They're almost aways better than making a skill check, typically replicating the highest tier of success with no roll required.
Some, like Knock, are 'balanced' with situational disadvantages (a loud noise that could alert nearby enemies, if they exist) while others, like Dimension Door have no situational disadvantages and allow for successes far beyond the scope of anything a skill check could ever achieve.
"We need to crack into the High Gnomish Vault of Swag Cash Money?! Sorry, Pfafner, Greatest Thief and Lockpick in the Land, this is too important, we can't risk failure, we'll get the level 1 Wizard to Knock it open instead."
There is no rule that says you cannot re-try skill checks. Failure on a pick lock skill check just means it takes you longer to open the door (unless the DC is high enough that you cannot make the check). Knock can possibly open doors quicker, but it will also do so without the silence of a rogue's skill check. The wizard has the lowest HP of any class. It has the hardest time building a high AC of any class. It uses its spells a limited number of times per day. When it uses a spell slot, that is a spell slot it cannot use on some other task. It cannot outperform the rogue in the "core" rogue skill set (hiding, taking objects off of living foes, scouting for hidden foes/traps, picking locks, disabling traps, and doing all of that without alerting your enemies). This complaint seems pretty shallow to me. Utility magic is not a problem in this edition.
Even assuming you're right, Cyber-Dave, and the existing spell list doesn't have any niche-breaking utility, the ritual mechanic makes utility magic highly accessible compared to past eds where such magc /was/ problematic, so the stage is set. All that's needed are a few incautiously-design spells.
@LFK: out of curiosity, do you like what you've seen in 5e or are you just here to complain that it's not 4e?
LFK wrote:
The fundamental problem with utility spells is the kinds of players who play wizards. From a party balance perspective, utility spells exist to fill a gap not otherwise filled by another party member (in this case, presuming that nobody wanted to play a rogue - or, horror of horrors, wanted to play a rogue who doesn't steal things). From a 2nd-edition-trained god-mode-wizard player's perspective, utility spells exist to make other party members obsolete so that he can sit at the far end of the table with a look of supercilious beatitude and revel in the dirty looks the other players are shooting at him (I play with one of these types - he's the reason I have a shelf full of practically untouched 4e books).
However, when rules are considered beholden to asshattery, we end up with hundred-page errata documents, and ultimately it's much easier to just tell the wizard player off for being a jerk.
Magic replaces technology. You're pretty much saying it's wrong people can't outrun a car, fly without an airplane etc.
Sorry Pfafner, the person that made the vault wasn't an idiot, a pair of twigs isn't going to cut it. Bring some explosives or get somone that can do more than 2 twigs can.
VanRicter wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Dimension door used to take a moment to recover from in one of the earlier editions so it could be a risky spell.
Gnarl wrote:
VanRicter wrote:
The "problem" with utility spells isn't the spells themselves. It is the breadth and depth of effects they enable in the wizard. Choosing from a list allows the wizard to recreate his focus every day, radically changing what types of problems he can approach and/or solve. There is no practical limit to the number of spells a wizard can know, and thus no practical limit to the types of problems a wizard can approach.
Because a wizard has the capability of handling most any challenge the party may face (admittedly at great cost at times), the wizard player has a place of primacy at the table, and functions, intentionally or not, as a gatekeeper to the other players' participation in the approach to challenges.
Solutions? More spells like Knock, that have potent effects with equally potent and unavoidable downsides; something to weigh against the relative ease in which they bypass challenges. Simply being a limited resource is not enough a discompensation (though it helps). Non-magical approaches need to be viable and, in the hands of someone dedicated, reliably avoid the downsides suffered by the spell.
The second solution is stringent limits on what type of spells a wizard can learn, know, and cast. Simply put, in every edition where the wizard had assymetrical resource management (pre-4e, basically), the issue of primacy dropped away when the wizard was a specialist. A generalist wizard, by their very nature, invites primacy to the table.
It's a radically different system, but take note of Mage. "Magick" is divided amongst spheres, and a mage cannot attempt magick in a sphere he has not invested in. Invest in all spheres (become a generalist) and one can perform very weak magick in all forms. Invest deeply in a few spheres, and one can perform great feats within very narrow parameters.
The generalist wizard in D&D is not adversely hampered by not specializing.
It's a fine line. Past attempts at specialization may have dealt with primacy, but systemic imbalances in the math, resource management, and the spells themselves created other problems that overshadowed the primacy issue. Specialist wizards were often more damaging to the game than generalists. Hopefully, 5e's math and structure is better than prior editions, and specialization can be a valid way to confront primacy without disrupting balance in an untoward way.
LFK wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Another problem with utility spells, IMO, is that the existence of them practically begs white-room warriors to assume the wizard has all of them (not only in their book, but memorized) at all times. Nevermind that the odds of that are practically nil.
ChrisTheS wrote:
Were I a wizard, and there was a rogue in the group who excelled at picking locks, why on earth would I bother wasting a slot to have knock prepared? Other than to try and one-up him or be a spotlight hog.
LFK wrote:
Excellent post, Foxfire.
Tony_Vargas wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Eyup.
This is why, when you design a game, you need to design it around how you want things to be handled.
Really, the best way is to integrate all utility powers into a single system and use them in a fairly consistent manner. Why SHOULD a spell be better at opening a door than a rogue? Just seems like it would be a different way to pick a lock to me - some people use magic, others use talent and tools, but there's no real reason why they should differ mechanically.
I keep hearing stuff like this. Yet, I as much also hear how awesome rogues and fighters and clerics are. If generalist wizard is so gosh-darn better, why isn't everyone running around playing only them?
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
LFK wrote:
LFK wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
LFK wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
Flawed comparison. You are equating a limited resource (spells) with unlimited (swinging a weapon).
ChrisCarlson wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Casting utility spells as a ritual typically takes ten minuets. In the old play test that's a random encounter check in the dungeon. I believe pick locks takes one minuet or six seconds if your a thief of around 6 level. So if you have the rogue, it's better to let him pick the locks than take a random encounter chance or burn a spell slot. Plus the whole making a noise thing which would trigger a second check for wandering monster (at least in my game it would).
So no, I don't think utilities as rituals breaks the game or overshadows other character abilities.
moes1980 wrote:
LFK wrote:
moes1980 wrote:
So, what's the agenda here? Some of you hate 5E's Wizards. I'm not super impressed with them myself, either. What is flailing about it on the forums accomplishing, though? All we've seen is the Basic ruleset, and if you've followed along with the playtest at all there's not really any justification for acting surprised or betrayed. Opening up old cans of worms along the Fighter vs. Wizard trajectory is not going to change anything. It's not going to change the mind of any one you're arguing with, and WotC certainly aren't going to suddenly go "You're right! Scrap the edition and start over!"
Except the wizard still won't be proficient at stealth or likely have anything but a moderate Dexterity score. Invisibility just lets the wizard fail a stealth check in plain sight.
If you need to sneak somewhere hard, cast it on the rogue and make him extra awesome.
Brimleydower wrote:
LFK wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
LFK and those who agree with you.
I am very happy D&D is not designed the way you want. It would kill the game. I won't debate the merits of your arguments other than to say that the traditional D&D magic approach has been a lot of fun over the years and I can handle it.
If you put guaranteed to work powers on rogues and fighters the backlash would be great. If you turn everything into a skill roll that gets flavored differently then you have a boring game. At least it's boring to me.
Course spell casters have never dominated my games. So all your fixes really gain me is boredom and aggravation.
