Roleplaying GamesThe all-purpose forum for general advice or system-independent (or multi-system) discussion. Come discuss adventure plots, gamemastering dilemmas, or player advice here. For ruleset-specific discussions, see the subforums.
Indeed, but my problem also applies to vancian casting as a whole: Guessing what encounters the DM is going to toss at you while you put your spell list together is putting the fun and complexity before play happens. Besides, in my experience, most players entirely bypass this "element" of the system by just keeping a "usual spells" list that they prepare every day unless something tells them they should prepare something else, and the 5e designers are sharply reducing this element anyway by putting all formerly-vancian casters on spirit shaman casting.
(raises hand)
This is why I tend to prefer sorcerers over wizards and in Pathfinder oracles over clerics. I'm going to be using the same spells over and over anyway I might as well cast more per day and be able to spam a spell if I need to. In one of my games I'm playing a Life Oracle and am loving it. I get to play a "cleric" in every way in my usual mode with the freedom to cast as needed. Last game I was able to spam buff the party on Bull's Strength and Shield of Faith before a battle I'd never have been able to do as a cleric. I can still cast Bull Strength or Divine Favor on myself for combat and channel energy as a revelation for when I need/want to go into healbot mode. Finally I get to play a "cleric" how I always dreamed of playing one. The one level delay in spell progression is irrelevant to me. I'm sure there will be a combat where I wish had a spell I don't, but that's not going to happen often enough for me to worry about.
If "concentrating on a spell" for a round means more than just me sitting in the chair telling the DM "I maintain the spell", then it might not be so bad. If I get to make decisions and manipulate stuff that are effective through the use of this one spell, then I'm engaged. I'm contributing. I like that suggestion 'Dice gave.
Just for the record, concentration (in the current rules) doesn't require you to forego your action; it's just that you can only keep one "concentration" spell up at any one time. Inevitably there'll be a feat that makes it two. But the point is, you can still move around and cast other spells while concentrating.
Overall I agree with the comment earlier that the issue is not that wizards in the current playtest get too many options; it's that fighters get too few.
Many problems have to do with the breadth of magic. A fighter takes a major nerf switching between combat styles, but the same is not true of magic. There needs to be stiff implications in picking your magic. You are good at what you do, but take nerfs when switching to someone else's specialty.
As long as magic can be anything, there will be an imbalance of power.
In any case, restricting the number of high level spell slots is a way to balance the at-will spells, and not in a bad way. The team will have to rely on other ways to solve the lesser encounters, while saving the big guns for the boss fight. Currently building the level 14 characters and will try out the mud-sorceror tomb adventure after the holidays.
I'm not sure that's a good idea. Is it really going to be fun for the fighters if they know they're only there and contributing because the wizard is holding back?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaronK
Frankly, a Wizard can suck even more than a Fighter could ever dream of sucking. A Fighter can stab himself to death, but only a Wizard could Plane Shift to some horrible far realm to be tortured for an eternity of insanity.
Essentially the fighter is fulfilling the role of a tank in this situation, making sure the artillary of the wizard won't be out of ammo before they're really needed. This is a genuinely important role.
Also you can design a melee class with similarly restricted abilities?
__________________
Avatar courtesy of CoffeeIncluded - of Kurt, from the Toes in the Water campaign.
I'm not sure that's a good idea. Is it really going to be fun for the fighters if they know they're only there and contributing because the wizard is holding back?
If I have one grenade, it's not holding back if I don't throw it, it's preparation.
The fighter is contributing if his actions are directly responsible for the wizard being able to deploy against a larger threat. If the wizard can only take out one threat, regardless of size, and the fighter can take out a half-dozen small threats but not the one biggest threat, then having two wizards instead of a wizard and a fighter would mean that the two wizards would be overwhelmed by smaller threats while trying to take out a large one.
Ideally, the fighter's ability to keep going indefinitely would actually balance out the nova-like nature of a wizard's powers. This failed fairly badly in 3.5; time will tell how it works out in 5e.
__________________ Patchwork Magisters - Volume III is now available! You know, if you like that sort of thing.
Which outside of an MMO where an algorithm controls who monsters attack is kind of an unreliable state of affairs.
The other kind of tank, which is notable primarily for having a big freaking gun (though not to the level of artillery) is the one being used here. That kind is still useful.
__________________
Fudge Assistant in the Playground.
If I have one grenade, it's not holding back if I don't throw it, it's preparation.
The fighter is contributing if his actions are directly responsible for the wizard being able to deploy against a larger threat. If the wizard can only take out one threat, regardless of size, and the fighter can take out a half-dozen small threats but not the one biggest threat, then having two wizards instead of a wizard and a fighter would mean that the two wizards would be overwhelmed by smaller threats while trying to take out a large one.
Ideally, the fighter's ability to keep going indefinitely would actually balance out the nova-like nature of a wizard's powers. This failed fairly badly in 3.5; time will tell how it works out in 5e.
Which leads to another problem. The wizard finally casts his big boomba spell, and . . . it doesn't work. BBEG made the save. Wizard missed the target on his roll. There was a concealment miss chance. Something that caused the spell's effect not to work. Now what? All that build up for nothing and the wizard has no other big boomba thing to do. Time to go back to Magic Missile the darkness, yay.
Guys, the eighth thread has started. This one is closing shortly.
I'm well aware (you'll notice that I posted in the new thread before that last post). I wanted to answer Kaeso's question in the same thread it was asked in, since it was fairly simple and I have no idea whether or not he's checking the new thread.
__________________
Thanks to Serpentine for the half-elf sorceress avatar.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
