| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Blue
Acolyte
USA
13 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Oct 2012 : 16:53:00
|
Hi everyone,
I have been lurking for quite some time and finally wanted to drop my spell of invisibility to say hello. As primarily a reader, I was very disappointed with the changes to the realms that came with 4e, and am looking forward to the developments of D&DNext. I've been following the discussion about it here and at the wizards forum, and one of the complaints leveled by some at 3.x has been the imbalanced wizard class. I am not interested in opening the debate about whether you agree with that complaint or not, or what you think should be done (if anything) to address it in the next version of D&D. However, the developers want to address some of those concerns in some way, and I'm curious what you thought ought to be done as it pertains to the Realms. Specifically,my perception is that the realms is characterized by a few VERY powerful magic users, who are not easily challenged by anybody, let alone an unprepared fighter or Rogue. I happen to like the Realms with its very powerful magic traditions, yet am sympathetic to people who play PNP, and Play as non-magic using classes and feel unuseful at higher levels. Also, from reading :discussions of the latest play tests, it appears that almost every class will have the option of being a magic user. How do you think this potential influx of new magic users might effect the realms?
|
Edited by - Blue on 08 Oct 2012 17:17:37
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2012 : 17:16:42
|
When everyone can do it, magic is no longer special. When the fantastical becomes the mundane, it is no longer fantasy... merely fiction.
I think I only ran a Magic-user once, and it wasn't in D&D. I applaud 4e's efforts to balance everything so perfectly, I just think they went a bit overboard. The problem in 3e is that they took away the DMs power and put nearly all of it in the hands of the players... PCs should NOT be able to do everything an NPC can. The need for 'uber-powerful evil wizards' lead us to having uber-powerful PC wizards.
Just because the bad guy can snap his fingers and level a city doesn't mean your character should be able to. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 08 Oct 2012 17:17:04 |
 |
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11808 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2012 : 17:38:42
|
The realms at its upper end is dominated by those who can use magic, but that has more to do with magic being able counter aging issues and the fact that with age comes a more decrepit body but more powerful mental faculties. I understand you don't want to discuss the complaints of 4E, but quite frankly, it needs to be discussed. The core idea behind a lot of FR wizard stories is "learning that new spell on the horion" or "developing the latest and greatest new spell of destruction/control/protection, etc...", and quite frankly the 4th edition wizards mechanically don't fit this structure of being able to add new spells all the time. Therefore, from a believability standpoint, the game and the stories start to make a person suspend their disbelief.
If D&DNext is going to receive any kind of support from myself, it will need to allow for wizards of this kind (they have a large store of spells, but can't draw upon all of them at any given time). Now, it can also have other arcane spellcasters whose spell selection is limited but they can cast such more often. One major core idea of the realms has always been that the traditions of magic are vast and varied, so they should be able to easily handle the idea that there's several different "types" of wizards. This all being said, they need to release the most "common" of these base types up front if they don't want to lose their audience (not plan on making a lot of extra income by releasing multiple sourcebooks for alternate types of wizards and they not be released for a year). If they want to release this type of wizard as something specific to the realms campaign setting, that could be a good way to go.
As to the idea of every class being a magic-user, that would draw a bit of distaste from me. I've always had players in a party who wanted to play a more simplistic class (my best friend always played a tank so that all he really had to worry about in combat was where to go and who to attack). If you want to play a fighter who has special "skills" there was also the option of building feats towards that (I had another character who was all about being highly maneuverable and doing tricks like disarming and tripping opponents).
Personally, I understood the people who complained about wizards in 2nd edition. I personally don't think ths problem was as bad in third edition (and many people whom I've seen complain don't understand all the stringent constraints placed upon the class both monetarily and via spell/feat requirements. For instance, many claim contingency is so horrible, when all you have to do to remove their contingency is destroy the focus (a simple ivory studded statuette covered in gems). They claim stoneskin is so powerful, when all you need to do is have a weapon made of adamantine (which any powerful fighter should have anyway), even if its non-magical. Compare that to a rogue who feints said stoneskin'd wizard and applies an additional 8d6 sneak attack dmg + base weapon dmg + probably some other bonus 10-20 points of dmg in elemental dmg, unholy dmg, enhancement bonus, dmg due to str, etc.. and wizards can easily be one-shotted. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Bladewind
Master of Realmslore
Netherlands
1280 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2012 : 19:18:19
|
Mastery of the simple spells is respected aswell; I remember a scene where Khelben Blackstaff uses a simple cantrip meant for wringing water from clothes to disrupt his opponents concentration as his robe gets tangled in its self.