After reading through the rest of the posts in this thread, I don't know why it hasn't been locked yet. This whole thread is nothing but edition warring. It makes a lot of inaccurate assumptions, has a group of posters warring on behalf of 4e and complaining that there is no point to play 5e, requests that the game steer away from all of the classic D&D tropes, and fails to take note of any of the ways Next has made the martial classes amazing choices (and they are--fighters and rogues rock based on the playtest we have just seen; I hated the imbalance of 3e, hate 3e because of it, and despite a few structural similarities, love what I have seen of Next because Next does not share the problems of 3e). As far as I can tell, this thread is nothing but a few diehard 4e fans trolling because they are upset that the fanbase at large seems to prefer a more old-school/classic approach to some of D&D's aesthetic and structural qualities...
How is this edition warring? It has nothing to do with editions. People compare to other editions (and heck, other games) because they're a point of common reference.
No one cares.
The problem is that 5th edition is repeating the same mistakes as previous editions did.
The character optimizers - such as myself - have always noted why these systems are awful and broken. It has nothing to do with edition - we noted it before 4th edition existed.
The problem is that no one else gets utility powers, and that sucks.
I think it is fine to make a game which consists of nothing but casters who can solve every situation with the right spell. That's fine. It is only a problem when you put said characters in a game where other characters cannot do so, and then expect the two to be equal.
It is never going to be equal. You need to do it one way or another; all characters must have equal access to awesomeness and versatility.
Brimleydower wrote:
I also agree with Cyber-Dave, Emerikol, The Jester, Psikerlord, Chris Carlson and other posters who are making arguments that show that caster utility does not ruin the game. (In fact , I believe it enhances it)
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Alright, so for those of you advocating "spells are limited usage", lemme ask you a question:
How many encounters do you have in the average adventure before resting at your table?
Because my games - both sides of the screen - almost invariably go 1-3 encounters per day, with rarely 4-5. 4th edition is the only game I've ever played where 6-7 encounters ever happened in one adventure, and that's because characters in 4th edition are super hardcore and several encounters were easy things which were resolved in under 30 minutes.
Non-combat encounter wise, I expect about as many, and in ones with lots of non-combat encounters, they're almost always much more about puzzles and other things where spells are either useless or break the entire adventure (mystery things and divination spells, for instance).
How many times do you expect to have to use these spells in a given adventure? How many locks do you expect to have to pick? Traps to undo? Times to sneak?
Because I can tell you the average number of locked doors in most of my adventures is south of one, and the average number of times where stealth is very useful is generally around 1-2, which are both well within the wizard's capabilities.
Most games I'm in, casters never run out of spells, and when they do, the party retreats because they're being overwhelmed.
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
So titanium the very specific and non standard way you play does not come out perfectly balanced. So?
For those of us with a style that afforded balanced games all through D&D from 1e to 3e, we aren't seeing the balance issue in 5e. In fact I think a lot around here would say the fighter is the strongest class.
Emerikol. wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
My 1e party has the locked door issue covered
The paladin has a chime of opening, the cleric can cast heat metal on the lock, the ranger can use his potion of giant strength to break the door down, the bard can use a vial of acid, and the wizard can cast knock.
Usually, they just go down the list and then only ask the wizard to cast knock if all else fails.
Brimleydower wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Lost Mine of Phandelver has:
2 locks, one of which the module gives you the key to.
6 traps, only one of which can even be disarmed, the rest are more like passive hazards that the party either falls into or avoids, and the one that can be disarmed literally doesn't require a skill check.
7 probable long rests, plenty of options for more. The party could easily spend 12-15 days finishing all the various tasks.
43 encounters, 1/3-1/2 of which are optional/skippable/can be parlayed
The longest likely chain of encounters is 6-7, depending on how you count some of the proximity encounters where there's 2 dirt-easy critters sitting in area A that might reenforce a fight in area B.
The shortest chain is 1.
The average is 4-5.
Dwarfslayer wrote:
I've also noticed that some DMs overreward cleverness. You usually manage to bypass a whole encounter with a not so clever use of an illusion spell because the DM thinks it's cool not to rely on violence. No comment. But in any event, the limited resource aspect of vancian/neo-vancian is what creates this in-game dynamic. At least in my 20ish years of playing D&D.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
We've covered this time and time again. In the end, most of the problem spells aren't really the problem, wands and scrolls are. The ability to use the spells frequently with impunity is the issue, because otherwise the wizard is eating spells he could have used for something else.
Resource management makes utility spells more or less balanced, at least in this edition so far. If something akin to wands and scribe scroll get introduced though, we might have a problem again.
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Jenks wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
The problem is that there must be a limitation... somewhere.
LImited Power
Lower Frequency
Drawbacks
Something has to give. You can't however plan for party absences in your utility. That messes up the metagame of players AND their characters.
Jenks wrote:
I always throught spells which mimic skills should allow the skill check to simply be made with an Arcana check instead. Maybe the spell grants some other benefits related to the spell, but I'd let skill users get cool skill things with an expanded skill proficiency system too.
But that's just me and my love for fairness.
Brimleydower wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
You're still misunderstanding me. I'll try one more time:
- Baseline Game Assumption: Let's say 5 encounters per day.
- Table A's Preference: 1 encounter per day.
- Table B's Preference: 10 encounters per day.
The game cannot assume that A and B's encounter averages are going to happen at the same time. Table A claiming casters are overpowered because they never ran out of spells is based on their unassumed playstyle. Table B claiming their casters are underpowered because they never have any spells to cast is based on their unassumed playstyle. In short, saying something is what it is and trying to qualify that with "because at my table" or anything to that effect is only ever anecdotal.
I'm not terribly surprised; it has been my general experience that once you hit a certain level, the casters simply never run out of spells, because you simply don't throw enough at them per day for that to happen under normal circumstances.
Rather than continue cluttering the thread, I'll just agree to disagree. What we expect out of the game is simply different, and that's okay. I merely want the ongoing thrust to make the forums a more inviting place to continue successfully, as it directly benefits the game when more people are offering input.
As to utility spells themselves, I'm not sure what people expect at this point. It's only the Basic version of the game that's been revealed. The playtest documents paint a mostly clear trajectory. Things are the way they are largely by way of polls and feedback, which insinuates that at least a noteworthy chunk of the playtesters do, in fact, like the Wizard as it is. Limited spell slots prevent the Wizard from being a spotlight bully—something that probably speaks more about the player than the class, really—if that's the rub. I scoff at the notion of someone who intentionally builds a character to marginalize fellow Players at the cost of being able to do anything worthwhile in combat situations.
Maybe there will be alternate spell supplements (in pill form!) in the future. Even if there is not, arguing for the current design's exclusion is impractical. It's simply too late for it to not exist—it's gone to print. At this point, it would probably be more constructive to offer alternate ideas or mechanics to alleviate perceived balance issues. That gives someone an in to join the discussion without feeling like their preference is being decried. So, instead of an "X is broken; I hate it" you could lead off with "X is broken; here is why; here is an alternative that solves the problem".
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
If a player routinely goes out of their way to "show up" another player, that is a player created problem. Given the new spell slot count, memorizing or casting things someone else in your party is capable of is a redundancy at best, and it taps what would have been better spent dealing with other challenges instead.
Spells rarely start off as a problem but as more spells get introduced and new types of spell casters get introduced, as well as having spells in an item which are recastable then the problems set in. Editions 2 & 3 taught me this lesson. As long as you present a mix of challenge types and vary when rest is available I find spellcasters have to vary their list a bit so they have to be more careful.
