do much more than think up a nifty indirect attack when the opportunity presents itself -- but I've used them to great effect in Warmachine. I've used Nemo's chain lightning, targeting the easy to hit guy, and then let it arc into the difficult to hit people next to him. I also once used voltaic snare to turn my opponent's jacks into a barrier that he couldn't get around -- I targeted the center one of three jacks walking thru a narrow gap in the scenery, and they became a wall blocking the rest of his army!  |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 23 May 2012 : 04:28:13
Very early in my gaming "career" I learned, by fighting the Drow in the Underdark as a Wizard, that the easiest thing to do with your magic when faced with a magic resistant enemy was to hit them via a "Messenger" spell.
For instance: instead of casting a fireball at the Drow, I learned it was easier to shatter the stone around them into shards that hurt non-magically. Perhaps turning the stone beneath their feet to mud...and on and on.
An object can easily be a messenger for a wizard. Magic doesn't have to travel from A to B; but often adding C is best.
A- Wizard Casts Spell
B- Cavern Chamber's roof shatters
C- Drow are covered in falling stone (or at least injured)
Magic Resistance was just too much too often back in the day (and often still is I guess!). |
| Sightless |
Posted - 23 May 2012 : 03:43:56
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Shield spell or brooch/amulet/ring of shielding, anyone?
Assuming higher level counterspells like (minor) globe of invulnerability or anti-magic shell aren't used. And imagine the joy on that magic-user's face when he discovers his target is protected by any of several kinds of spell reflection, absorption, or resonance - he and his allies might be mildly displeased when 15 magic missiles richochet right back to their source, power the target's magic, or simply reinforce the target's magical defenses - in addition to whatever action(s) the target would normally choose to perform.
But my point is not whether this-or-that particular spell could dominate and break the game - because I'm sure that stubborn people will persistently argue specific examples until they find particular spells which accomplish exactly that (saying a lot about how they play games). My point is that even in AD&D (1E) rules, the most successful magic-users were those who made the most clever use of their magics, of all their magics, of even the lowliest most ignored magics ... not those magic-users who could simply splatter the most dice across the table. An archmage with an "unstoppable" gimmick is basically just a one-trick pony, handled easily enough by lesser magic-users who apply their spellcraft with more cunning and talent.
Prior to D&D 3E, spellcasters did not have a grand shopping list of spells available right in the PHB (next to the magic items) which they could always peruse and acquire. They were forced to make best use of any spells they could procure or research in-game, very often that meant they simply didn't have a certain spell they really "needed" or wanted, sometimes it contributed towards their choice of which spellcasting villains to attack*. I personally mourn the greatest loss of this system, a concept which seems entirely extinct and alien by the 4E era - the power and personalization of spellcasters (of all levels) inventing and researching their own unique spells to compensate for their peculiar needs and weaknesses. Along with the pride and accomplishment, and awe and respect and intimidation, held by magic-users who could cast unique (and often recognizable) "signature" spells.
* Captured spellbook = #winning
Yes, I remember when my DM forgot I had ammulates of spell reflection. Oh the joy of it. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 22 May 2012 : 20:49:51
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
Wasn't fireball capped at 10d6 in 2nd edition? Or do you mean 1st edition? I have to seek out my 1st Edition PH...
It was capped in 2e...but in 1e there was no cap. |
| Seravin |
Posted - 22 May 2012 : 20:17:02
Wasn't fireball capped at 10d6 in 2nd edition? Or do you mean 1st edition? I have to seek out my 1st Edition PH... |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 22 May 2012 : 19:43:53
I have always said that despite the huge number of dice that 1e casters could use; their magic was far more limited than in later editions.
Simply memorizing spells could take DAYS...not just an hour as in 3e.
Many times I'm actually being sarcastic about the number of dice that could be rolled on the table...dice are meaningless when they can't hurt the target! |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 22 May 2012 : 10:47:38
Shield spell or brooch/amulet/ring of shielding, anyone?
Assuming higher level counterspells like (minor) globe of invulnerability or anti-magic shell aren't used. And imagine the joy on that magic-user's face when he discovers his target is protected by any of several kinds of spell reflection, absorption, or resonance - he and his allies might be mildly displeased when 15 magic missiles richochet right back to their source, power the target's magic, or simply reinforce the target's magical defenses - in addition to whatever action(s) the target would normally choose to perform.