As I understand from the discussions on the D&Dnext playtest they are going to split up the wizard into an plethora of casting systems/traditions which will emphasize the magical story of each wizardly or arcana school. As of now, D&Dnext wizards are very squishy (a common complaint), while Sorcerers are quite powerful (draconic bloodline allows for sorcs in scale mail armor) but a little less versatile.
I hope that the emphasis on arcane traditions will mean that in the realms we'll finally get to learn how wizardly instititions (like schools, academies and cabals) operate. What's needed in spell research for a transmuter in Amn might be totally different for an illusionist in Luskan. Not to mention the differences in magical taboos.
Also, I'd love to see detail on 'regional spells', spells that are readily available and popular in the North while very exotic for a Red Wizard (and vice versa). Perhaps a magic missile from the Arcane Brotherhood in Luskan has a telltale whistling sound, while Thayan force missiles are distinctly red in color. |
My campaign sketches
Druidic Groves
Creature Feature: Giant Spiders |
|
|
|
rjfras
Learned Scribe
261 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2012 : 23:06:11
|
i dont know where you are getting the idea that almost every class will have the option of being a magic user, unless you are talking about multi-classing which you have the option of in pretty much any of the editions. Right now in play testing, fighters are fighters and rogues are rogues, they don't have magic user abilities.
Right now there are three versions of how mages cast spells in the playtesting: wizards, sorcerer and warlock |
|
|
|
Blue
Acolyte
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 04:04:43
|
| Thanks for answering. Rjfras, right now in playtime packet 2 there is a specialty called Magic User which any class can take. That specialty grants the ability to cast spells, with the only prerequisite being that the character must have int 11 or higher. That character can also gain a familiar at level 3. Presumably they will add more potential feats as they develop it further. |
Edited by - Blue on 09 Oct 2012 04:08:11 |
|
|
|
rjfras
Learned Scribe
261 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 04:09:28
|
yea, but that specialty gives them 2 cantrips..... 2 cantrips does not a mage make... imo..
and having a little animal following you around doesn't make you a mage either.... |
|
|
|
idilippy
Senior Scribe
USA
417 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 04:19:49
|
| I think that feat is actually a great one for "magic dabbler" type characters, someone who studied at wizardry for a time and found it too hard or something. But yeah, I don't see that as everyone becoming a wizard. |
|
|
|
rjfras
Learned Scribe
261 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 04:24:44
|
mechanics wise, how many fighters are going to take magic user to get 2 cantrips when they could take:
Archer, Acolyte (still not the best choice, but better then a dead animal ), Dual Wielder or Guardian
and a rogue is most likely going to take something like Lurker or Jack of All Trades or Archer
and these are just a handful of Specialties...
none of them are overpowering, they add some additional flavor, but for the most part, folks are probably going to go with something that meshes well with their class
i doubt you are going to see everyone taking Magic User to get 2 cantrips and a much weakened version of a familiar |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 04:32:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
When everyone can do it, magic is no longer special. When the fantastical becomes the mundane, it is no longer fantasy... merely fiction.
That's a very strange attitude.
That would make stories set in Faerie or the local mythological equivalent, somehow not fantasy stories at all. I don't think that I can accept a definition of 'fantasy fiction' that would exclude a tale of otherwordly scheming fae intriguing against each other for their place in the line of succession after the Queen of Air and Darkness.
Speculative fiction based on the premise of widespread and culturally accepted magic is no less valid 'fantasy fiction' than speculative fiction featuring rare and distrusted magic.
|
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 12 Oct 2012 : 11:25:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
When everyone can do it, magic is no longer special. When the fantastical becomes the mundane, it is no longer fantasy... merely fiction.
That's a very strange attitude.
That would make stories set in Faerie or the local mythological equivalent, somehow not fantasy stories at all. I don't think that I can accept a definition of 'fantasy fiction' that would exclude a tale of otherwordly scheming fae intriguing against each other for their place in the line of succession after the Queen of Air and Darkness.