My question is: what spells ARE ok for the wizard to have? If things like knock and invisibility aren't ok because they step on the rogue's toes, any spell that deals damage isn't ok because it steps on the fighter's toes. We already know that wizards can't have healing magic because that steps on the Cleric's toes.
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
If your party doesn't have a fighter, it might have a paladin, barbarian, or ranger (or even a melee focused cleric) to fill in. Etc.
You could just as easily have titled this thread: the Fundamental Problem with Rogue Skills. What is the point of my wizard learning the Knock spell when the Rogue can just open the lock at-will! Why do I need to use a spell slot to sneak (with invisibility) when the Rogue can just do it at-will!
Overlap between classes is a feature, not a bug. Otherwise, every party is going to NEED certain classes. In addition, it gives the party more options. If you have a rogue AND a wizard with invisibility, more characters can scout at the same time.
The issues are relevant, but I doubt the game is going to change at this point. I will give it a try. But if it ends up with the same problems of prior editions and casters being the primary focus for encounter pacing or challenges, then I will move on.
Arithezoo wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
The real issue with Titanium Dragon's assumption is the one of being ABLE to rest relatively frequently throughout the adventure. If the DM is giving the players a free night in a dungeon, they're doing something wrong. Resting in a dungeon is INCREDIBLY risky, and in early editions of the game, was impossible – these restrictions were carried over in some form to some of the D&D Next playtest documents, and I expect to see them in some form in the Core Rulebooks. Furthermore, in a mission-based adventure, you usually can't afford much 8 hours of downtime (or 4 hours of downtime if it's just the Elf Wizard who needs to trance, but that's a bit of a mean move towards the rest of the party, who only get a short rest out of those 4 hours). To do so would be to be letting innocents die, or let the villains beat you to the magical artefact, or let the ceremony of evilness be completed. You might be able to fit in one night's rest, if the party plots out their adventure strategy well, but even that's not a given. If the pressure isn't on the PCs to complete their quest, then balance really isn't an issue because there's no challenge to begin with. D&D is a collective storytelling experience with a rules-framework. While at certain parts of a story, there will be downtime, there will be slower, more relaxed parts, the key tool in getting readers to turn pages, in getting movie goers to keep glued to the silver screen, to keep the party interested in the adventure, is to keep the pressure high. If the players are left wondering what to do and sitting around, if they feel railroaded rather than invested and driven to complete their quest, then something is wrong with this story-based adventure. That said, the dungeon-exploration type adventure is equally popular, and as I said in the beginning, dungeons are NOT safe places to make camps. You can't just rest anywhere. Characters of ALL STRIPES have to conserve their resources, make them last, because they may not know when they'll have a chance to replenish them. Rogues and Fighters are best off here because their resources tend to be reneweable, but even they have fonts of power that they need to take rests for. Even a 1 hour rest is a dangerous amount of time to spend lingering in one place.
docdoom77 wrote:
Rottle wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
LFK wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
LFK wrote:
LFK wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Poor wizard... that's 9 level 2 spells he wasted to get that door open... 
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
LFK wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
I'm just happy that spell casters solve problems in a completely different way to none spell casters. The way we play we would struggle to complete an adventure without both options. We would typically play between 8 - 10 encounters between rests in 3e and 5e and therefore running out of spells if not careful is a definate possibility. The adventures were often run so that resting early made it so much harder the next day. One thing I'm happy to see the end of is the bag of utility wands and scrolls that happened in 3e
Except they can't do everything. The best they can do is fill in the gaps between the rest of the party, providing assistance when the party can't solve problems otherwise. I like to think of an exchange from the first Record of Lodoss War manga, between the six party members of that classic D&D anime/manga/light novel/replay: Parn the Human Fighter, Deedlit the Elf Shaman, Woodchuck the Human Thief, Ghim the Dwarf Fighter, and most importantly for this conversation, Slayn Starseeker, the Human Sorcerer (really that setting's name for a Wizard), taking place as racing on foot after a small troop of Holy Knights on horseback in pursuit of a carriage commandeered by the Grey Witch, Karla. The soldiers and the Witch got into a fight far up the road, and the party can't quite catch up. Deedlit stops to listen using her acute elven senses of perception to hear what has happened.
Deedlit: "The fighting has stopped."
Parn: "Really? C'mon Deed… who won?"
Deedlit: "I can't tell from the noise! Don't be stupid… Wait! I'll ask the Wind."
Slayn: "!! You mean Sylph, the spirit of the wind?"
Deedlit: "Yes."
Slayn: "Then let me use a telescopic spell instead."
Deedlit: "Telescopic?"
Slayn: "Yes. It's possible to enhance vision with sorcery. I'll need a few minutes for my eyes to adjust."
Wood: "If ya'd just done that before, we wouldn'a had to run. Ain't that right?"
Slayn: "The use of sorcery has its limits. It is not something to be used recklessly."
Ghim: "Don't be so pompous."
To Fighters and Rogues like Ghim and Woodchuck, magic is a useful tool that if it was used more often, could make their lives a lot easier. But Slayn makes a very deliberate choice to use his utility spell, "Telescopic Vision," in this case, rather than relying on Deedlit, who spent a lot of her daily summoning magic getting them through the Forest of No Return the night before, and they hadn't stopped for a long rest since then. Slayn's magic can subsitute in for the summoning of Sylph, or they could have run in to the fray earlier. The change from a direct conflict that they could eventually run to and a winner and a loser – in this case, the Witch had killed everyone, Knights and her own men alike with a fireball spell – was a worthy reason for the Sorcerer to fill in and use one of his daily allotment of spells. They know that there is a kidnapped girl in that carriage, someone important enough for Holy Knights to pursue, and he knows that to rescue her, they may not have time to take a long rest anywhere. He's right: the best they get is about an hour of short-rest when they're locked in a room in Karla's stopover hideout. Later on, when they have the kidnapped Princess back with them and they're trying to escape, EVERYONE is exhausted. There's simply no time to rest up and restore wounds, and Slayn even remarks that if the Witch comes back for them now, they're toast.