But my point is not whether this-or-that particular spell could dominate and break the game - because I'm sure that stubborn people will persistently argue specific examples until they find particular spells which accomplish exactly that (saying a lot about how they play games). My point is that even in AD&D (1E) rules, the most successful magic-users were those who made the most clever use of their magics, of all their magics, of even the lowliest most ignored magics ... not those magic-users who could simply splatter the most dice across the table. An archmage with an "unstoppable" gimmick is basically just a one-trick pony, handled easily enough by lesser magic-users who apply their spellcraft with more cunning and talent.
Prior to D&D 3E, spellcasters did not have a grand shopping list of spells available right in the PHB (next to the magic items) which they could always peruse and acquire. They were forced to make best use of any spells they could procure or research in-game, very often that meant they simply didn't have a certain spell they really "needed" or wanted, sometimes it contributed towards their choice of which spellcasting villains to attack*. I personally mourn the greatest loss of this system, a concept which seems entirely extinct and alien by the 4E era - the power and personalization of spellcasters (of all levels) inventing and researching their own unique spells to compensate for their peculiar needs and weaknesses. Along with the pride and accomplishment, and awe and respect and intimidation, held by magic-users who could cast unique (and often recognizable) "signature" spells.
* Captured spellbook = #winning |
| Xar Zarath |
Posted - 22 May 2012 : 06:11:15
Keep on preparing magic missiles and we will finish this campaign faster than you can say "Meteor Swarm!"!!! |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 21 May 2012 : 05:58:06
Yes, in original AD&D a wizard's fireball did dice in damage equal to his level...so yes, it would be a 30d6 Fireball. But hey...at around 90 damage average on the dice, and then a successful save you only might take 45 damage from a 3rd level spell! If a wizard is fighting someone as an individual, it would be MUCH better to hit them with a FIRST LEVEL Magic Missile spell that did 15d4+15 damage as a 30th level wizard. That is only about 45 damage still...but there is no save for that and you have only used a level 1 spell instead.
|
| Xar Zarath |
Posted - 21 May 2012 : 05:50:45
Hmm if going by Dalor Darden funny example does that mean a level 30 wizard get to throw a 30d6 fireball? I remember it was capped at 15 in 3.5e right?
Still there is also the whole prestige class and multiclass thing...? |
| Sightless |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 12:33:24
Thanks Wooly, thoughts what he meant.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 May 2012 : 15:54:31
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Xar Zarath
If going by Mr.Bie earlier explanation of the use of spell slots for spells, would not that make the spells memorized by a wizard a bit crowded. If Mr.Mearls is to be believed he wants to reduce the number of spell slots and if i remember correctly, the spell slots in 3e/3.5e was not exactly a lot. There is going to be a bit more than grumbling here and if this "DnD Next" flops, then what is going to happen?DND 6e?
For some comparison, a 3E wizard @ 10th level with an Intelligence score of 20 has 22 spell slots from 1st thru 5th level. That's quite a bit nor does this include cantrips OR magic items like wands, scrolls, staffs, or rods. So if you reduce this total by a small margin but still give them at-will spells that are useful throughout their career, it sort of mitigates power inflation and spell-less wizards.
If DnD:next fails, Hasbro will shelf the lable rather than than selling it, which is a actually a smart move.
I know there's a thread for stupid questions, but, what exactly did you mean by shelving the label? is that for 5e?
He means that if D&D:Next (aka 5E) fails, his expectation will be that Hasbro will no longer produce D&D material, and that they will sit on the IP, rather than sell it off.
Much like toylines -- many toylines have died off, but Hasbro (or other toy makers) have kept the rights, and in some cases brought back the toylines years later. GI Joe is an excellent example, as is Star Wars. |
| Sightless |
Posted - 18 May 2012 : 15:18:46
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Xar Zarath
If going by Mr.Bie earlier explanation of the use of spell slots for spells, would not that make the spells memorized by a wizard a bit crowded. If Mr.Mearls is to be believed he wants to reduce the number of spell slots and if i remember correctly, the spell slots in 3e/3.5e was not exactly a lot. There is going to be a bit more than grumbling here and if this "DnD Next" flops, then what is going to happen?DND 6e?
For some comparison, a 3E wizard @ 10th level with an Intelligence score of 20 has 22 spell slots from 1st thru 5th level. That's quite a bit nor does this include cantrips OR magic items like wands, scrolls, staffs, or rods. So if you reduce this total by a small margin but still give them at-will spells that are useful throughout their career, it sort of mitigates power inflation and spell-less wizards.
If DnD:next fails, Hasbro will shelf the lable rather than than selling it, which is a actually a smart move.
I know there's a thread for stupid questions, but, what exactly did you mean by shelving the label? is that for 5e? |
| Diffan |
Posted - 18 May 2012 : 15:00:09
quote:
Originally posted by Xar Zarath
If going by Mr.Bie earlier explanation of the use of spell slots for spells, would not that make the spells memorized by a wizard a bit crowded. If Mr.Mearls is to be believed he wants to reduce the number of spell slots and if i remember correctly, the spell slots in 3e/3.5e was not exactly a lot. There is going to be a bit more than grumbling here and if this "DnD Next" flops, then what is going to happen?DND 6e?
For some comparison, a 3E wizard @ 10th level with an Intelligence score of 20 has 22 spell slots from 1st thru 5th level. That's quite a bit nor does this include cantrips OR magic items like wands, scrolls, staffs, or rods. So if you reduce this total by a small margin but still give them at-will spells that are useful throughout their career, it sort of mitigates power inflation and spell-less wizards.
If DnD:next fails, Hasbro will shelf the lable rather than than selling it, which is a actually a smart move. |
| Xar Zarath |
Posted - 18 May 2012 : 14:07:03
If going by Mr.Bie earlier explanation of the use of spell slots for spells, would not that make the spells memorized by a wizard a bit crowded. If Mr.Mearls is to be believed he wants to reduce the number of spell slots and if i remember correctly, the spell slots in 3e/3.5e was not exactly a lot. There is going to be a bit more than grumbling here and if this "DnD Next" flops, then what is going to happen?DND 6e? |
| Sightless |
Posted - 18 May 2012 : 07:47:01
(Warning. The following may be considered a rant. If you do not particular like these forms of postings, or suffer an allergic reaction to t them, then skipping this post is advised.)
I have nothing against spell casters, or the people that play them. I myself have played a warmage, and Archivist, a Psychic warrior, and an Artificer. There are however, a few issues that I found with the class, mostly with wizards and sorcerers and what I think could be done to help reactify the issue somewhat. Keep in mind I know little about 4E, and so if any of these things have been tried, please point them out.
First, DMs you don’t have to run your games around your casters. Mine didn’t and it meant that as a caster you couldn’t fling your spells with recless abandoned and hope to rest and replenish when you went low. I think it’s in your best interest to make sure the wizard is very much aware of this possibility and force him from tim to time of it’s reality.
That said, It think a number of valuable lessons could be taken from the artificer in as far as helping to balance the class (yes I am aware of how some players abuse this class and will deal with that latter).
First, devide up the spells make the simple utility ones easy and quick to deal with, but the powerful ones as lengthy as infusions. Things that you had to prepare somewhat in advance, and could only hold to use for so long. Could you prepare and cast the spell in a fight, maybe, but the fight might be over before you are ready, and preparing a spell in combat in this manner should be difficult.
This brings me to point number two, making concentrate matter. It’s not easy to concentrate when people are war shouting, screaming in pain, arrows are flying about, and swords are clashing. What’s more, if anyone engages you, then it should be really hard to hold that last thread of your spell and not have to start over from scratch.
I believe someone described this as ritual magic, which is a guide descriptor for what I am talking about. Indeed some of these spells should even cost experience points as suggested by others previously. A concern, mentioned by still others, is that experience used in spell casting would stunt character growth. I respond with not necessarily, once again using the artificer as an example. The artificer at certain levels got a small pool of Exp to use in crafting, called the craft reserve, points were gained each time he leveled. Points could also be obtained by stripping magical parts from magic items. I see no reason why a similar system couldn’t be put in place for wizards for the casting of ritual magic.
I do think that spell circles might be a good thing to implement, once a caster has obtained a certain level of understanding they have acces to other spells, but only once a certain understanding is reached. This level of understanding is reflected in how they document their spells in their spell book perhaps, ink used, etc. In the case of sorcerers it could be a better understanding of their heratig and how they draw upon magic. That form may not necessarily be draconic in character, although that seems most obvious for the moment.
This ends my initial thoughts on the matter, but will hardly be my last post on the topic.
|
|
|
