| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Xar Zarath
Senior Scribe
Malaysia
552 Posts |
 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!
|
Everything ends where it begins. Period.
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4457 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2012 : 10:55:15
|
This might shed some light about what they're planning on doing with the Wizard in the next iteration of Dungeons and Dragons....
Balancing Wizards in D&D |
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4457 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2012 : 15:00:13
|
| After reading the article, I have a much better feeling about D&D:Next. I agree with nearly 100% of what Mearls has said about the wizard and how to make spellcasting fun but not ridiculously powerful. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36861 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2012 : 16:59:09
|
Meh, they're still not matching cantrips to the flavor. Cantrips are supposed to be minor effects that don't cause damage, or only cause minimal damage -- they've been described in the past as magical exercises, used for training apprentices.
No edition of D&D has handled cantrips properly, though 3E came closer than the rest. I guess 5E is going to continue this trend of mishandling them. 
Why does this bother me? As I've said before, I once played a fighter-mage, in 2E, and used a cantrips proficiency from Dragon magazine. That kept the flavor of cantrips as minor magical effects, but made them easy to use and didn't sacrifice spells to use them. It really added to the flavor of the character -- he used cantrips for starting campfires, for cleaning his clothes, for mending his clothes, for spicing his food, and for anything else that came to mind.
I loved that character, and part of it was being able to use cantrips as they've always been described outside of the rules. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3745 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2012 : 17:22:35
|
-What I'd like to see: Wizards use Vancian Magic, or some hybrid of that and how 4e magic works, while Sorcerers use a Spell Pool, or Spell Points. It reinforces how either class access their power (by study or by 'nature') and gives each more uniqueness.
-On the article:
Cantrips as At-Will Magic: Can't say I care very much one way or the other, unlike Wooly.
Keep Spells Under Control: Getting rid of loopholes is generally a good thing.
Reducing Total Spell Slots: Don't know if I like this, but not being able to see how the class looks, the jury is still out. If spells that magicians get at-will are expanded/empowered enough, reducing the total number of spells you can cast is kind of negated. Likewise, slimming down how many spells a magician can cast isn't necessarily a good way to balance the class with others, either.
Spells Don't Automatically Scale: I like the concept, but I don't know if I like it applied to Wizards, who get their spells from a book and such. Sorcerers, yes- as I said, I'd like to see a Spell Points system implemented, and empowering spells by using more points works fine. For Wizards, who have specific spells written, unless this comes in the form of Fireball Level 1, Fireball Level 2, and so on, I don't think I like it too much- and, spell levels kind of gets redundant in a game like D&D, seemingly.
Spellcasting Is Dangerous: While, as a player, I wouldn't appreciate it, having spellcasting being a possibly time consuming thing that allows for spells to possibly fizzle out if interrupted is something I like in principle.
Keep Magic Items Under Control: Eh. Don't care very much, but don't like the idea that only certain spells could be 'Wanded', 'Potioned', and whatever else.
Keep Buff Spells Under Control: Like the principle they are going for, to not allow spellcasters to 'turn into' and replace other classes via spells, but I don't really see how they'd prevent this with the examples they give. They don't say how they're going to prevent that, and just mention that those spells cast on the respective classes that the spells effects mimic make those classes even better.
Creativity, Not Dominance: Don't necessarily see how minimizing or reworking the mechanical, "number crunching" aspects of various spells will prompt more creativity in their use. Having the Grease spell going into a lot of rule details isn't going to make me think outside the box in it's application any more or less than the spell having very few rule details. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 15 May 2012 17:24:53 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2012 : 18:04:44
|
I've been saying all along that they need a tier-based system for feats, that works simlar to how they separated language skills from other skills in 2e.
In a perfect world, language skills points should have been lumped-into the other skills... but then no-one would bother with them. Why waste useful slots like that? Hence the ingenious device of separating them, so that people were forced to use them in the way they were meant. The only downside was that it was too limiting. In 3e, they should have taken this to the next level, and had several different types of skills that fell into this 'secondary' category. They went that route with some PrCs, and with Clerics and their turning ability, so I don't understand why we didn't see more choices 'out of the box' in this manner.