Every single spell use is a count against what might be used later on in that day. The Rogue and the Fighter can keep doing what they do all day long, as long as they've got the health to risk going on. The Wizard can't afford to run out of spells early on in the day, because whatever they're trying to do, that's not going to wait for them to sleep and go on. 5 minute work day arose in 3rd Edition largely because they abandoned hazardous-to-sleep-in dungeons, and because people were thinking theoretically rather than practically. 4th Edition turned the work day into based around Healing Surges, which everyone had, though later on Psionics and Essentials messed with the line-up of when PCs started to run out of resources if they were distributing them evenly between encounters. The thing is, though, D&D is more than a series of combat encounters. It's Exploration, Social Interaction, AND Combat. The Wizard occupies a space which fills in a gap so that when everyone else in the party is stumped or taxed, it can fill in the role and do it SOMEWHAT well (save the Cleric usually, since the Wizard inexplicably can't learn healing spells – unless it's a Necromancer). As said by others before, many utility spells have drawbacks and are better when used in tandem with other characters' abilities (Invisibility) or else serve as a last-resort subsitute (Knock). Many of their combat spells have low power but can be useful to sweep a bunch of weaker enemies or put a lock-down on actions for other enemies (Fireball, Sleep), allowing the heavy-damage-dealing Fighters and Rogues to focus on enemies that need their attention, rather than wasting their turns smashing minions. This was arguably the role of Controllers in 4e as well: it had no real definition and no real "class feature" that allowed it to exist, but by utility of various abilities and by battlefield control, they lessened the load on the rest of the party, working kind of as reverse-Leaders. However, their utility role was stomped on in part by anyone being able to take the Ritual Caster feat (and most spellcasters having access to the feat), thus allowing much of their utility function to be anyone's game, and by the initial limitations to their spellbook repetoire per day. It should not be understated that the Wizard's versatility requires careful planning, on both the player and the character's part, hence why it requires a good investment in the character's Intelligence (this is incidentally the point against people saying that Mountain Dwarves make the best Wizards thus far; Humans and High Elves both can achieve 16 Intelligence via the point-buy system and a +1 Int, allowing them to prepare one more spell from their spellbook than Mountain Dwarves can at first level). While you can only cast 2 1st-level spells at the 1st level, if you are a Human, High Elf, or any other +Int granting race with at least a 16 in Int, you can prepare 3 different 1st-level spells, meaning your versatility and ability to fill in the gaps increases half again. But you still only have 2 spells, plus 3 cantrips, and while the cantrips can be used all day, after those 2 full spells are done, you're at risk of being in the situation where you COULD have had a spell prepared but you spent it on casting your Burning Hands on the goblin raiders earlier or Charming the Bandit chief's right-hand man, when the Rogue or Fighter could have flexxed some muscles against those goblins or the Cleric or Rogue could have turned on the natural charm to win over the deputy chief. But now you're out, and more than likely, resting isn't an option. You really could have used that Shield Spell to save the Rogue from that Orc's attack, but how could you have known the Goblins had an Orc on their side, and would come back to avenge their fallen comrades? Now the Rogue is lying dying too far away from the rest of the group (because of an attempted sneak around to the backside of the enemies) and the Cleric can't get over there in time! Perhaps maybe, just maybe, the party will make it out alive with some hard fighting and some good luck (assuming the DM doesn't make the Orc finish off the Rogue, but instead has it turn its attention to the approaching Fighter and Cleric). But the Wizard clearly wasn't pulling its weight in that combat, because it expended its resources much earlier. That's the consequence they had to pay, because they couldn't afford to rest after they realised that Bandits had stolen the artefact from the Goblins and were taking off from this countryside. If they stopped to rest, they'd never get the treasure back for the helpless villagers.
By the way, that last example I made up on the spot, but I dare say it's a pretty common sort of occurance. Any DM worth their salt won't let the players rest easily so that the Wizard can keep replenishing their spells.
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
It really is all about playstyle. My own worked great but mine was a child of 1e gygaxian philosophy. My players always play scared and cautious. Failure to.do so usually means a bad outcome. The number of encounters per day is very unpredictable so my casters always assume the worst.
in 3e, the game at high levels is pretty dependent on martials having good magic items. No fighter player woth is salt will be vulnerable to save or dies. He will be able to fly, turn invisible, and teleport all he needs.
A lot of this discussion is based upon playstyles honestly better served by 4e. I won't argue that point. The problem is that those same plaaystyles are not the dominant way people want to play D&D. Even many 4e fans are returning to 5e with enthusiasm because it plays more like what they think is D&D.
I'd give up titanium. If you got your way all you'd do is destroy the game. Let D&D alone and seek out a better game for your needs. Too many people are wed to a game that looks like traditional D&D. I don't see such a game ever.meeting your criteria for balance.
Emerikol. wrote:
Guys, please don't feed the regenerating "dragon."
Cyber-Dave wrote:
For low magic options wait for DMG. Mearls tweet mentioned that option will exist.
That, along with tactical options, might make others happy.
For now, let's play Basic and enjoy old school wonder with some interesting twists.
LFK wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
VanRicter wrote:
I think 5E does a pretty good job in that regard. The Rogue can find and disarm traps, unlock doors, all without betraying his or her presence and all without blowing any sort of limited resource. And a Wizard's resources are pretty severely limited, especially compared to past iterations.
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
VanRicter wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
aw4e wrote:
And after waiting patiently for the rogue to finish, they find the bludgeoned-to-death corpse of their Wizard friend flanked by a pair of flesh golems. The dwarf pours one out for his homeboy.
aw4e wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
aw4e wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
aw4e wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
LFK wrote:
What if the adventuring day has 6 locked doors, 3 mechanical traps, a few magical traps, an ambush scenario and 3+ encounters, chances to interact with npcs/monsters?
Chances are, a wizard and a rogue will have plenty of opportunities to shine (Fighters and Cleric too).
Adventure design is also key for balance.
VanRicter wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
frbelanger wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
I've not had a chance to play any 5e yet. I played around with some of the earlier public playtest ... and I've played a lot of 3e, 3.5e, and 4e, as well as other games (Hero, Shadowrun, CoC, In Nomine, and others)
I have had 3e games completely destroyed by a primary caster. I was playing a deliberatly nerfed Warlock in a game with a Paladin(who was quite nerfed by accident, not intent). We had a druid who refused to use half his class features or any of his better spells, to avoid overshadowing the Pali. We had a guy who played random other classes, badly. We had a guy who stuck to tier 4&5 classes, but then optimized the everloving heck out of them to be the most powerful member of the party... and it all kinda worked.
Then a new player started who just played a blaster sorcerer. And it went to hell: without trying, doing most things "wrong", he still clearly outclassed everyone else. The Pali went from "useless to anyone who knew the game, but having fun anyway" to "so obviously useless that he stopped having fun"
So yes, T.D.'s points are valid. They do happen. It is important to keep imbalance within bounds.
Unlike T.D., I'm not yet convinced that 5e has to model 4e to do so. From the playtest, it seemed that fighters were so good at killing single monsters that they filled the "striker" role... it was something the Wizard couldn't do as reliably: even on a "save-or-suck" like Hold Person, the wizard needs someone to actually kill the controlled monster... where a fighter could be reliably expected to Just. Kill. The. Frigging. Monster. Where fighters didn't look so hot was multiple creatures.
Now, if that's still true (and I need to do more analysis to know if it is or not. And a monster-manual or the rules for creating custom monsters to do that analysis), then you could have a reason for fighters: when you need to take down big single monsters with the highest reliability nobody does it better. That's a role and niche that might exist. But if a wizard's Hold Monster (which we know will exist) is just as good at that, then there will be a problem. And changing the number of times a day the wizard can use Hold Monster just changes the edges of the problem, not the base of it.
All you guys defending T.D., just remember that it's not just the message but the delivery mechanism. He states his preferences as facts. He talks about objectively good games like 4e vs lousy objectively bad games like 1e through 3e. He can complain about casters and martials but at the core of his argument is give a resource mechanic to every class. So every class has dailies, encounters, and at-wills. They tried that once and it was nothing short of a catastrophe from a business sense. So they've went back to what made them the undisputed number one roleplaying game company. At least that is what they think they are doing. We can critique even that move and we do but they have tried what T.D. wants. They saw the results. They are not trying to repeat it.
A game can only be measured by the pleasure and entertainment it gives those who play it. No matter what else is true about it if everyone hates it then it's not a good game and if everyone loves it it is a good game. Period. Entertainment quality is subjective. For me personally, 4e has little to no value. The other editions had plenty of value. So there is something superior about those other editions when it comes to what I consider fun which is my only measuring stick.
The bottom line for roleplaying to me is getting into your character and immersing yourself in a fantasy world. That is the number one priority because that is where I derive a lot of my fun. So any rule that hinders that being achieved is a bad rule for me. I admit that the taste for these rules is purely subjective. I believe though I am not unique in disliking them. Plenty of people have the same tastes as me. They see the same issues and mechanical difficulties. Humans are different but when it comes to game tastes I do not believe there are 7 billion differences. We all scatter into camps and groups based on different aspects of gaming. So maybe you could rattle off anywhere from 5 to 10 major design concepts and we could pick and choose one side or the other on those. Most of them we wouldn't care a ton about in most cases.