Speculative fiction based on the premise of widespread and culturally accepted magic is no less valid 'fantasy fiction' than speculative fiction featuring rare and distrusted magic.
I think Markus is referring to the ideal of 'that which is amazing ceases to be amazing when everyone can do it' - or as Syndrome said, "When everyone's super...no one will be."
In the Amazing Engine RPG, there was a supplement called Magitech. It postulated an Earth that had evolved along familiar historical lines, but technology had been replaced almost entirely with magic. No cars, but every family had a flying carpet, and little Davy was constantly behind in his homework in Necromancy 101.
So your example of fae would not be about the magic of fae per se, but about the fae society, the scheming to succeed the queen, and the story behind it. Magic would simply be one of the many threads that weaves it together, much as cars, guns, and computers would be threads in our own modern day.
All fae can use magic, much as most anyone in the modern-day West can use a television or a microwave - things that people in medieval times (religious issues aside) would have thought to be absolutely beyond imagining. So most magic to a fae simply is, and is nothing more than a means to an end. Now, have that fae step out in London or Amsterdam or wherever, then the magic is a big deal, much as an aircraft carrier would be to the Phoenician fleets.
- OMH |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 12 Oct 2012 : 19:47:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
The realms at its upper end is dominated by those who can use magic, but that has more to do with magic being able counter aging issues and the fact that with age comes a more decrepit body but more powerful mental faculties. I understand you don't want to discuss the complaints of 4E, but quite frankly, it needs to be discussed. The core idea behind a lot of FR wizard stories is "learning that new spell on the horion" or "developing the latest and greatest new spell of destruction/control/protection, etc...", and quite frankly the 4th edition wizards mechanically don't fit this structure of being able to add new spells all the time. Therefore, from a believability standpoint, the game and the stories start to make a person suspend their disbelief.
Never had a problem in my 4E games where wizards added spells to their spell books outside of leveling up. Be it at-will, encounter, or daily spells, they're out there to be "researched" or found. Even converted quite a few from 3E to 4E so they could use them. The balancing factor is that they cannot prepare and use more than another character. So a wizard that learns 12 different At-Will spells is still subject to prepare 2 (or 3 if they're human) for the day. Same goes for each level. Now, the rules do state that Wizards inscribe Daily and Utility spells into their books (and I think encounter-based ones too) but nothing stopping a DM from adding or removing more.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
If D&DNext is going to receive any kind of support from myself, it will need to allow for wizards of this kind (they have a large store of spells, but can't draw upon all of them at any given time). Now, it can also have other arcane spellcasters whose spell selection is limited but they can cast such more often. One major core idea of the realms has always been that the traditions of magic are vast and varied, so they should be able to easily handle the idea that there's several different "types" of wizards. This all being said, they need to release the most "common" of these base types up front if they don't want to lose their audience (not plan on making a lot of extra income by releasing multiple sourcebooks for alternate types of wizards and they not be released for a year). If they want to release this type of wizard as something specific to the realms campaign setting, that could be a good way to go.
From a few of the recent Legens and Lore articles, I believe they're aiming for a variable Spellcasting system that's decided upon by either the DM (as an exmaple, using Vancian for everything) or perhaps Player's decision (Encounter-based Wizards, Vancian Sorcerers, Spellpoint Warlocks). In essence, the arcane class isn't preset and bolted down with 1 and only 1 specific spellcasting system. This allows for greater flexability and modularity. Something I fully support as a way to have a lot of players play the way they want pending DM permission.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
As to the idea of every class being a magic-user, that would draw a bit of distaste from me. I've always had players in a party who wanted to play a more simplistic class (my best friend always played a tank so that all he really had to worry about in combat was where to go and who to attack). If you want to play a fighter who has special "skills" there was also the option of building feats towards that (I had another character who was all about being highly maneuverable and doing tricks like disarming and tripping opponents).
The Magic-User feats really aren't all that great. You get two cantrips that are based off your Intelligence modifier for the DC and Spell Attacks. And it has a prerequisite of Int 11. Ergo, a Fighter that has a low to moderate Int isn't going to benefit greatly from such a feat. They're better off going something else with their specialty.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Personally, I understood the people who complained about wizards in 2nd edition. I personally don't think ths problem was as bad in third edition (and many people whom I've seen complain don't understand all the stringent constraints placed upon the class both monetarily and via spell/feat requirements. For instance, many claim contingency is so horrible, when all you have to do to remove their contingency is destroy the focus (a simple ivory studded statuette covered in gems). They claim stoneskin is so powerful, when all you need to do is have a weapon made of adamantine (which any powerful fighter should have anyway), even if its non-magical. Compare that to a rogue who feints said stoneskin'd wizard and applies an additional 8d6 sneak attack dmg + base weapon dmg + probably some other bonus 10-20 points of dmg in elemental dmg, unholy dmg, enhancement bonus, dmg due to str, etc.. and wizards can easily be one-shotted.
In my experience, at high levels (levels in which spellcasters dominate IMO) in 3X often it comes with "Who goes first?". The problem is spellcasters have easy ways of boosting their Initiative where as non-casters don't (there's a feat or two and a magical item) but that's about it and it can easily be taken by the wizard too. Additionally, there are spells that can and do render characters useless for a number of rounds or for hours. Hightened Hold Person or Hold Monster or Mass Hold person, Otto's irrestable dance, Forcecage. Then there are spells that just circumvent HP altogether to kill such as Enervation, Energy Drain, Magic Jar, plus Wall of Iron (to topple on foes). And don't forget that you can always just summon monsters to aid you in fighting so you don't have to.
So when one compares the multiple ways in which a wizard can contribute to the game and then look at the fighter who has..........feats and some magic gear, yea I say that the imbalance thing was pretty spot on. But the OP has asked us not to argue about the imbalance of 3E or any other editions so that's all I say about the matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Blue
However, the developers want to address some of those concerns in some way, and I'm curious what you thought ought to be done as it pertains to the Realms.
Basically, staying away from Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards and they should be fine. If your not familiar with the phrase, there are multiple ways of finding out what this mean. But, in a nut shell, it's a theory of design that says Fighers are good at low levels and wizards aren't, then the reverse is true at higher levels. If they can maintain equal relevency throughout ALL levels of play, then I'll be happy and I think the Realms would benefit from this as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Blue
Specifically,my perception is that the realms is characterized by a few VERY powerful magic users, who are not easily challenged by anybody, let alone an unprepared fighter or Rogue. I happen to like the Realms with its very powerful magic traditions, yet am sympathetic to people who play PNP, and Play as non-magic using classes and feel unuseful at higher levels. Also, from reading :discussions of the latest play tests, it appears that almost every class will have the option of being a magic user. How do you think this potential influx of new magic users might effect the realms?
I think the problem started with 3X in their attempt to completely detail high-level NPCs mechanically. That is why PCs feel the need to gain power and spell and all that, to be on equal footing in terms of mechanical might. When avatar of gods got CRs and Levels and modifiers, PCs felt the need to meet them with their own goodies. Thus, an arms race was started. REmove these elements from the game and PCs are more worried about lower level things like Orcs, Goblins, Drow, and Giants. Let the Gods be mysterious and aloof, not detailed with stats and random magical gear.
As for high level play, aside from allowing Wizards to go quadratic, limiting the true power of spells is something that I feel should remain in D&D. If a wizard wants to cast Wish, make it an extreamly involved ritual requiring a LOT of stuff to pull off once. Don't make it a 6-second spell requiring XP. for one, I feel this cheapens the spell and the RP elements that come along with it. Also, don't let wizards have the capacity to replace other characters. DOn't let summoning spells be better at fighting than the fighter. Don't let cleric buff spells make them better than Fighters all day long. Require complex rituals for spells that discern traps or open doors. This means that a Rogue is just a better choice in quick, gritty situations for those skills.
As for the possibility of everyone casting spells.....if Multiclasing is going to be in play, then it's gonna happen. I already mentioned the Magic-User specialty, so I won't repeat myself but this also ties in with what the DM allows and doesn't allow. Markustay believes that the power fell from the DM to the Player, but I wholeheartedly disagree. The DM never lost the power to say "NO" and run his campaign the way he wants it. But this is far more a social-interaction problem than a system one. If a player is demanding to play a certain thing and won't see reason, then playing 2E or 3X or 4E won't solve that problem at all. |
Edited by - Diffan on 12 Oct 2012 19:50:30 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Wizards in the D&DNext Realms