My thoughts were this: A feat at EVERY level. But the feats would be tiered - you'd have primary (the good ones), background, and flavor.
There could be a few good background & flavor feats, but those should be the ones you have to take at first level. Also, racial feats should be in those two groups, and not in the primary group (even if they are good - we need more versatility amongst the races, and this would be a great way to define sub-races in 5e).
Background feats should also include those combat feats which are situational (as many of the Dwarven racial feats are). When all feats cost the same, we will always have those ones no-one will pick, even if they are full of flavor. They need to separate all character choices into tiers. A point based system does not work for this - sadly, I have tried many, and people will still 'save up' points for the 'good stuff', and never bother with the flavor stuff.
This is in edition to the already-exiting categories based on classes, so you would have a double layer of complexity while choosing feats, but since this is out-of-game, and not during a session, it shouldn't matter. Forcing players to spend a little more time picking RP-beneficial skills and feats is something that should be done.
Then they can make this entire feat-tier system optional, since many groups dodn't give an Osquip's arse about RPing. It could also be individually optional, which means players who don't want to be bothered with 'flavor feats' don't have to, and still play alongside players who do (which is one of 5e's intended goals).
So ay Feats associated with cantrips should be applied to this - you can have common cantrips, and then you could have ones that do just a little bit more... but it should cost you something (like burning a flavor or background feat).
For instance, suppose the Red Wizards taught a cantrip to apprentices called hot foot; it should have a chance to cause a single point of damage, and if it does so, it should cause a distraction. you should only have the option of taking that cantrip if you have the Red Wizard background.
That retains the original flavor of cantrips in general, whiling adding a layer of usability if players want to pay for it.
Also, if a PC gets a hold of a spellbook with this cantrip, then they should have a chance to learn it, the next time they have flavor feat open (which may or may not be the next time they level).
I don't think they need to separate sorcerers and wizards the way they did in 3e - two different methods of doing the exact same thing seemed silly to me. they should be very different classes with different abilites (I'd rather see sorcerers turned into elementalists, or summoners - give them more of an Arabian vibe). In other words, turn the sorcerer into a Sha'ir.
Wizard implies study, and sorcerer implies 'natural talent' - they do not need to be mutually exclusive.
EDIT: With a little more thought, I realize the 'improved' cantrip thing I was talking about could also be a skill- one you take to allow a cantrip to do more then just flavor. Either way, there should be a way of achieving both types, and you should have to pay something for the better version. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 15 May 2012 18:10:35 |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2012 : 19:59:47
|
I had hoped differently.
It may turn out well though...we shall see. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2012 : 20:13:20
|
| Spellcasters stand on only one side of the class balance scale. I personally think it's too early to focus on the consequences of game rules and tweaks to spells and spellcasting simply because at this point we have little hard information about "wizards and priests" and just as little about the "fighter and thief" side of the scale. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 15 May 2012 20:13:54 |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2012 : 20:38:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Spellcasters stand on only one side of the class balance scale. I personally think it's too early to focus on the consequences of game rules and tweaks to spells and spellcasting simply because at this point we have little hard information about "wizards and priests" and just as little about the "fighter and thief" side of the scale.
Bingo. If you haven't signed up for the Open version of the playtest. Go for it. It's free, afterall. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4457 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2012 : 21:05:38
|
Some points to address:
quote:
Cantrips as At-Will Magic: We're hoping to keep the concept of cantrips for wizards, and expand it to include some nifty attack and utility spells. Wizards would be able to cast spells at will, much as they do in 4E. We think that making cantrips a bit more powerful, while also making them at-will, will go a long way toward making restrictions on prepared spells more palatable for groups that don't see caster dominance as an issue.
We also look at at-will magic as a key tool in keeping the adventure moving forward. You can still unleash all your prepared spells in rapid succession, but that doesn't leave you powerless.
I think this is a very basic, yet important aspect of wizardry. I think cantrips have the versatility to be both "simple magicks for novice wizards" as well as "useful spells as default wizard go-tos". Meaning that they are effectively Wizardry 101 spells. They're the first attack-spells Wizards use and thus will never be super-powerful, but useful for general battle. In retrospect of 3E (and more recently, Pathfinder) I think they started the cantrips on a good foot, but failed at their application over 20th level. It was my experience that they were hardly ever used excpet Light, Detect Magic, and Read Magic. Everything else......not too much.
Also, because 4E gave us At-Will magic that actually does combat stuff, taking that away would be a bad move IMO. Turning these into cantrips makes more sense in that these are designed to be a wizard's "every day spells". But they need not ALL be combat related. As Wooly said, Prestidigitation could easily cover everything he said in what magics were prefermedd with this Mage-Fighter character.
quote:
Reducing Total Spell Slots: Since wizards now have at-will magic, they need fewer spell slots. The current design places a cap on the total number of spells you can prepare, and it caps the maximum number of spells you can prepare of each level. The reduction of spell slots pushes more reliance on cantrips, and it makes combinations harder to repeat.
Spells Don't Automatically Scale: We're thinking that wizard spells scale only if they are prepared with higher-level slots. That would mean that a wizard's spells don't all become more powerful as he or she levels up. The wizard would gain some new, more powerful spells. The wizard would not gain those spells while also making the rest of the spell list more powerful.
Both of these things will go a LONG way in reducing the LFQW effect we saw in 3E. For those not familiar with the LFQW (Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard), it's basically means that Wizards grow to ridiculous powers via spell/spell slots as they level where as fighters.....don't. Limiting Spell Slots means that wizards will still need to rest to regain their most prominent spells. In 3E a high level wizard, with the assumption of Weath by Level, would practically NEVER run out of spells before the group needed to rest. It was a fail-safe early on (which created another problem) but lost any balancing factor after approx 9th-10th level.
Couple this with the possibility that spells don't automatically enhance every level means that Fireballs (and other lower level spells) won't be obscene in high level play. They might still be useful, but not a Go-To.
quote:
Spellcasting Is Dangerous: This point ventures into the theoretical, since we still aren't 100% certain how we want to pursue it (so it's just the kind of thing that we want to gather feedback on in the playtest). The current proposal is that a wizard who takes damage has a chance to miscast his or her next spell. A wizard can always instead choose to do something else or use a cantrip without risk of failure. In addition, a miscast spell is never lost. The wizard can try again next round.
The idea here is to capture the feel of earlier editions, where wizards needed some amount of protection to unleash their most powerful abilities. In play, it means that a wizard has to be careful in a fight, lean on defensive magic, or otherwise stay out of harm's way.
I LOVE the fact that damage in the previous round might make the mage fumble his spell. But that fumble won't mean that it's *poof*, gone forever. What it does do is make the mage thing about using a lower level spell OR a spell that doesn't have a chance of being messed up (meaning, a Cantrip attack). |
Edited by - Diffan on 16 May 2012 00:18:25 |
|
|
|
idilippy
Senior Scribe
USA
417 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2012 : 21:12:19
|
| I have to say that, despite my enjoyment of Pathfinder, I am leaning away from cantrips being at will because of one spell, Detect Magic. Having your players, in every single situation that it might be useful, immediately say "I use detect magic" is getting as annoying with wizards as it must be with DMs who have Paladin players who constantly use Detect Evil in every possible situation. |
Edited by - idilippy on 15 May 2012 21:13:05 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4457 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2012 : 21:45:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by idilippy
I have to say that, despite my enjoyment of Pathfinder, I am leaning away from cantrips being at will because of one spell, Detect Magic. Having your players, in every single situation that it might be useful, immediately say "I use detect magic" is getting as annoying with wizards as it must be with DMs who have Paladin players who constantly use Detect Evil in every possible situation.
I'm not seeing what the problem is. Detect magic has Little combat use because of how many rounds it takes to get any useful information. Even and non combat Situations, it takes About 3 rounds For you to get the number of magical items and location and a 60 foot cone.
It's not like it can be use and 1 turn the entire room lights up like a magical christmas tree |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36861 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2012 : 22:55:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by idilippy
I have to say that, despite my enjoyment of Pathfinder, I am leaning away from cantrips being at will because of one spell, Detect Magic. Having your players, in every single situation that it might be useful, immediately say "I use detect magic" is getting as annoying with wizards as it must be with DMs who have Paladin players who constantly use Detect Evil in every possible situation.
The proficiency my character used turned cantrips into a proficiency -- so until 5th or 8th level (I don't recall which), it was necessary to make a proficiency check to be able to toss off a cantrip. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Xar Zarath
Senior Scribe
Malaysia
552 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 03:58:08
|
IMO cantrips should be kind of at-will. You should not even need to prepare them to cast them, it should be at every level you get some cantrips that you add to your overall.
There was also a discussion on how they wanted to let fireball scale with level, though i do not see this... |
Everything ends where it begins. Period.
|
|
|
|
Xar Zarath
Senior Scribe
Malaysia
552 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 04:00:10
|
| Then again after reading the article, i dont like the way the wizard is going... |
Everything ends where it begins. Period.
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4457 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 04:27:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xar Zarath
IMO cantrips should be kind of at-will. You should not even need to prepare them to cast them, it should be at every level you get some cantrips that you add to your overall.
There was also a discussion on how they wanted to let fireball scale with level, though i do not see this...
Agreed about the Cantrips. You get a similiar situation in 4E where every so many levels you get more At-Will options to choose from as you gain levels. And if Cantrips are relatively balanced, more options doesn't necessarily mean more powerful so long as the numbers don't jump out too far.
As for scaling spells in general, I remember some article that said they'd like to allow spell scaling to have bigger, stronger, longer lasting effects but that would require a substantial hike in Spell Level. For example, your Fireball normally deals 5d6 fire damage as a 3rd level spell. It has 100 ft. range with a 10-ft. burst. If you then prepare Fireball as a 5th level spell, it could incrase the damage say....+2d6 (for a total of +7d6) and the range would increase to 120 ft. with a 15-ft. radius burst. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 10:28:23
|
quote:
Creativity, Not Dominance: Finally, on a personal level, I'd love it if creative use of a spell focused more on improvisation rather than number crunching. A web spell entangles the bandit chief's horse, cutting off his best chance to escape. Grease allows a rogue caught in a gian crab's claw to wriggle free with ease. If we build good, clear descriptions into the spells that bring them to life and combine these descriptions with a robust set of DM tools for improvisation, spells become tools that characters can use in creative ways rather than strictly defined special abilities. Hopefully, reining in some of the mechanical challenges that D&D has faced in the past makes it easier to encourage creative use of spells in a compelling, immersive way.
I agree with this particular detail most heartily. But while it's easy to say "good clear descriptions, combined with a robust set of DM tools for improvisation", I suspect it's no easy task at all.
I'll refer to the classic example of illusions. Many DMs would argue that the 3rd level spell spectral force could, for example, create a convincing illusion of the 3rd level spell fireball. Of course it's only an illusion, nothing really ignites and explodes and burns, but it would appear to be a fireball to anyone targeted by it, they'd really have no reason to disbelieve the illusion unless they knew something about the illusionist or their abnormally astute perceptions could detect flaws and inconsistencies in the incoming fireball ... seeing a wizard casting a spell and hurling it towards you is quite a believable thing, after all, most especially if you've seen it before. I've known DMs who would would allow spectral force to convincingly duplicate almost any spell of 3rd level or less. I've seen a few DMs argue that illusions are innately inferior to the "real" thing, and so could even duplicate the appearance of spells of higher level, though with increasing chances of detection or failure. I've seen a DMs few argue that illusions are innately inferior to the "real" thing and so they basically hamstring illusions to the point of utter uselessness; some DMs would treat even a 5th level programmed illusion as so flawed or hyperspecialized in application that in practice it turns out to be little better than casting a cantrip. AD&D 2E dedicated literally dozens and dozens of pages specifically towards discussion of illusion magic and spellcraft (much of which became self-contradictory as subsequent writings evolved the topic) ... 3E sort of took it one step further, since I know of at least two thick d20/OGL "books of illusion" specifically dedicated towards exhaustively detailed treatment of illusions and illusionists.
Is this the sort of thing we'll see in 5E? For every spell? Realistically, I wouldn't expect what amounts to complete tomes discussing in-depth details and particulars for every spell in the game. Yet, without such exhaustively robust references, many spellcasters (and DMs) will suffer ... the sad reality is that the majority of D&D players in recent times are apprehensive about improvising or changing rules, they lack the confidence or creativity to defy hard canon, they depend on what is written in the rulebooks to provide all the information they need and will rarely consider other sources of information as valid. I'm not saying 5E faces an impossible task, but I suspect spells and magic will be a "special" and wordy tangle of awkwardly haphazard case-by-case rules and example which can't possibly cover every situation - just as it was in every previous rules edition.
It would be great if the spell description was written in such a way that all spellcasting players and their DMs could readily see and understand (and agree on!) every possible use and parameter of their magics. A wizard could use a monster summoning spell to bypass locked or one-way doors, he could use traceless walk to safely move across a floor covered with lethally toxic dust, he could use airy water to carbonate fruit beverages during brunch. The list of particulars could go on forever, and after a point it becomes unwieldy and counterproductive while also creating a sort of dependency.
My question is whether magic will be treated as a "tool", predictable, reliable, repeatable, with qualities and quantities that can be measured and calculated and engineered, just as it was treated in 3E ... or whether magic will be treated as a "mystery", fantastic, mysterious, wondrous, never quite predictable or exactly what you might expect, slightly incomprehensible to mortal minds, and expression of art which always manages to go slightly beyond the known rules, more as it was treated in early 1E Dragonlance and Realms settings. I suspect it will invariably become the former approach, since that's really what modern gamers expect and want from their modern games. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 16 May 2012 10:46:50 |
|
|
|
Xar Zarath
Senior Scribe
Malaysia
552 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 11:33:12
|
It is much more easier to make magic a tool in dnd but it becomes something much more in novels. Trying to bring the kind of spells portrayed in novels over to the game in terms of flavour and with the mystery implied is ultimately up to the way the DM does it.
Moreover i thought a spell of illusion to create something, like say a griffon as done by Dmitra in Unclean, does the illusion later become a real creature? Can this also be done in earlier editions and be brought over to 5e? |
Everything ends where it begins. Period.
|
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 15:27:02
|
| There are canon examples - from novels - of permanent and sentient illusions becoming "real" objects and people, even major characters. Not the sort of thing easily covered in a balanced tabletop D&D ruleset. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36861 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 16:59:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
There are canon examples - from novels - of permanent and sentient illusions becoming "real" objects and people, even major characters. Not the sort of thing easily covered in a balanced tabletop D&D ruleset.
Sentient illusions? What novels are those in? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 17:59:16
|
There were several in 1E/2E-era Realms novels. The first, a young girl, part of a haphazard adventuring party, was a potent mage specialized in illusion who was originally created as a programmed illusion (of a young girl) and gained full sentience after observing and experiencing many unusual magics and events over the course of many years. I can't recall which novel, although I do recall being disappointed by a particular detail - she basically used a weird spell to destroy a summoned demon (which was a bit unusual and extreme, but still fair enough) ... while conveniently enough also simultaneously destroying every one of the numerous other demons in the same brood (which was a blatantly unforgivable misunderstanding or exploitation of the idea/rule that all demons can communicate by telepathy).
I wish I could recall which novel, but really all I can recall is being offended by the author's undisguised heavyhanded manhandling of the game rules to make the story work (the demon-weird thing was really only the final straw in a poorly written novel riddled with such noxious manipulations). It might have been one of the Pools or Harpers novels. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 16 May 2012 18:00:59 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4457 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 18:24:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
There are canon examples - from novels - of permanent and sentient illusions becoming "real" objects and people, even major characters. Not the sort of thing easily covered in a balanced tabletop D&D ruleset.
Sentient illusions? What novels are those in?
The first one that comes to mind is the elf illusion (and love interest of Kern) named Listle. A magic pendant allows her to maintain a consciousness and allow her to be corporeal or insubstantial at-will |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36861 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 20:04:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
There are canon examples - from novels - of permanent and sentient illusions becoming "real" objects and people, even major characters. Not the sort of thing easily covered in a balanced tabletop D&D ruleset.
Sentient illusions? What novels are those in?
The first one that comes to mind is the elf illusion (and love interest of Kern) named Listle. A magic pendant allows her to maintain a consciousness and allow her to be corporeal or insubstantial at-will
Again, what novel?
And are there any in source material? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4457 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2012 : 21:02:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Again, what novel?
And are there any in source material?
Whoops, it was in Pools of Twilight. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Xar Zarath
Senior Scribe
Malaysia
552 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 06:14:58
|
I admit I have not read that novel. Here in my country we still have Borders but it is not well stocked like it used to be. Lucky for Kinokuniya but then again most of the older releases don't make it here.
Still the most important thing I am worried about is necromancy for the wizard. I hope they make more fun and useful as opposed to something like in Heroes of Shadow which was disappointing... |
Everything ends where it begins. Period.
|
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 18:39:57
|
I like this concept of spells not scaling directly with level, but instead giving you the option to scale them by giving up higher level slots. If you really like a low-level spell, you can keep using it into higher levels, but that isn't IN ADDITION to your more powerful spells.
Take the 3.5 magic missile, for example. At 1st level, this is a default attack spell and a decent choice when you really need to hit. As you advance, you start firing more missiles, but you're also getting more powerful spells. So at 3rd level, not only do you have some powerful 2nd level attack spells (such as scorching ray), but your magic missile is at double base effectiveness AND you have extra spell slots to prepare it. At 5th level, you have even more slots, and your magic missile is at triple base effectiveness. Basically, you're getting new abilities AND your old abilities are getting better--double or triple the upgrades with every level. At high levels, your magic missile is devastating AND you're casting really potent high level spells.
If magic missile followed the rules Mike was talking about, then it would be a decent 1st level spell (and still relevant as a "zot!" attack as you advance), but it isn't going to compare to fireball (a 3rd level spell) . . . unless you use a 3rd level spell slot to prepare your magic missile. In this case, you're investing more magic energy into the spell, and it has license to be comparable to a fireball.
A fireball, on the other hand, deals (say) 6d6 damage when you prepare it with a 3rd level slot. If you prepare it with a 4th level slot, it does 8d6. If you prepare it with a 5th level slot, 10d6. And it could continue to scale from there--basically, you're simulating a more powerful spell using the same mechanical chassis. (It also makes that scene in Elminster at the Magefair make even more sense. Why did Elminster win the fireball competition? He prepared his fireball into a 12th level spell slot or whatever.)
Basically, it's making spells scale by SPELL SLOT, rather than by caster level. And of course what spell slots you have depends on your level.
It also imbeds metamagic firmly into the baseline class, which I like.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 18:46:59
|
You mean you guys don't miss the days when 16th level Manshoon could hit the party for a 16d6 Fireball? Then follow that up with a Magic Missile spell that launched 8 missiles that did a d4+1 each to knock out anyone left standing?
 |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3807 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 19:21:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I like this concept of spells not scaling directly with level, but instead giving you the option to scale them by giving up higher level slots. If you really like a low-level spell, you can keep using it into higher levels, but that isn't IN ADDITION to your more powerful spells.
Take the 3.5 magic missile, for example. At 1st level, this is a default attack spell and a decent choice when you really need to hit. As you advance, you start firing more missiles, but you're also getting more powerful spells. So at 3rd level, not only do you have some powerful 2nd level attack spells (such as scorching ray), but your magic missile is at double base effectiveness AND you have extra spell slots to prepare it. At 5th level, you have even more slots, and your magic missile is at triple base effectiveness. Basically, you're getting new abilities AND your old abilities are getting better--double or triple the upgrades with every level. At high levels, your magic missile is devastating AND you're casting really potent high level spells.
If magic missile followed the rules Mike was talking about, then it would be a decent 1st level spell (and still relevant as a "zot!" attack as you advance), but it isn't going to compare to fireball (a 3rd level spell) . . . unless you use a 3rd level spell slot to prepare your magic missile. In this case, you're investing more magic energy into the spell, and it has license to be comparable to a fireball.
A fireball, on the other hand, deals (say) 6d6 damage when you prepare it with a 3rd level slot. If you prepare it with a 4th level slot, it does 8d6. If you prepare it with a 5th level slot, 10d6. And it could continue to scale from there--basically, you're simulating a more powerful spell using the same mechanical chassis. (It also makes that scene in Elminster at the Magefair make even more sense. Why did Elminster win the fireball competition? He prepared his fireball into a 12th level spell slot or whatever.)
Basically, it's making spells scale by SPELL SLOT, rather than by caster level. And of course what spell slots you have depends on your level.
It also imbeds metamagic firmly into the baseline class, which I like.
Cheers
I don't think damage spells should be used as the main example here, because most of the times they were weak compared to other kind of spells (at least at mid-high levels), unless they also did something else. Orbs, Radiant Assault, Iceberg and stuff like those were real threats, but only because they combined decent damage with devastating effects (or because they bypassed some resistances which could pose a problem to other classes). Spell damage became an issue when people could start stacking metamagic modifiers to get spells whose damage bypassed basically every resistance (especially in combination with other spells, like Assay spell resistance) and was able to easily take down even a ''boss'' in a single round. Otherwise damage spells were generally a bad choice if compared to the ones that could disable an enemy much more efficiently (grease/ray of enfeeblement vs magic missile, slow vs fireball, wall of force vs cone of cold, freezing fog vs chain lightning etc...).
CC spells were the real I win button so they should work mainly to balance them IMO.
Spell damage scaling with CL wasn't that bad, actually. When you got 5th level spell slots a 5d4+5 (about 17 hp damage, that barely scratches most foes at that level) magic missile could accomplish way less than a fighter could by simply using his/her weapon (rightfully so, ofc) or than some other spell could. So, wasting a round to cast a low level damage spell was kind of pointless most of the times and they represented some sort of emergency resource. That sounds fine to me.
As for metamagic, this system does not implement it at all. With metamagic, beside increasing spells damage, wizards could modify them by adding awesome effects, like entangling, or fear or energy admixtures and shape sculpting which not only were powerful, but also added flavor and fun (I do not know if it was legit, but think about someone using invisible spell on an illusion to fool true-seers). I'd like to see this re-implemented. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 17 May 2012 20:07:46 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4457 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 20:55:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Spell damage scaling with CL wasn't that bad, actually. When you got 5th level spell slots a 5d4+5 (about 17 hp damage, that barely scratches most foes at that level) magic missile could accomplish way less than a fighter could by simply using his/her weapon (rightfully so, ofc) or than some other spell could. So, wasting a round to cast a low level damage spell was kind of pointless most of the times and they represented some sort of emergency resource. That sounds fine to me.
Can't disagree with you about the effectiveness of Damaging dealing spells with Pre-4th Edition systems. But that was something I think was a problem. At low levels, sure damage dealing spells were fun and useful but as one levels up, it just fell away to really ridiculous combos that rarely did actual HP damage. That's something they'll need to address with D&D:Next. I think damage dealing spells should be a fun AND advantagous option for wizards that just love slinging d6's on the table. Something that I hope gets brought from 4E was the Evoker's ability to make his spells "Brutal". This property (originally a Weapon-only property) had a numerical value which was normally 1 or 2. And when you rolled for your spell's damage, you could reroll any 1's or 2's until they no longer showed that amount on the die. It was a lot of fun to re-roll 4 out of 6 die because they all had 1's on them, hehehe.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
As for metamagic, this system does not implement it at all. With metamagic, beside increasing spells damage, wizards could modify them by adding awesome effects, like entangling, or fear or energy admixtures and shape sculpting which not only were powerful, but also added flavor and fun (I do not know if it was legit, but think about someone using invisible spell on an illusion to fool true-seers). I'd like to see this re-implemented.
The base principal of Metamagic was using spell slots to augment/incrase/effect your spells from their original intent. This is exactly what they're trying to emulate. With this system that D&D:Next is proposing, ALL (or mostly all) spells will have some sort of way to increase via higher spell slot. Whether it's more damage die, longer range, bigger effected area, targets more foes, or even increasing it's effectiveness (meaning it's harder to resist or dodge), then that takes up a good portion of Meta-magic feats.
You could then infuse actual changes within the spell's description to incorporate other changes via spell slots as well. A Magic Missle that increase to a higher odd-level spell slot gets an additional d4+1 on it's damage. Any even-level spell slot and it receives a longer range. At a 5th level spell slot, it can be cast as a minor action. At a 7th level spell slot (assuming we're going back to the 1-9 levels over a 20th level progression) means you change the die from d4's to d6's. At a 9th level spell slot, you can cast it twice as a Minor action.
Yea, I could see many spells getting this sort of treatment and leavine meta-magic (via Feat form) by the wayside. That'd be nice. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 20:59:23
|
| Well, now, I think this discussion does circumlocutively work its way back to class balance. If a wizard type basically accumulates one damage die every level or two - which bypasses armor and affects an area! - then it's probably only fair to have the fighter type be able to whollop many dice per round out as well. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3807 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2012 : 21:18:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
As for metamagic, this system does not implement it at all. With metamagic, beside increasing spells damage, wizards could modify them by adding awesome effects, like entangling, or fear or energy admixtures and shape sculpting which not only were powerful, but also added flavor and fun (I do not know if it was legit, but think about someone using invisible spell on an illusion to fool true-seers). I'd like to see this re-implemented.
The base principal of Metamagic was using spell slots to augment/incrase/effect your spells from their original intent. This is exactly what they're trying to emulate. With this system that D&D:Next is proposing, ALL (or mostly all) spells will have some sort of way to increase via higher spell slot. Whether it's more damage die, longer range, bigger effected area, targets more foes, or even increasing it's effectiveness (meaning it's harder to resist or dodge), then that takes up a good portion of Meta-magic feats.
You could then infuse actual changes within the spell's description to incorporate other changes via spell slots as well. A Magic Missle that increase to a higher odd-level spell slot gets an additional d4+1 on it's damage. Any even-level spell slot and it receives a longer range. At a 5th level spell slot, it can be cast as a minor action. At a 7th level spell slot (assuming we're going back to the 1-9 levels over a 20th level progression) means you change the die from d4's to d6's. At a 9th level spell slot, you can cast it twice as a Minor action.
Yea, I could see many spells getting this sort of treatment and leavine meta-magic (via Feat form) by the wayside. That'd be nice.
Yes, maybe I shouldn't have said ''doesn't implement metamagic AT ALL'' but, reading the article, I had the impression that they only wanted to include the damage increasing effect with the spell-slot scaling system. If they include a possibility to add other effects to spells by increasing their slot, like you suggested, then I'll be fine.
However, taking your example, a 4d6+4 magic missile is worth a swift action at level 13 but I'm not sure it'll be worth to consume a powerful 7th level slot just to have the chance to inflict that meager damage, which will be only a scratch again if they keep the same amount of hp creatures had in 3.5ed. So, the problem with damage spells will persist.
Anyway, one thing I'd like to see again is the possibility of modifying spells by adding effects they normally wouldn't have (like invisible, entangling, sculpted... spell). As I said, they can add flavorful and funny effect to spells that would otherwise be basically the same (fireball and cone of cold, for example). |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 17 May 2012 21:24:12 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
5e Wizard and Sorcerer