T.D.'s driving obsession is perfect homogeneous balance. That is just an opinion. It is a valid stance and I have no problem with anyone having it. I even understand it. I will not though have someone tell me what my priorities are or where I should place the greatest emphasis and if I fail to do so that I'm somehow a flawed human being who just can reason it out well enough. I reason very well. I know what I like and when it comes to a game that really is all that matters. I seek like minds and I find like minds without much difficulty at all so I don't really care about the rest of the gaming world that disagrees with me. I buy games that support my style. I don't buy games that don't. I expect T.D. to do the same. That might mean we both don't buy 5e ultimately. Unlike him though if I reject it, I don't see myself playing it at all. I'm not a join anything just to play kind of guy. I can run my game 5 nights a week if I want.
Orethalion wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
LFK wrote:
LFK wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
LFK wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
LFK wrote:
I completely agree with the statement that "any spell that boils down to "ignore the skill system" is a bad spell." Spells that duplicate or bypass Skills should come with a real drawback of some kind (Knock causes a loud noise that alerts monsters and whatnot) that is not related to resouce management, which can easily be circumvented in the new 5E rules.
Person_Man wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
How is this debate happening? Knock causes a loud noise that can be heard from 300 ft away. If you use Knock in a dungeon or castle or anywhere a bunch of enemies live, you just told all of them to set up ambushes. Also, it uses a 2nd level spell slot, which is not an insignificant resource until much later in a 1-20 campaign. A rogue is better at picking locks because he can do it all day without letting every orc in the county know he's coming. A wizard is a one trick pony whose trick might get you killed. You might as well just have the fighter break the lock with his warhammer.
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Gazra wrote:
I just don't get it. At low levels 2nd level spell slots are usually too valuable to waste on casting Knock. And it doesn't get better at the other end of the spectrum:
At level 20 a wizard can cast Knock 18 times. This comes at the expense of alerting every being in a 600 ft diameter, and only having cantrips and four 1st level spells to do anything else with for the rest of the day.
A level 20 thief can pick 600 locks per hour with a minimum roll of 27 (three away from the hardest difficulty in the game), at the cost of a bonus action per round, all without sacrificing a single resource or diminishing his ability to deal combat damage, hide, pick pockets, or anything else he's there to do.
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Gazra wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
If magic can make casltes fly then it can and should be allowed to duplicate a skill check.
For my game magic is part of the world and it can be very powerful. Of course, I don't view spells like class features at all. Casters simply have the ability to acess magic directly. Other classes need to access magic indirectly via magical items.
A locked door is simply an obstacle to be bypassed. How it's bypassed is largely a mater of flavour. Magic, skill, and brute force are all valid options. Why a player would feel cheated or jealous when other players in the party can perform the same task via a different methods is beyond me. No one is harmed when the ranger can knock all the doors open with his magical chime or the fighter can break them all down. At no point should the rogue feel useless. If a rogue is defined by his lock picking ability alone then something is seriously wrong with that class and the way it's being played.
Gazra wrote:
Gazra wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
LFK wrote:
LFK wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
This whole thread is becoming a comedy.
The bottom line is that any game that remotely resembles pre-4e D&D is not going to pass muster with LFK and TD. For me personally, I had a lot of fun with those editions and I played rogues mostly so I don't care what you guys say. You can math me until your blue in the face. Bottom line is the game was fun. If it wasn't fun for you though, I understand and I'd recommend you find one that is fun. I am a bit puzzled though that you made it all the way to 4e hating D&D every step of the way prior to that. Kind of like banging your head against a wall.
Emerikol. wrote:
LFK wrote:
Gazra wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
@Titanium Dragon:
Just about teamwork. There is teamwork in 2e/3e but not in the 4e-combat sense. Combat in these games is dice porn. It's a different form of entertainment that doesn't require team work. But there is teamwork in these games. The point of a non-combat challenge is to work as a team (of players, not characters) and come up with a way to overcome the next obstacle. Every player at the table is working with the others to devise a plan using every character's abilities, skills and spells.
This is another reason I've never really been bothered with powerful utility spells. Everybody is having fun with them. In our game, the wizard player is probably the one that less benefits from these spells. He's the one that has to cast them while the others get to use them and not be bothered with the casting part. It's not rare for the player behind the fighter or the rogue to tell the wizard what spells to memorize. What I found interesting about 4e rituals is that it illustrates this aspect of utility magic really well. It doesn't matter who is casting the ritual, you use them in a team effort.
TD, I appreciate your thoughts about the editions, but in all of my playtesting for D&D Next, I have experienced a lot of teamwork. I don't see the rules as an obstacle.
Also, just for perspective, I DM'd 4e for 2 years. I encouraged my group to switch over from 3.5e. We all played 1e and 2e when we were younger. I tried to like 4e, really. Unfortunately, it lost its luster. The forced control and so called differentiation didn't work for me and my group.
I honestly believe that WoTC is using a lot of what they learned from prior editions, both good and bad, and they are striking a workable balance between unrestricted power gaming and tightly regulated control and niche protection.
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Gnarl wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
I pose a couple of questions to this thread.
1) Everyone seems so obsessed about the wizard replacing thing, but what if people just don't want to play a rogue? Knock/invis gives people options rather than pigeonholing groups to have a rogue. The same could be said about if another class had healing. Why is no one mad that other classes besides the cleric can heal? Or that people other than fighters can use martial weapons? people are glad that other classes have these options because they give them options on what they want to play. Why does rogue get to be the special snowflake?
2) Secondly, anyone can get proficiency with thieve's tools, so doesnt this make everyone a rogue replacement?
If opening locks was the rogue's job then we wouldn't be able to learn tool proficiencies during downtime on any class and add that ability, or simply start with it from a background like we can. Anyone can open a lock or disarm a trap. It's a significant flaw in the logic to assume that this skill is only a rogue thing. It's just as valid to be of the opinion it's a wizard thing and rogues are stepping on wizard toes. Rogues have some great abilities in addition to skills and DC's are lower making no check vs autosuccess on rolls an irrelevant difference. Wizard damage did increase since the playtest with a couple more higher level spell slots, higher damage in many spells, and higher levels for over-channel but the calcs don't consider variables in AC as something that changes the numbers. They also don't consider every cantrip cast instead of a higher spell reduces overall damage as the number of encounters ends before each has been cast, or that the number of rounds or encounters varies; the day doesn't necessarily stop after four encounters arbitrarily. Every spell cast for utility is lost damage or CC or vice versa because it's a shared resource and rest is not necessarily available to simply renew or change spells. Most of the utility spells listed so far simply give an advantage to a skill check while wizards are lacking in as many bonuses to said skills so that advantage becomes questionable and situational when compared to a larger bonus. I have read the arguments, given it some thought, done some playtesting, and have come to the conclusion that the fundamental problem with utility spells appears to be that many people have opposing biases but I don't see any significant issues. Heck, the challenge is usually a combat encounter and not who can cross wall the fastest when everyone will get across the wall. Sorry about formatting. On my cell.
Emerikol. wrote:
Jenks wrote:
Jenks wrote:
kalil wrote:
LFK wrote:
One of the problems it seems (for some) is that the fantasy genre itself tends to give wizards primacy.
Most novels that come to mind make the wizard the powerful one that sometimes conceals his or her power, or the one who decides what to do or where to go, or sets up others to become more heroic. They tend to be the focus or they demand attention because others in the world fear them most.
Can anyone think of a popular fantasy that contradicts this primacy?
Jenks wrote:
Edit: Note too Foxface that I consider you a nice guy unlike some others and I don't at all consider your concerns unusual or not worthy. They just aren't mine.
Foxface wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
kalil wrote:
My fav use of the knock spell was when my wizard cast it on a door behind the monsters that was holding back a room full of sand. When the door was Knocked, the sand burried most of creatures and prevented them from surrounding the party. In other situations I've used the knock spell to lossen the chains of captives or find secret doors. In addition, the knock could be used to unlock a door that was Wizard Locked (a magical lock that can't be picked). Of course, the knock spell was reversable at one time and it allowed you to mechanically lock a door from a distance.
The 5e version of knock is very different than its predecessor.
Rhenny wrote:
LFK...
Thieves can do their stuff ALL DAY.
Spells have limiting factors - durations, availability, ranges, secondary effects...
Knock is a good example - 300ft sound radius? Most of the time you need a locked door opened you need to do it without announcing loudly to the owners that you just did it...
You are also conveniently forgetting the Concentration mechanic and the fact the Rogue can acheive similar utility for some effects without any chance of it failing on taking damage.
On the issue of repeated applications of 'your dead' - SoD is lovely to be sure, but a high level Rogue critting on a sneak delivers simply phenominal amounts of damage, and that's not even from the Assassin subclass!
Also - let's not forget the adversarial side of this equation. A Wizard rarely if ever has high Wis and won't be keeping concentration buffs on him designed to act like magical threat radar every waking hour, or anything close to it - it's simply not possible to do in 5th Ed. He's never gonna sense any 'I can't have nice things' drama-queen Rogue sneak up behind him and send him to the afterlife in one blow...
kalil wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Gazra wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gazra wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Niche--like destiny, luck, and happiness--is best when you forge your own...
Gnarl wrote:
In D&D, clerics and wizards have niche protection; fighters and rogues do not.
Clerics have clerical healing, which cannot be duplicated by any other class in Basic. Some class, like the fighter, get minor self-healing, which is an improvement over previous editions, but it doesn't threaten the cleric's primacy. More important than hit point recovery, they have access to resurrection, remove curse and similar spells which have absolutely no mundane counterpart. This is a niche, and a damn good one.
Wizards have a whole host of spells that can't be replicated with skills or equipment: illusions, charms, fly, dimension door, teleport and so on. That gives them niche protection too. Sure, you can grab a boat and sail 200 miles, but it's not nearly as effective as teleport.
Both classes get detect magic and other divinations as well as dispel magic. Also no fighter or rogue counterpart and more niche protection.
What's the fighter's niche? Hitting things in combat for damage and theoretically enduring better over a long adventuring day. You can build a cleric to do that. Maybe even a mountain dwarf wizard. But as long as there are damage-causing spells and defensive buffs in the game there is nothing that the fighter can do that another class doesn't also do. Hence, no niche. Rogues are in the same boat as the fighter. They don't have a class ability that isn't duplicated, aped or surpassed by spellcasting.
I'd honestly be shocked if Wizards didn't get some summoning spells by the first splatbook.
powerroleplayer wrote:
I'm glad my questions posited some actual dicussion rather than hate slinging. That's a nice change of pace.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
BecDeCorbin wrote:
You can have classes with niches without giving everyone magic. Plenty of games do just that.
Lawolf wrote:
I like having overlap in which classes can do what. I really dislike having to select a specific class for anything and enjoy having alternatives. I feel there is some overlap between rogue skill benefits and some spells that just gives me options as a player. It's not like a barbarian overshadows a fighter or vice-versa just because of similarities.
Having spells like that in the game are fine, what actually broke them in 3rd ed was the ability to get them on wands for very cheap. Wands of Knock/CLW for example.
Gazra wrote:
LFK wrote:
LFK wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I view the existence of the Knock spell very differently from how some in this thread seem to see it. I don't think that just because it exists, the Rogue is somehow being outclassed. Likewise, I don't see the existence of a background that gives you training in Thieves' Tools as somehow outclassing the Rogue.
Both of these things are good, because they mean that every party doesn't NEED a Rogue.
But if my party did have a Rogue, I can tell you that I wouldn't waste one of my precious spells on Knock. And not because I am worried that it would somehow make the player feel outclassed.
Wizards only gain 2 new spells with each level. You can start taking 2nd level spells at level 3, and will likely take more at level 4. But past that, you are going to be adding higher level spells to your spellbook. In the playtest, there were 21 2nd level spells. You only get to pick 4 of those. In addition, casting a spell takes up a precious daily spell slot. Why am I going to waste TWO limited resources (spells to add to my spellbook and spells slots) on something that my companion can already do at-will?
As I said before, it is the wizard with Knock who should feel outclassed by the Rogue! Or any high dex character trained in Thieves' Tools.
The same goes for Invisibility. You still need to succeed on a Dexterity (stealth) check to avoid being noticed. So unless the Wizard has a high Dex and is also trained in Stealth, Invisibility just lets him attempt to hide without any cover or concealment. Any creatures he tries to sneak past will have a good chance of noticing him. But personally, I wouldn't take Invisibility to use on myself. I would cast it on the Rogue, in order to let them scout pretty much anywhere. Being invisible, he could sneak right into the middle of the enemy camp, and with high Dex and training (plus perhaps expertise) in Stealth they aren't going to notice him.
Picking Locks isn't something that belongs to the Rogue. It is one thing they can do, but it isn't everything they can do. And it is something that ANYONE can do.
The problem was that in earlier editions picking locks was the ONLY thing a rogue could do. Otherwise, you where just a weak fighter.
In 5e, cunning action, (and not having a large list of sneak attack immune creatures) give rogues their own special something. So they don't need to hold onto lockpicking as well.
Arithezoo wrote:
mellored wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
LFK wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
One of the key conceits of the wizard class is ultimate flexibility. It is supposed to be a class that can cover other niches in a pinch. The wizard can't replace everybody at once. He chooses his spells to cover any weaknesses in the party.
I don't feel there is anything wrong with a class that works this way. It makes a lot of sense actually because you can bend magic to fit a lot of concepts and it still be believable.
Arithezoo wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
Karnos wrote:
The problem is that the wizard and cleric roles are practically mandatory since they can handle obstacles that the fighter and rogue cannot, while there aren't many (or any) of the reverse. Thus, the stronger, more successful party is the W/W/C/C party rather than the F/R/C/W party. They have far more tools at their disposal in overcoming challenges, making them a much more viable team.
My solution for niche protection is simple. Spellcasting, at least, can't do everything, even if magic can. I favor:
1. Extremely restricted spell lists with intentional gaps.
2. Built-in limitations based on the type of magic. Hexes might rebound on the caster if successfully saved against. Illusions and invisibility are never perfect recreations and detectable to the observant. Healing magic requires a material cost. Charmed creatures have a visible halo of stars about their heads or hypno-swirls in their eyes.
3. A significant concentration limitation. Much like 5E, but you can't engange in spellcasting at all while concentrating.
4. All spellcasting requires a focus (ala a Harry Potter wand or wizard staff). Without your focus you can't cast or maintain spells. At all. None. Zero. Zilch. This simultaneously marks a spellcaster as such, and often their association (a Wizard of the Order of the Golden Staff), as well as allows casters to be captured or depowered.
I'm not advocating that D&D must adopt any or all of them in full to make a playable game. These are my solutions for my own game. They work exceptionally well for my group. Yes, I can houserule D&D Next to include them. No, I probably won't, since my own system works better (for us). I was just hoping 5E would finally get it right (for me). As it stands now, I doubt I'll play much 5E other than fooling around with it a bit and maybe trying out a game at a con.
However, I will say that 5E doesn't appear to be as awful about the caster/mundane disparity as 3.5E. At least in Basic, you're dealing with limited spell lists (good!), a concentration mechanic (not bad), fewer spell slots (good!), and so on. Though I'd prefer the damage dealing cantrips be removed completely or do less damage. The PH will naturally change this equation somewhat and the end result remains to be seen. We can only judge the Basic game at this point (and only what has been released for that, as well).
powerroleplayer wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
@Powerroleplayer: well, then I guess it is time for me to just say, "To each their own". I'm sorry that you don't like the game. I think it is awesome.
I hope you find a game you like.
Arithezoo wrote:
So run a party of four wizards through Phandelver and see what happens. Give us a detailed accounting of how it went down here on the forums so we can see how right you are.
powerroleplayer wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Also, I created a spin off creative thread for ways to suggest changes to spellcasting to achieve whatever feel/balance DMs/players want with magic use in their worlds.
I'm pretty sure the DMG will have some advice when it comes out.
http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4109736
powerroleplayer wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
mellored wrote:
Karnos wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
mellored wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Karnos wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
Gazra wrote:
Choosing to acomplish tasks through non magical methods should NOT mean choosing to be invalidated whenever the spell slingers choose/have nothing better to do.
Magic alway has a downside....
magic is one way of solving a problem (knock on the locked door), as is use of skills (pick the locked door), and there's always that third option (Hello C4 my old friend... how nice it is to see you again...)
@Titanium_ Dragon
You do keep going on about pick locks and Knock, so I'll go on about it, and add some common sense to the context.
That context being that these locks that are 'so easily bypassed' by wizards wouldn't have been designed and used in a world where there are wizards.
You keep banging on about locks in a world without magic, and then complaining that magic defeats them too easily and therefore the Rogue is pointless.
This is VERY misleading - although I am not sure whether you don't see it, or are deliberatley venting against utility magic because...
So - to make my point - here are a bunch of MUNDANE things a lock maker can do to screw wizards that could be dealt with more effectively by Rogues... and they would do them, because they live in a world with wizards...
1. False Locks - the Wizard hasn't got a clue whether a lock is false or not and no way to determine it. Wasted spell anyone?
2. Doors with a false lock and a wall behind them - Wizard wastes a Knock spell and then, needing to get behind the door, uses Dimension Door and dies in the wall
3. Multiple Locks on an important looking door that leads to nothing useful - lets call this the 'Spell Draining Portal' or somesuch shall we?
4. Doors with traps that trigger when there is no physical object in the lock to prevent a dropping plunger etc. - this one is pretty obvious really, the trap is NOT part of the locking mechanism, it is merely activated by its actuation and if there isnt a key or lockpick in the lock, then the trap goes off, getting the smug wizard with the low HP
5. Locks made of naturally occurring antimagic metal
6. Locks made with metal refined in a wild magic area
7. A lock below an unstable roof designed to create an cave in if there is a loud noise...
8. 9 locked doors between the wizard and the area they need to get to
9. Locks that when unlocked, relock within a few seconds if the door isn't pushed open, and then lock behind the user - make sure your entire spell slot allocation has Knock everywhere or you aint getting out Mr. Wizard...
These are just a few ideas that came to me on the fly as I wrote - they aren't difficult. A wizard cannot solve any of these, a Rogue can solve EVERY. SINGLE. ONE...
Plus, we are talking about a world with magic, soooo
Locks with magical protection - THAT'S RIGHT - doors in a magical world can have protective magic on them..!
Rogues get to do their thing ALL DAY. Mages can be situationally useful when the thing behind the lock isn't important enough for the owner to consider the fact a Wizard might want to get their hands on it and have acted appropriately... otherwise, they had better bring a Rogue if they want to acheive anything...
Caliburn101. wrote:
A lot of people don't want to play your dream game Titanium. Whether that is 4e or something even more "advanced" than 4e along the same axis of design, it's just not fun and it's not D&D to us.
The wizard is an iconic part of the game. The whole point is that the wizard cannot have everything prepared at once and must make choices. He is the utility belt class though and that is on purpose.
I agree with Caliburn101 that any world with magic like D&D will be heavily invested in countermeasures. I've always played that way. Maybe another reason why I had campaigns where fighters shined and wizards didn't dominate. And let me say that knock is a small issue for me. If it would shut everyone up I'd gladly drop that one spell. If though you want dimension door, teleport, invisibility, fly (worth having), and other such spells then we have a problem.
I say again it's a social problem. I don't have players whose goal is to show up the other players. They work as a team and they make choices that maximize the team's effectiveness. Why? As DM, I play a very hard game. If they don't work together they are going to die. Their enemies are going to work together when appropriate. When your players start behaving like they are the characters and making choices appropriate to that viewpoint all sorts of wonderful things begin to happen. And no I'm not talking about swinging a sword around in the room. I'm talking about play inside the campaign world. They really genuinely fear for their character's lives and thus they aren't real concerned about one person deliberately trying to steal the show. If there is a rogue, then the wizard memorizes something different. Why? Because that makes perfect sense. Other spells can help.
It's childish to sit around bitter and green with envy because someone has a choice you don't have. Either houserule something of move along. That is what I'm going to do over the issues I have with the game. I'm either fixing them or moving along. Haven't decided yet but I'm a big boy. I'll play a game I enjoy. I suggest some of you ought to do the same. It's pretty clear to me that the brief experiment in totally homogenous classes did not succeed.
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Here's some gameplay information just for the record.
In our last 7th level playtest session, the only PC to go down was the Tiefling Wizard. If the group didn't have a cleric, he would most likely be dead.
The party for that session was just a fighter, a wizard and a cleric. They opened doors by having the fighter break them down. They opened chests by having the fighter open them. They triggered traps by throwing things onto the triggering mechanism or by having the fighter take one for the team.
If the party had a rogue, there would be plenty for him or her to do, but it was nice that the session didn't require a rogue to succeed. As long as there was some variety with the 3 PCs playing this adventure, the group would have been able to play the session and enjoy themselves.....enjoy themselves is the key.
Zappy wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Rhenny, I didn't want to get into a debate about simple is still fun and has lots of choices. That debate has been running for some time and you either like or don't like and it's not going to change much.
The fighter is the natural leader of the group. He will often direct strategy and do planning. Our groups tend to focus a lot of factors off the character sheet when it comes to dealing with enemies.
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
Emrikol wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
The fundamental problems with utility spells - The writers seems to think they make aweseome once-a-day racial abilities.
See, when I play a character, I like consistancy in what I can do. Its why I lean towards warlocks and sorcerers over wizards; fewer spells, but better or more often with those few spells. Makes a tighter niche. Its why I like playing bards and paladins and rangers - they have a strong focus to them. Its also why I dislike the once-a-day-utilities that races get. Scrolls you can cast multiple times a day. You use them, then you can't do anything with it for the rest of the bloody day. If you waste it on a situation that didn't need it? They you wasted it.
So, if I know darkness, I want to be able to use darkness several times a day during the course of my adventures. I want to make a theme out of it.
That's my problem with utilities. Either let me cast them several times over and over, or don't bother. This one-of stuff we get from races (and the magic training feats) aren't worth it in my opinion.
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Zappy wrote:
"Unlurks" Looks at new Forums, see's that nothing has changed. Goes back to lurking.
Titanium Dragon, I was going to respond, but I think this is going to sum up what I want to say:
Saying that designers of top selling games are terrible, have no idea what they're doing? That's complete BS and nothing more than elitism. Really, I have nothing more to say to you.
EDIT: This thread needs to be locked - its nothing more than spewing ground for hate.
I find it infinitely fascinating that someone has the motivation and phychological wherewithal to repeatedly type incredibly lengthy walls of text, in numerous threads, on a forum dedicated to a game they do not like and have no intention of playing. It is awestriking in its pathos.
The two fighters in our Starter Set adventure has thus far proven invaluable and quite powerful. I look forward to playing one as my first choice when (and if) I ever get to sit down as a player this edition.
Mephi1234 wrote:
There are some redeemable thoughts (whether one agrees with them or not) in his rambling walls of text, but there's also no shortage of disparaging remarks about 5E, 3E. . . pretty much any edition that isn't 4E. It's edition warring at best.
Mephi1234 wrote:
I think the best way to sum up Titanium Dragon's thoughts is as follows: "what I like is an objective metric of what is a good game system; 4e scores well in that metric, so it is a good game system; 3e and 5e do not, so they are a bad game system; anyone who likes something I don't likes it despite the fact that it is a bad system, not because it is a good system." That is pretty much the sum total of his contribution to these forums. Anyone who disagrees with his metric will disagree with everything he has to say. And, as he is incapable of adopting a more relative perspective, he will always be incapable of understanding what other people like. Talking to him, unless you already agree with him, is pointless as a result. Nothing constructive can come of it.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Spells are limited, once they are gone they are gone untill you can spend 8 hours resting.
If characters can do that at anytime without consquence you may want to reconsider your Gming style.
Aside from the obvious gettings attacked at camp or in the middle of a friggin dungeon expending more then if you haden't even tried to rest in the first place. Time is the most important resource the players have.
If they need to rescue someone from an excecution 8 hours spent piddling around means the execution took place and everybody went home hours before the heroes even arrive.
I cant think of many *objectives* that a party would have where time woulden't be a factor. The long rest is made to be and should be a very rare thing. Its something you do once you complete one quest or chapter of a quest before you move on to the next step.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
GamingGorman wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Gazra wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Gazra wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
So, while I find most of Titanium Dragon's points laughable to the extent that I don't really feel the need to engage any of them in actual debate, he just made a point whose sophism is potent enough that someone could potentially be misled by what I am now dubbing the TD-CV strain. I figured I should pass out a quick logic-and-reason-booster-shot. Please note, I am not posting to him but to the rest of the forum. This post is explicitly for the benefit of other readers (as I don't think TD can be cured of what he seems to have caught in the trenches of the edition war).
TD-CV wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
As an artists and game designer myself, I'm just gonna chime in for a bit. I should note that my initial impressions of 5e are less than favorable. When it comes to my overall assesment of its merits, I'm probably far closer to Titanium Dragon and LFK than Cyber-Dave.
THAT SAID...
The idea that there is true objectivity with regard to the quality of game design or art is absolutely laughable. At most, one can say that a given work can objectively achieve a given goal. There are plenty of works of art that we can look at and say "This sucks", because they fail to achieve goals that are commonly valued. That's not being objectively bad. That's being objectively bad at achieving a subjective goal that has wide consensus of value.
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Wizard spells in this edition are not overpowered. They are either underpowered (buff spells) or start out very strong then peter out after a few levels (magic missile, fireball, lightning bolt) Also wizards do not get alot of high level spell slots. So the big bang spells are definitly limited at the moment. Plus wizards have garbage class features that no other class is stuck with. (yeah potent cantrip I am looking at you!) The spells are very much underpowered compared to previous editions in their overall effectiveness. Stop harping on wizards. Fighters seem to be the OP class so far but the rogue might be with different class options. The rogue second level ability is so good I expect any martial character to mutli-class in rogue just to pick up the feature. It really is that good!
Edition warring is a form of Forums Disruption and is therefore deemed a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Orethalion wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Ha. Gazra, I think I like you. 
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
LFK wrote:
The whole point of a game is to provide entertainment to those who play it. That is the ONLY purpose of a GAME. If I play a game with friends and we have great fun then it is a successful game. Any other criteria used to design a game has to be in the pursuit of that goal. Any other criteria not based solely on entertainment are meta criteria. Hopefully well thought out meta criteria will lead to the achievement of a game that is more entertaining.
I categorically reject Titanium Dragon's meta criteria. Any game designed using his principles will result in something that is not at all entertaining for me. Thus those meta criteria fail. Since 4e lost half it's playerbase at least the half that left agreed with me that it did not provide more fun than what they had. Since 3e is the posterboy for TD and LFK's concept of a bad game, their theories are very suspect. Some third party without the cachet of the D&D name started a new game which rivaled or maybe even surpassed the D&D brand in sales. I believe it did so because the players found it more entertaining than D&D at the time.
The reason some people like game A and other people like game B is that different things are fun for different people. Why do some people like the card game bridge and others like the board game chess? Why do some like both but dislike something else? It's a matter of taste.
@TD
And yes Titanium, I am saying that the simple fighter and the complex wizard are at the very heart and soul of what makes a game D&D. I realize that means you believe D&D should be destroyed forever and abandoned as a concept. That is your opinion. Since we are talking games here I'd prefer to allow the market to decide what to provide when it comes to people's entertainment. I'm sure companies will come into being to service your own preferences. Why keep trying to change D&D, a very popular property as it is, and just seek out another game that better fits your concept of fun. Or, just use the parts of D&D that you find enjoyable and ban the others....or play 4e and skip 5e.
I wish you could realize how much I do not like playing 4e. If someone told me to play 4e and have fun and if I do have fun I get a million dollars. I wouldn't even call my friends to start a campaign. Why waste my time when I'm not getting the million dollars. There is zero chance. So when measuring a game by the only property that ever really matters which is entertainment value, 4e is a zero for me. I realize others like it and that is fine. Enjoy it. I stopped playing it and move on. It seems like rational behavior to me.
If you want to argue what is best for a business that owns the D&D brand, I'll argue that being more like traditional D&D is the way to maximize profit.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Zappy wrote:
While I won't speak regarding 5th edition because it's not fully out yet, Titanium_Dragon is right about 3rd edition being a terrible game. There's just so many problems with it that if I didn't already know who made it, I'd laugh you out of the room if you told me it was professionally designed by a real gaming company. The game's a completely imbalanced wreck with only 2 classes(spellcaster and not-spellcaster) and only 1 class role(everyone is striker). It had extremely convoluted subsystems("I grapple him.") that I'm glad Pathfinder cleaned up, too many spellcaster spells and abilities that overshadowed or outright replaced noncasters to the point where playing a noncaster was pointless, and a completely pointless CR system that gave ltitle to no indiciation of how difficult an encounter actually was, where monsters of the same CR wildly vary from decent challenge to a joke to a TPK waiting to happen.
And trap options. There is no excuse for intentionally putitng in options players arepunished for taking(Toughness).
LFK wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because discussion of moderation in the forums is considered forum disruption and is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
If you have a question about moderation in the forums please contact Customer Service here: http://wizards.custhelp.com/
CyberDave, you're doing the lord's work here.
Amen
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
JonWake wrote: