TheRPGSite

The 5e Wizard...initiate thy worship or thy fury!!

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrJv6pECEAA0zri.jpg:large)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrJv6vzCcAESMNP.jpg:large)

If I were prone to be blasty mages, that almost looks like one of my characters.

So far I like the changes: Spells (but is that specialized wizards only boost?), I like more HP!

Makes sense to me.

Temple?
Holy Symbol?
Prayer Book?
Dedicated to the god Oghma?
On a mission from the god?

Cut and paste from Acolyte? Or Mixup with the Cleric? Or treating Elven wizards as priests?

The Wizard has the Acolyte Background. So they are a magic-user that grew up in a religious way.

Quote from: Omega;762467Temple?
Holy Symbol?
Prayer Book?
Dedicated to the god Oghma?
On a mission from the god?

Cut and paste from Acolyte? Or Mixup with the Cleric? Or treating Elven wizards as priests?

neither.  Basically, not all worshippers are clerics or paladins.  Backgrounds are completely divorced from class

Which makes a lot of sense. Not everyone working for a temple is necessarily going to be a cleric or paladin - your rank and file temple guard is going to be a fighter, your gods of knowledge or magic are going to have wizards attending their temples, your trickster gods are going to have thieves dedicating heists to them... I'm liking how backgrounds work, to be honest.

It's awesome and gives you the reason to take the Divine Imitate feat. Horrible choice for powergaming but ridiculous fun for an actual concept and not weak at all. Just check out what that background gives you..I'll  let you figure it out no pressure.:)

Quote from: Silverlion;762464If I were prone to be blasty mages, that almost looks like one of my characters.

So far I like the changes: Spells (but is that specialized wizards only boost?), I like more HP!

Makes sense to me.

Evocation Savant is tradition only. It gives you a reason to specialize without being punished. All 5e wizards are specialists. I can't wait to see if I can make a A Magus or Swordmage....I have a solid idea how to do the latter already. I figure the former would require a Fighter/Warlock multiclass of some sort.

With all this level of detail on the character itself, it seems pretty lazy not to have gone ahead any name them... Why even bother leaving a name of the pregen if you are going to spell out the characters personality traits and motivations...

/boggle

"I use polysyllabic words that convey the impression of erudition."
They should have added "I refuse to explain which gender I am."

JG

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762469neither.  Basically, not all worshippers are clerics or paladins.  Backgrounds are completely divorced from class

I figured that. It is just that for a Starter its starting off a little confusingly. It could easily be read as a typo rather than a feature.

The playtests Artisan or Sage might have fit better.

Quote from: Omega;762479I figured that. It is just that for a Starter its starting off a little confusingly. It could easily be read as a typo rather than a feature.

The playtests Artisan or Sage might have fit better.

Its somewhat interesting that the only Starter Set character that seems to have hat you might consider the obvious background is the Rogue who is a 'Criminal' apparently. The other four are Fighter/Noble, Fighter/Hero of the People(I think its called this anyway), Cleric/Soldier and Wizard/Acolyte.

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;762474With all this level of detail on the character itself, it seems pretty lazy not to have gone ahead any name them... Why even bother leaving a name of the pregen if you are going to spell out the characters personality traits and motivations...

/boggle

Quote from: James Gillen;762475"I use polysyllabic words that convey the impression of erudition."
They should have added "I refuse to explain which gender I am."

Presumably both the lack of a name and the gender-neutral language is to allow players to choose their character's gender.

Quote from: Warthur;762491Presumably both the lack of a name and the gender-neutral language is to allow players to choose their character's gender.

yep.  Mike said as much in the unboxing video.  When a player picks up a sheet, they can play the image they have in their head, be it man or woman PC

Quote from: jadrax;762483Its somewhat interesting that the only Starter Set character that seems to have hat you might consider the obvious background is the Rogue who is a 'Criminal' apparently. The other four are Fighter/Noble, Fighter/Hero of the People(I think its called this anyway), Cleric/Soldier and Wizard/Acolyte.

All deliberate though.

They are trying to show that there is far more depth to the tabletop experience than you might get in a board game or a computer RPG.

They want the PCs to be linked into the world and to be realised as individuals with their own connections desires etc .

They are showcasing the background feature as part of that not all mages are just like this look here is a different background.
Obviously the priest and the wizard are linked to the plot through their background and the Noble will be too.

So demonstrating an interlinked world.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762503yep.  Mike said as much in the unboxing video.  When a player picks up a sheet, they can play the image they have in their head, be it man or woman PC

Except for the parts where they take away the choice for you... :rolleyes:

Will be interesting to see how, or if, the Starter explains these choices to the DM.

Perhaps the elf is a failed cleric aspirant and turned to magic.
Maybee they are planning on multiclassing later... Plan ahead!

In playtest we found that the at-will cantrips - in particular, mage hand - were extremely powerful. Combined with four spells at 1st level, the wizard was far and away the most powerful class.

I was the wizard and rather enjoyed it, though.

Quote from: Omega;762509Except for the parts where they take away the choice for you... :rolleyes:

Will be interesting to see how, or if, the Starter explains these choices to the DM.

Perhaps the elf is a failed cleric aspirant and turned to magic.
Maybee they are planning on multiclassing later... Plan ahead!

They had to make choices and I suppose whatever direction they went would be wrong by some measure.

Ray of frost - no
Mage hand - no
short sword - no

Otherwise, OK.

Why no Mage Hand or short sword?

Quote from: Marleycat;762516Why no Mage Hand or short sword?

Because its bad enough that elves have to hug every tree they see. Now they can remotely hug them!

Think of the trees. No mage hand...

As for the short sword. Because once an elf gets one sword. The next thing you know hes in the suntan booth and practicing with TWO swords...

Once was more than enough... Think of the swords...

Quote from: James Gillen;762475"I use polysyllabic words that convey the impression of erudition."

My favorite part of the sheet because I saw it as a nod to Vance's Dying Earth wizards.

Quote from: James Gillen;762475They should have added "I refuse to explain which gender I am."

Probably popularized by OotS, but a recurring joke at our game table. :D

Quote from: thedungeondelver;762513Ray of frost - no
Mage hand - no
short sword - no

Otherwise, OK.

I'm surprised not to see a longsword there.  I'd like to know why the shortsword instead.  I'ts not a charop thing, it's more an elf thing to me.  If they all know longbow and longsword as cultural thing, I kind of expect them to have them, unless there is at least a nod as to why.

Otherwise I'm not clear on why ray of frost and mage hand are "no" as well to you.

Quote from: Brander;762527I'm surprised not to see a longsword there.  I'd like to know why the shortsword instead.  I'ts not a charop thing, it's more an elf thing to me.  If they all know longbow and longsword as cultural thing, I kind of expect them to have them, unless there is at least a nod as to why.

Otherwise I'm not clear on why ray of frost and mage hand are "no" as well to you.

Finesse most likely. Allows you to use STR or DEX.

STR is 10. DEX is 15.

+2 to hit and damage.

Makes sense in that context.

Quote from: Omega;762509Except for the parts where they take away the choice for you... :rolleyes:

Why the rolleyes? It's a pregenerated character, if you want choices, you can create your own character.

Quote from: Claudius;762536Why the rolleyes? It's a pregenerated character, if you want choices, you can create your own character.

Exactly

Quote from: Claudius;762536Why the rolleyes? It's a pregenerated character, if you want choices, you can create your own character.

Yeah, I see it as an example of what a detailed character would like.  Of course, if you are going to go into that much background, why not give a name?

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;762575Yeah, I see it as an example of what a detailed character would like.  Of course, if you are going to go into that much background, why not give a name?

JG

I know this might be hard to believe, but a kid would be far more interested in naming the character than they would be figuring out all the other stuff. This game is definitely being marketed toward a younger crowd.

Quote from: Brad;762578I know this might be hard to believe, but a kid would be far more interested in naming the character than they would be figuring out all the other stuff. This game is definitely being marketed toward a younger crowd.

Not a bad point.

JG

Quote from: Brad;762578I know this might be hard to believe, but a kid would be far more interested in naming the character than they would be figuring out all the other stuff. This game is definitely being marketed toward a younger crowd.

That's a great point.

I really think the starter set would have gotten less flack if it had been called the "Quickstart Set".

Quote from: Brad;762578I know this might be hard to believe, but a kid would be far more interested in naming the character than they would be figuring out all the other stuff. This game is definitely being marketed toward a younger crowd.

That, and how many kids do we know would do this:

Boy: "I want to play the mage, but I don't want to be a girl!"
Girl: "I would love to play a fighter, but I don't want to be a boy."


By keeping gender neutral, I think they made the right move.  You need to know rules when creating a character.  You don't need rules giving one a name and gender is just an assumption by whoever is playing it.

Quote from: amacris;762511In playtest we found that the at-will cantrips - in particular, mage hand - were extremely powerful. Combined with four spells at 1st level, the wizard was far and away the most powerful class.

I was the wizard and rather enjoyed it, though.

True.

4 spells with the ability to cast 3 times plus all day cantriping. At level 1?  At level 5 you have 9 memorized with 8 slots.   What's not to like.

Quote from: robiswrong;762581That's a great point.

I really think the starter set would have gotten less flack if it had been called the "Quickstart Set".

Yes, I think we are not the target audience for the starter set; which only makes me more interested in the Player's Handbook

Quote from: Sommerjon;762621True.

4 spells with the ability to cast 3 times plus all day cantriping. At level 1?  At level 5 you have 9 memorized with 8 slots.   What's not to like.

The cantrips seem overpowered to me.
I would have dropped an attack spell to doing 1-4 damage for example.

I like the more spells early less spells later though as I think that will bring the wizard's powercurve more into allignment with the other classes.

Quote from: Brad;762578I know this might be hard to believe, but a kid would be far more interested in naming the character than they would be figuring out all the other stuff. This game is definitely being marketed toward a younger crowd.

Have you not read any of the 5e supporters posts? We have been saying this ad museum since day 1 and before.

Quote from: jibbajibba;762644The cantrips seem overpowered to me.
I would have dropped an attack spell to doing 1-4 damage for example.

I like the more spells early less spells later though as I think that will bring the wizard's powercurve more into allignment with the other classes.

And that's exactly what they did. 19 total spells of which 15 are 1-5th. What more do you want? It demands serious strategy to actually survive and contribute as is.

Quote from: Marleycat;762650And that's exactly what they did. 19 total spells of which 15 are 1-5th. What more do you want? It demands serious strategy to actually survive and contribute as is.

Bit confused as I just said I liked what they did with the spell slot distribution and you pointed out that was was they had done when I knew that and was agreeing with it....

I still think that the cantrips are too powerful though.

Quote from: jibbajibba;762652Bit confused as I just said I liked what they did with the spell slot distribution and you pointed out that was was they had done when I knew that and was agreeing with it....

I still think that the cantrips are too powerful though.

I can understand that view. I don't agree with it but for certain playstyles not my own? You definitely have a point. Basically remove the 2-3 obvious combat cantrips and you would be mostly okay. But you do cause other issues in return if that was your choice......most obvious would be the need for more spell slots and all the issues that entails.

Quote from: Marleycat;762648Have you not read any of the 5e supporters posts? We have been saying this ad museum since day 1 and before.

I only read posts about the Taliban and pornstars playing rpgs.

Quote from: robiswrong;762581That's a great point.

I really think the starter set would have gotten less flack if it had been called the "Quickstart Set".

I said the same when it was finally revealed what the Starter really was and the very low target audience age.

With attendant collectible minis via a partnership with wizKids.

Quote from: Omega;762678I said the same when it was finally revealed what the Starter really was and the very low target audience age.

With attendant collectible minis via a partnership with wizKids.

Since D&D went commercial its been a game aimed at 12 year old kids.
The starter set is a starter set any confusion comes from people thinking starter set meant basic version of the game
Quickstart and Starter are basically synonyms.  

The difference here is that the basic game is available for free and in all likelihood the start set includes some setting information that will remain usable beyond the starter adventure included in the book.

Quote from: jibbajibba;762644The cantrips seem overpowered to me.
I would have dropped an attack spell to doing 1-4 damage for example.

I like the more spells early less spells later though as I think that will bring the wizard's powercurve more into allignment with the other classes.

How powerful a cantrip should be is debatable, but 1-4 is useless except maybe at level 1.

It is unlikely that low level pc's will be up against creatures immune to everything but spells.

I see.

Quote from: Bill;762689How powerful a cantrip should be is debatable, but 1-4 is useless except maybe at level 1.

It is unlikely that low level pc's will be up against creatures immune to everything but spells.

No. Useless even then monsters have no small amount of hitpoints.

Quote from: Marleycat;762700No. Useless even then monsters have no small amount of hitpoints.

Agreed; I was using the logic that some damage is better than none, but as you point out, if you die it doesn't really matter that you nicked the monsters.

Quote from: Marleycat;762700No. Useless even then monsters have no small amount of hitpoints.

Also, if you have to roll to hit anyway with your 1d4 cantrip, why wouldn't you just use a weapon you're proficient in for 1d6 or 1d8 dmg instead?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762706Also, if you have to roll to hit anyway with your 1d4 cantrip, why wouldn't you just use a weapon you're proficient in for 1d6 or 1d8 dmg instead?

You've fallen into their clever trap... ;)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762706Also, if you have to roll to hit anyway with your 1d4 cantrip, why wouldn't you just use a weapon you're proficient in for 1d6 or 1d8 dmg instead?

You could be out of ammo or lose your weapon, but the puny damage makes it questionable regardless.

I would be far more concerned with how frail a wizard is, than the cantrips.

Wizards too sturdy and or able to protect themselves too well is a potential problem, for me.

But cantrips? Not going to cause me any grief.

Quote from: Bill;762708You could be out of ammo or lose your weapon, but the puny damage makes it questionable regardless.

I would be far more concerned with how frail a wizard is, than the cantrips.

Wizards too sturdy and or able to protect themselves too well is a potential problem, for me.

But cantrips? Not going to cause me any grief.

Same here.  The pregen mage has 8 hp at level 1, but only because of Con.  Most mages will only have 6, with a very low AC.  So it seems they are back to being able to be killed in one hit by pretty much any opponent.

sorry disagree about the cantrip.

If I have a mage at first level who effectively has a bow with an infinite amount of arrows I have an issue with that.

If the mage's at will cantrip does as much damage as the fighter's sword that causes me an issue.

I said d4 just because it is next to useless, I say next to useless because it's not actually useless. If can ruin the concentration of another caster, it can kill an injured enemy in some circumstances, it can knock over a glass, or shatter a window, it can do lots of little small effects without it replacing an actual combat attack for all but the weakest of folks.

This is exactly what a cantrip ought to be.

can I ask a quick saving throw question.

It is my assumption from the character sheet that your spell has a DC to save against of 10 + int bonus (+ some level based modifier).

I assume , from common sense, that the spell save will be appropriate stat modifier (int versus befuddlement, wisdom vs illusion, dx versus fireball etc) + a level modifier?

Can someone confirm that?

Quote from: jibbajibba;762719can I ask a quick saving throw question.

It is my assumption from the character sheet that your spell has a DC to save against of 10 + int bonus (+ some level based modifier).

I assume , from common sense, that the spell save will be appropriate stat modifier (int versus befuddlement, wisdom vs illusion, dx versus fireball etc) + a level modifier?

Can someone confirm that?

The Save DC is 10+Int bonus (used to be 8 in the playtest), but prof bonus is not applied.  the save depends on the spell.  For instance, a to resist a charm person spell it's a Wis save.

Quote from: jibbajibba;762719can I ask a quick saving throw question.

It is my assumption from the character sheet that your spell has a DC to save against of 10 + int bonus (+ some level based modifier).

I assume , from common sense, that the spell save will be appropriate stat modifier (int versus befuddlement, wisdom vs illusion, dx versus fireball etc) + a level modifier?

Can someone confirm that?

  DCs are actually 8 + stat modifier + proficiency bonus (a universal bonus to all weapons, tools, skills, saves, etc. with which one is proficient, as well as spells, that starts at +2 and maxes out at +6).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762720The Save DC is 10+Int bonus (used to be 8 in the playtest), but prof bonus is not applied.  the save depends on the spell.  For instance, a to resist a charm person spell it's a Wis save.

  No, proficiency bonus still applies--it's just that proficiency bonus has been upped to +2 at first level, so it looks like 10+attribute to start with. But check the back page; when your proficiency bonus increases at level 5, your spell DCs go up as well.

My question in the other thread got overlooked,  so I'll repeat it here...

This sheet is the first I've heard of the semi-vancian system.  What becomes of sorcerers?

I am reading that right, right?  You prepare X spells and cast what you want from those Y times, level considerations held equal?

Edit - considerations not consolidations

Quote from: mcbobbo;762723This sheet is the first I've heard of the semi-vancian system.  What becomes of sorcerers?

Sorcerers are a thing, but no idea how that thing works.

QuoteI am reading that right, right?  You prepare X spells and cast what you want from those Y times, level consolidations held equal?

Yes, that is basically how it works. But you can cast most (all?) spells using a higher level slot if you wish, for increased benefit.

Quote from: Omega;762707You've fallen into their clever trap... ;)

Pretty much. Interestingly the full scoop about what will be in BASIC is up in L&L with the full spell lists. One nice tidbit is they will put 2 subraces for each in it.

Quote from: mcbobbo;762723My question in the other thread got overlooked,  so I'll repeat it here...

This sheet is the first I've heard of the semi-vancian system.  What becomes of sorcerers?

I am reading that right, right?  You prepare X spells and cast what you want from those Y times, level considerations held equal?

Edit - considerations not consolidations

Not sure because they were reworked like the Bard and Warlock. What we do know is they'll have fewer spells then the wizard and a pool of spellpoints to use for metamagic or to recover spell slots.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;762721DCs are actually 8 + stat modifier + proficiency bonus (a universal bonus to all weapons, tools, skills, saves, etc. with which one is proficient, as well as spells, that starts at +2 and maxes out at +6).

So without some magic item or whatnot  the high end DC would be 19 (8+5+6).

Quote from: Marleycat;762729Interestingly the full scoop about what will be in BASIC is up in L&L with the full spell lists.

I think the jury is out on if that spell list is actually correct as its rather different to the spell list in Starter Set Exert Three (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140612). And while it is possible the core and starter will have different lists, it seems odd...

Edit: Ah, he has updated the L&L article now.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762715Same here.  The pregen mage has 8 hp at level 1, but only because of Con.  Most mages will only have 6, with a very low AC.  So it seems they are back to being able to be killed in one hit by pretty much any opponent.

Could be lower because we're back to rolling for hitpoints as the assumed default. Cats are back to being the bane of wizards again. Somehow that makes me happy.:)

IIRC the 1d8 cantrip is melee. Not exactly where I would want to be as a wizard. Ray of Frost is 1d6. Unless they showed something else and I haven't seen it.

1d6 with no bonus to attack from int, magic weapons, etc is like, 3.5 expected damage on a roll. Compared to the 9 expected damage that a str 14 fighter with a two handed sword will do. I'm sorry if I just don't see this as an issue.

People see the highest number on a dice and misunderstand how important it is. In reality, static bonuses usually matter more than people think.

Hell, the wizard in the starter set in melee is better off using that short sword, and would be better off using a bow as well, instead of using cantrips for damage, because he would get dex mod to damage.

Quote from: jibbajibba;762718sorry disagree about the cantrip.

If I have a mage at first level who effectively has a bow with an infinite amount of arrows I have an issue with that.

If the mage's at will cantrip does as much damage as the fighter's sword that causes me an issue.

I said d4 just because it is next to useless, I say next to useless because it's not actually useless. If can ruin the concentration of another caster, it can kill an injured enemy in some circumstances, it can knock over a glass, or shatter a window, it can do lots of little small effects without it replacing an actual combat attack for all but the weakest of folks.

This is exactly what a cantrip ought to be.

I believe you are greatly overestimating the cantrips.

If they hit as well as an archer, had the same range, and did the same damage, i would say the cantrips are too powerful to be called cantrips.

But, I believe they fall short of using a weapon.

Unless they changed it, ray of frost and shocking grasp were both 1d8.  But as you say, the mage doesn't get any bonuses to damage on that (until getting higher levels where it becomes 2d8).

I know it's just anecdotal, but even anecdotal evidence is stronger than theorycrafting IMO ;).  But I never once saw any sort of game balance issues or distraction issues during the dozens of sessions I played of 5e with at wills.  The only difference was that instead of, "I shoot my crossbow/sling/dagger/dart" it became, "I use ray of frost".  By the time the mage ran of out spells to use and had to resort to that stuff, he wasn't doing hardly any damage at all even if he hit compared to any of the fighting classes.

Fighting classes have a pretty consistent baseline of damage that runs forever.  Mages have peaks and valleys; sometimes being a lot more than a fighter, often being a lot less.  The game has always been like that.

Quote from: Bill;762747I believe you are greatly overestimating the cantrips.

If they hit as well as an archer, had the same range, and did the same damage, i would say the cantrips are too powerful to be called cantrips.

But, I believe they fall short of using a weapon.

The good news for jibba is that cantrips aren't like any of those examples.

weapons get ability modifiers to damage.  That's the difference between 1-8 points of damage (cantrip) and 4-11 (with a +3 mod).  Or on average nearly double, going from 4.5 to 7.5

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762749Unless they changed it, ray of frost and shocking grasp were both 1d8.  But as you say, the mage doesn't get any bonuses to damage on that (until getting higher levels where it becomes 2d8).

Ah, my bad. Either way, it doesn't compare to just using a weapon. 1d6+2 on the short sword is better than 1d8. A bow is better than ray of frost for pure damage as well for him.

The only part where the cantrips get better than a weapon attack is when the dice scale up, but at that point, fighters are getting multiple attacks, so yes, the wizard can cast a cantrip with an expected damage of around 9 points of damage on a hit. While the 14 strength fighter can do two attacks that do around 9 points of damage on a hit.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;762755Ah, my bad. Either way, it doesn't compare to just using a weapon. 1d6+2 on the short sword is better than 1d8. A bow is better than ray of frost for pure damage as well for him.

The only part where the cantrips get better than a weapon attack is when the dice scale up, but at that point, fighters are getting multiple attacks, so yes, the wizard can cast a cantrip with an expected damage of around 9 points of damage on a hit. While the 14 strength fighter can do two attacks that do around 9 points of damage on a hit.

Heh, "expected" and "around" to make it look like 14Str fighter will do 2x at-will damage?  Gotta frame it that way? Sheesh.

Mage: 2d8 (if hit) (assuming it stays base 1d8)
Fighter 1d8+Str (if hit) plus 1d8+Str (if hit). (Assuming the Fighter is using a 1d8 Weapon.)

Now you get a 18 Str Fighter with Greataxe, not even remotely close.  A lower Str Fighter with a handaxe, different story.

Quote from: jibbajibba;762644The cantrips seem overpowered to me.
I would have dropped an attack spell to doing 1-4 damage for example.

I like the more spells early less spells later though as I think that will bring the wizard's powercurve more into allignment with the other classes.

Makes one wonder if they are following the idea that most 'osp' play low level 'campaigns'.

Quote from: Marleycat;762650And that's exactly what they did. 19 total spells of which 15 are 1-5th. What more do you want? It demands serious strategy to actually survive and contribute as is.

Is there definitive proof that is 100% accurate?  I haven't found anything that says this to be true.

Quote from: Sommerjon;762773Makes one wonder if they are following the idea that most 'osp' play low level 'campaigns'.


Is there definitive proof that is 100% accurate?  I haven't found anything that says this to be true.

The spell slots are the same for everybody for ease of multiclassing

4/4/3/2/2/1/1/1/1 (19) for a 20th level character that is a full caster.

The spells you prepare a day is level + attribute bonus (25) max cap of 20 in your attribute unless you get a magic item (ring of wizardry would be likely). We do know ritual caster is in the full game and they might put it in BASIC also unless they changed it wizards can have unlimited cantrips. But going by the starter set with the tightest of interpretations it looks like you will auto-learn cantrips every 4th level. So I would hazard a good guess that your typical cleric or wizard would have 8 cantrips by 20th level at the very least.

Arcane recovery is 1/2 your level round up in slots not spells once a day after a short rest, in the playtest it was only good for 1-5th level spells but the starter set doesn't specify that, either because it's not relevant or they may have changed it to allow for you to recover high level spells if you reach 12th level and up.

Quote from: Sommerjon;762773Is there definitive proof that is 100% accurate?  I haven't found anything that says this to be true.

As far as I can tell, from twitter, legend and lore, etc. in terms of spells that can be cast per day, what she said is true for all pure casters. However, Wizards can refresh some spells per day on a short rest, so you may consider that to mean they get more.

The starter set previews have not contradicted this, but as they only go up to level 5, it could have changed but I really don't think it has.

Quote from: CRKrueger;762766Heh, "expected" and "around" to make it look like 14Str fighter will do 2x at-will damage?  Gotta frame it that way? Sheesh.

Mage: 2d8 (if hit) (assuming it stays base 1d8)
Fighter 1d8+Str (if hit) plus 1d8+Str (if hit). (Assuming the Fighter is using a 1d8 Weapon.)

Now you get a 18 Str Fighter with Greataxe, not even remotely close.  A lower Str Fighter with a handaxe, different story.

True, a non 'optimized' fighter might be closer to what the cantrips can do.

And what I mean by 'non optimized', is a fighter who rolled low stats, or rolled in order, or actually chose to be Intelligent, Charismatic, etc..

Quote from: CRKrueger;762766Heh, "expected" and "around" to make it look like 14Str fighter will do 2x at-will damage?  Gotta frame it that way? Sheesh.

Mage: 2d8 (if hit) (assuming it stays base 1d8)
Fighter 1d8+Str (if hit) plus 1d8+Str (if hit). (Assuming the Fighter is using a 1d8 Weapon.)

Now you get a 18 Str Fighter with Greataxe, not even remotely close.  A lower Str Fighter with a handaxe, different story.

1. I don't think the game math should be based around 10 Str fighters, that is absurd to use as a baseline for how the game works, because you are just going to make decent strengthed fighters ridiculous.

2. 14 strength two handed sword fighter DOES do at least twice the average damage. I talked about this already and popped the math down in another thread, I don't see a reason to repeat the math every time.

3. Yes, a sword and board fighter will do less, around 6.5 expected damage on a hit with a longsword (1d8), but will also have better AC than a two handed fighter, and WAAAY more AC and HP than the fragile wizard giving him a lot more staying power.

4. 14 strength at level 5 (when two weapon attacks come into play) for a fighter is seriously seriously conservative.

5. If you want to pick less effective weapons, you shouldn't be surprised if you are less effective (handaxe, unless you are dual wielding, but that adds its own wrinkles into the expected damage).

6. Magic Weapons, while not as potent or common as in some other versions of D&D, can affect fighter damage even further, adding both a slight boost in accuracy, and in damage. There is nothing like this for cantrips, unless it is unrevealed.

Another thing, what is the range of the blasty cantrips?

If its relatively short, a bow kicks its ass.

Quote from: Bill;762793Another thing, what is the range of the blasty cantrips?

If its relatively short, a bow kicks its ass.

It's decent.  Ray of frost is 50ft at the latest playest

Quote from: Bill;762793Another thing, what is the range of the blasty cantrips?

If its relatively short, a bow kicks its ass.

They're short. The rays and I assume the firebolt is like 50 feet. Bows have much longer ranges.

Quote from: Bill;762787And what I mean by 'non optimized', is a fighter who rolled low stats, or rolled in order, or actually chose to be Intelligent, Charismatic, etc..

If I was making players roll stats in order, I would be making them roll to see what spells they got as well.

Although I have been assured that all fighters will get Gauntlets of Ogre Strength from the first Rabbit they kill, so its pretty irrelevant. ;o)

Quote from: Emperor Norton;7627911. I don't think the game math should be based around 10 Str fighters, that is absurd to use as a baseline for how the game works, because you are just going to make decent strengthed fighters ridiculous.

2. 14 strength two handed sword fighter DOES do at least twice the average damage. I talked about this already and popped the math down in another thread, I don't see a reason to repeat the math every time.

3. Yes, a sword and board fighter will do less, around 6.5 expected damage on a hit with a longsword (1d8), but will also have better AC than a two handed fighter, and WAAAY more AC and HP than the fragile wizard giving him a lot more staying power.

4. 14 strength at level 5 (when two weapon attacks come into play) for a fighter is seriously seriously conservative.

5. If you want to pick less effective weapons, you shouldn't be surprised if you are less effective (handaxe, unless you are dual wielding, but that adds its own wrinkles into the expected damage).

6. Magic Weapons, while not as potent or common as in some other versions of D&D, can affect fighter damage even further, adding both a slight boost in accuracy, and in damage. There is nothing like this for cantrips, unless it is unrevealed.

I would assume the baseline for a single classed fighter to be a 16 STR, because the standard array has a 15 as the highest value and humans get a +1 to all abilities. Looks like they went with 15/14/13/12/10/8 as the baseline standard array.

Quote from: jadrax;762800If I was making players roll stats in order, I would be making them roll to see what spells they got as well.

Although I have been assured that all fighters will get Gauntlets of Ogre Strength from the first Rabbit they kill, so its pretty irrelevant. ;o)

I am a huge fan of the 1E dnd random starting spells and chance to know new spells. Huge fan.

"Oh Chance to Know! Why have you forsaken me!?!!?"




Bah! I guess people prefer cookie cutter wizards :)

Quote from: Bill;762802I am a huge fan of the 1E dnd random starting spells and chance to know new spells. Huge fan.

"Oh Chance to Know! Why have you forsaken me!?!!?"




Bah! I guess people prefer cookie cutter wizards :)

That % to know table....oh god how I hate thee!!!!

Did make for some unique wizards though....

Quote from: Emperor Norton;7627911. I don't think the game math should be based around 10 Str fighters, that is absurd to use as a baseline for how the game works, because you are just going to make decent strengthed fighters ridiculous.

Agreed, however, assuming 1d8/2d8/3d8 etc and assuming the standard d8 weapon, then Strength is the only difference unless other selectable factors come into play.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;7627912. 14 strength two handed sword fighter DOES do at least twice the average damage. I talked about this already and popped the math down in another thread, I don't see a reason to repeat the math every time.

Except you didn't say two-handed.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;7627913. Yes, a sword and board fighter will do less, around 6.5 expected damage on a hit with a longsword (1d8),

That's all I was saying.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;7627916. Magic Weapons, while not as potent or common as in some other versions of D&D, can affect fighter damage even further, adding both a slight boost in accuracy, and in damage. There is nothing like this for cantrips, unless it is unrevealed.

Which we don't know, yet.

BTW, since we've determined that the Mage comes in at just Str difference from Fighter for the average weapon type...Where does Mage come in vs. Cleric or vs. Thief?  Should Mage round to round base damage, no resource expenditure be greater then a Cleric or Thief?  Is it?

If Mage's at-will damage without expending expendable spells can outpace baseline Cleric or Thief melee, that's a major and fundamental paradigm shift in the class.

I think all you have to ask yourself is whether or not it'd be fun to play Conan when Thoth-Amon could kick his ass pretty handily.

Quote from: CRKrueger;762816BTW, since we've determined that the Mage comes in at just Str difference from Fighter for the average weapon type...Where does Mage come in vs. Cleric or vs. Thief?  Should Mage round to round base damage, no resource expenditure be greater then a Cleric or Thief?  Is it?

If Mage's at-will damage without expending expendable spells can outpace baseline Cleric or Thief melee, that's a major and fundamental paradigm shift in the class.

Because of Finesse and Sneak Attack (which pretty much always works now)I think they are pretty far behind the rogue.

Cleric gets more tricky, because there is such a variance in the class. A war cleric seems comparable (if not better at some levels) to a fighter. A healing cleric less so, but because clerics get their own d8 damage cantrip (Sacred Flame) they can never fall behind the Wizard.

Quote from: Marleycat;762810That % to know table....oh god how I hate thee!!!!

Did make for some unique wizards though....

Often it was more an issue of when you learned a particular spell and not if.

Traumatic when your wizard failed to learn fireball at level 5, but it was kind of cool that the wizard would then have to rely on his other spells.

Unless you had horrid luck, you could learn fireball at level 6 or 7, etc...

I realize many players prefer to pick exactly what spells they have, but I have a fondness for the 'chance to know'.

Quote from: Bill;762828Often it was more an issue of when you learned a particular spell and not if.

Traumatic when your wizard failed to learn fireball at level 5, but it was kind of cool that the wizard would then have to rely on his other spells.

Unless you had horrid luck, you could learn fireball at level 6 or 7, etc...

I realize many players prefer to pick exactly what spells they have, but I have a fondness for the 'chance to know'.

I did that very thing a couple of times but at least I knew Spectral Force.:)

Quote from: Marleycat;762829I did that very thing a couple of times but at least I knew Spectral Force.:)

Spectral force was actually effective. 1E has illusion spells that later versions of dnd wish they had.

Illusionists were pretty amazing right up until they got ganked by a pack of skeletons.

Here is a more complete summary of the expected damage per round of a cantrip vs fighter weapon attack at level 5. We have three targets, AC13, AC15, and AC17, and 3 Wizards (Int 10, 14, and 18) and 3 Fighters (Str 10, 14, 18). The fighter will also use 3 different weapons (dagger, longsword, two handed sword) one mundane, and one +1 magic of each type.

They both have a proficiency bonus of +3, as per the starter characters at that level.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BoPcPWo9ns3y5csjGxrewS5H6UYFeDg2Lx-TxZmW-u8/edit?usp=sharing

As you can see, any fighter wielding a longsword (even one with 10 Str) is doing at least as much expected damage as the wizards cantrips (vs a wizard of the same intelligence as his strength, which I think is a fair comparison). And once you start adding strength, the Fighter QUICKLY outpaces them in damage. A Str 18 fighter can even do more damage wielding a dagger.

(Hell, the 18 str fighter does more damage with his FIST, and remember that hand to hand in 5e is 1+str damage (2*(1+4)*chance to hit)).

Also, there is no reason to just assume 1d8 on the fighter just because its equal to the Wizards die. The Fighter has the option to go up to 2d6, something the Wizard doesn't, that should be figured in.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;762835Here is a more complete summary of the expected damage per round of a cantrip vs fighter weapon attack at level 5. We have three targets, AC13, AC15, and AC17, and 3 Wizards (Int 10, 14, and 18) and 3 Fighters (Str 10, 14, 18). The fighter will also use 3 different weapons (dagger, longsword, two handed sword) one mundane, and one +1 magic of each type.

They both have a proficiency bonus of +3, as per the starter characters at that level.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BoPcPWo9ns3y5csjGxrewS5H6UYFeDg2Lx-TxZmW-u8/edit?usp=sharing

As you can see, any fighter wielding a longsword (even one with 10 Str) is doing at least as much expected damage as the wizards cantrips (vs a wizard of the same intelligence as his strength, which I think is a fair comparison). And once you start adding strength, the Fighter QUICKLY outpaces them in damage. A Str 18 fighter can even do more damage wielding a dagger.

(Hell, the 18 str fighter does more damage with his FIST, and remember that hand to hand in 5e is 1+str damage (2*(1+4)*chance to hit)).

Also, there is no reason to just assume 1d8 on the fighter just because its equal to the Wizards die. The Fighter has the option to go up to 2d6, something the Wizard doesn't, that should be figured in.

(Un)Fortunately* the Wizard isn't limited to Cantrips.





*Depending upon which side you like

I don't really see it as a downside. I don't think anyone is arguing that a Fighter should be able to match a Novaing Wizard 1:1 over a short period of time.

The problem with 99% of the math wonk crowd, is that they try to play it up as PvP at full strength and full planning. And in that case, a Fighter SHOULD lose to a Wizard at anything beyond early levels.

But put a Wizard and a Fighter through a dungeon, filled with monsters, and the Wizard may burn brighter, but the Fighter will consistently be knocking them down.

Quote from: Brad;762818I think all you have to ask yourself is whether or not it'd be fun to play Conan when Thoth-Amon could kick his ass pretty handily.

How in Crom's name would it be fun if he couldn't? What glory is there to be had in a besting a harmless foe?

Quote from: The Butcher;762854How in Crom's name would it be fun if he couldn't? What glory is there to be had in a besting a harmless foe?

I think he meant in Melee. :D

Quote from: Emperor Norton;762835Here is a more complete summary of the expected damage per round of a cantrip vs fighter weapon attack at level 5.

What about Cleric and non-sneak attack thief?

Quote from: CRKrueger;762867What about Cleric and non-sneak attack thief?

In all honesty, I haven't read enough about the char abilities to make a real comparison. The fighter vs wizard thing I've mostly read more about just because people are hung up on it so I was trying to understand what the issue was and approach it with math. (Though if the cleric does have a d8 "cantrip" as well like someone else stated in the thread, he is obviously not falling behind the wizard).

Quote from: Emperor Norton;762871In all honesty, I haven't read enough about the char abilities to make a real comparison. The fighter vs wizard thing I've mostly read more about just because people are hung up on it so I was trying to understand what the issue was and approach it with math. (Though if the cleric does have a d8 "cantrip" as well like someone else stated in the thread, he is obviously not falling behind the wizard).

Out of the four main classes the wizard is the weakest by a fair margin the consensus as far as I can gather and see with my own eyes goes something like this (at least combat wise)....

1. Fighter
2. Rogue
3. Cleric depends on your domains. If it's War you're on par with a fighter and may even be better in certain scenerios
4. Wizard

Quote from: The Butcher;762854How in Crom's name would it be fun if he couldn't? What glory is there to be had in a besting a harmless foe?

Exactly. Give me impossible odds and an iron will, not this +15% if I were to quantify hitting a foe on a range of 1-20!

I will never for the life of me understand why so many roleplayers are anti-math. I hate bad premises (white room, PvP, full preparation/readiness) as much as the next person, but math is one of the most fundamental parts of game design.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;762905I will never for the life of me understand why so many roleplayers are anti-math. I hate bad premises (white room, PvP, full preparation/readiness) as much as the next person, but math is one of the most fundamental parts of game design.

I am quite comfortable with math and I can totally understand that A d8 ray attack is much weaker than a guy with a sword but there are a number of mitigating factors that make an at will cantrip much more powerful than a bow or a sword

i) You can "impress the natives" - pointing your finger at a fragile object and making it smash is a useful little trick
ii) When you are stripped of all your weapons and armour the mage still have unlimited "arrows"
iii) Range limits in a "dungeon" environment are mostly redundant you will rarely be targetting more than 50 feet inside a dungeon or other structure
iv) You don't need any space. An archer needs to have a space 5 feet high to draw a bow (or 5 feet wide) a 2 handed sword man needs a height and width of 10 feet (2 handed swords are shit in realistic indoors locations) etc . An at will cantrip can be cast through a keyhole, through the bars of a cell, when lying on your stomach in a sewer pipe that is 2 feet wide and 1 foot high to kill those pesky rats.  

There are loads more situations where its a very effective tool.

Now I know a 1d4 damage doesn't really fix that and maybe a 1/2 level damage round up would be a fairer take. But the point is that in the actual game world away from the math the at will cantrip that is comparable to a normal attack just feels too tough.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;762905I will never for the life of me understand why so many roleplayers are anti-math. I hate bad premises (white room, PvP, full preparation/readiness) as much as the next person, but math is one of the most fundamental parts of game design.

Game design, not game playing. Deconstructing systems might sound fun to a subset of humorless nerds, but most people don't give one fuck how the game is constructed as long as it's fun.

Quote from: mcbobbo;762723This sheet is the first I've heard of the semi-vancian system.  What becomes of sorcerers?

All spell-casters basically work the same way. Prepare spells equal to level+magic ability mod. Then cast with your daily spell slots.

That's because all spell slots are equal for purposes of multiclassing, and you can switch the whole casting method to mana points or whatever for all classes.

Sorcerers have an additional resource called - you wouldn't believe it! - Sorcery Points. Those can be used for what 3.x called metamagic.

So basically your casting differs by your spell lists and class features. Sorcerers have Sorcery Points, Wizards and some Druids have Arcane Recovery, some Clercis can use their Channel Divinity on magic and so on.

Quote from: 1of3;762918All spell-casters basically work the same way. Prepare spells equal to level+magic ability mod. Then cast with your daily spell slots.

That's because all spell slots are equal for purposes of multiclassing, and you can switch the whole casting method to mana points or whatever for all classes.

Sorcerers have an additional resource called - you wouldn't believe it! - Sorcery Points. Those can be used for what 3.x called metamagic.

So basically your casting differs by your spell lists and class features. Sorcerers have Sorcery Points, Wizards and some Druids have Arcane Recovery, some Clercis can use their Channel Divinity on magic and so on.

Don't forget warlocks they had some weird encounter/daily thing going on.

Quote from: Brad;762914Game design, not game playing. Deconstructing systems might sound fun to a subset of humorless nerds, but most people don't give one fuck how the game is constructed as long as it's fun.

If you didn't give a fuck how the game was constructed, you wouldn't have a preference for what games you like. The math of a system works together with the fluff of a system to create a feel for that system. Game design informs game playing, and if you are going to criticize a game DESIGN you should be talking about game DESIGN.

OD&D wouldn't feel like OD&D if a 1st level Wizard could take a shot from an Ogre and not even feel it.

If it wasn't for "humorless nerds" who pay fucking attention to the math, you wouldn't have a damned game to play. Unless you think throwing rules at a wall until they stick is a great idea.

In my opinion cantrip should be minor speell effects that a clever player can use to do interesting stuff not a fall back position for attacks.

So I would much prefer the following sorts of things as cantrips

flare - caused a bare flame such as a candle or fire to flare for a moment
douse - extinguishes a flame the size of a candle
manipulate - allows the wizard to operate a simple device remotely, lock a door, flip a switch, slide a bolt
index - enbles a wizard to flip through a book and find a reference
Breeze - a single gust of wind that can slam a window shut or billow a curtain
hiccup - cause someone to hiccup
sneeze - cause someone to sneeze
Read magic - I used to get really annoyed that read magic was a spell and not an effect wizards were training in
Flavour - can add a pinch of salt or pepper or paprika to a meal

I think having cantrips as attacks is aside from anythign else dull.

Quote from: jibbajibba;762912I am quite comfortable with math and I can totally understand that A d8 ray attack is much weaker than a guy with a sword but there are a number of mitigating factors that make an at will cantrip much more powerful than a bow or a sword

i) You can "impress the natives" - pointing your finger at a fragile object and making it smash is a useful little trick

Depends on the rarity of magic in your game. Also you can do this with martial feats as well. Bend some bars, beat down 2-3 people with ease, break something that seems infeasible to break.

Quoteii) When you are stripped of all your weapons and armour the mage still have unlimited "arrows"

When you are in the affect of a silence spell or antimagic zone, those swords and bows keep working, too.

Quoteiii) Range limits in a "dungeon" environment are mostly redundant you will rarely be targetting more than 50 feet inside a dungeon or other structure

I agree partially, which is why I didn't mention the range, but there are plenty of situations where you can use the extra range to great effect. I mean, being more than 50 feet away from someone you want to poke happens more often than being stripped of weapons and armor anyway.

Quoteiv) You don't need any space. An archer needs to have a space 5 feet high to draw a bow (or 5 feet wide) a 2 handed sword man needs a height and width of 10 feet (2 handed swords are shit in realistic indoors locations) etc . An at will cantrip can be cast through a keyhole, through the bars of a cell, when lying on your stomach in a sewer pipe that is 2 feet wide and 1 foot high to kill those pesky rats.  

You do need less space, but not to the degree you are talking about. How are you getting line of sight AND casting the spell from your hand through a keyhole? I sure as hell wouldn't allow that as a GM. And remember, that a high str/dex fighter STILL does more damage with a dagger, which takes almost no room.

Also, people who aren't idiots should probably bind a wizards fingers when they capture them.

QuoteThere are loads more situations where its a very effective tool.

Now I know a 1d4 damage doesn't really fix that and maybe a 1/2 level damage round up would be a fairer take. But the point is that in the actual game world away from the math the at will cantrip that is comparable to a normal attack just feels too tough.

I just disagree. I don't think it should match the fighter in damage, but it already scales back pretty far depending on how strong the fighter is, and his weapon choice, as it is.

O

Quote from: jibbajibba;762922In my opinion cantrip should be minor speell effects that a clever player can use to do interesting stuff not a fall back position for attacks.

So I would much prefer the following sorts of things as cantrips

flare - caused a bare flame such as a candle or fire to flare for a moment
douse - extinguishes a flame the size of a candle
manipulate - allows the wizard to operate a simple device remotely, lock a door, flip a switch, slide a bolt
index - enbles a wizard to flip through a book and find a reference
Breeze - a single gust of wind that can slam a window shut or billow a curtain
hiccup - cause someone to hiccup
sneeze - cause someone to sneeze
Read magic - I used to get really annoyed that read magic was a spell and not an effect wizards were training in
Flavour - can add a pinch of salt or pepper or paprika to a meal

I think having cantrips as attacks is aside from anythign else dull.

Problem is that's covered by 2-3 of the current cantrips and direct attack cantrips have been a thing since 3e and the rest have been a thing since 1e. Some very useful as direct combat applications.

All this not counting the tiny amount of slots available or small pool of spells able to be used on the fly. Or the stacking rules and the hard limits on buff spells. There is a good reason for unlimited cantrips which a select few are attack types when you look at the entirety of the magic rules.

Other then the obvious (knives, darts and slings are for hunting and quarterstaves for walking none are what a  typical wizard would actually think of as a weapon in and of itself). Mind and magic are their weapons and tools.

Cantrips are those tools like a hammer to a carpenter, a sword to a fighter or lockpicks to burglar/thief. They're not mere parlor tricks to impress the rubes. At least not primarily.

They are part of you and the reason the ignorant fear a wizard because that's the magic the vast majority actually see for themselves throughout their entire lives.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;762921If you didn't give a fuck how the game was constructed, you wouldn't have a preference for what games you like. The math of a system works together with the fluff of a system to create a feel for that system. Game design informs game playing, and if you are going to criticize a game DESIGN you should be talking about game DESIGN.

OD&D wouldn't feel like OD&D if a 1st level Wizard could take a shot from an Ogre and not even feel it.

If it wasn't for "humorless nerds" who pay fucking attention to the math, you wouldn't have a damned game to play. Unless you think throwing rules at a wall until they stick is a great idea.

Sorry, 99.99% of people who drive cars know nothing of the math behind how they're created, and yet can drive those cars and appreciate them for the fine machines which they are. I do NOT have to understand anything whatsoever about game design (i.e. the math behind it) to enjoy a game.

Seriously, the individuals who post on internet message boards are in the .01% of the people who play games, yet act as if they represent the general populace.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;762923Depends on the rarity of magic in your game. Also you can do this with martial feats as well. Bend some bars, beat down 2-3 people with ease, break something that seems infeasible to break.

Agreed, but the warrior impressing the native through his martial prowess is a much more contrived process.
Would you be more impressed by a big bloke that could bend a poker or a guy that could shoot magic out of his fingertips? I mean really?

QuoteWhen you are in the affect of a silence spell or antimagic zone, those swords and bows keep working, too.

Sure and they are just as common as a narrow corridor or a tunnel.....

QuoteI agree partially, which is why I didn't mention the range, but there are plenty of situations where you can use the extra range to great effect. I mean, being more than 50 feet away from someone you want to poke happens more often than being stripped of weapons and armor anyway.

To some extend yes but the wizards martial skills are generally the last option, so if you were 50 feet away then running is probably a better choice defensiviely in any case.

QuoteYou do need less space, but not to the degree you are talking about. How are you getting line of sight AND casting the spell from your hand through a keyhole? I sure as hell wouldn't allow that as a GM. And remember, that a high str/dex fighter STILL does more damage with a dagger, which takes almost no room.

I am pretty sure I can sit 4 feet away from a keyhole and be able to see through it. In which case as my "cantrip " has no phyiscal volume until it connects as a bolt of kinetic energy sure you can cast it line of sight through a keyhole or a pipe 40 feet long or rings on the end of a row of axes hanging on a wall.
And of course you can do more damage with a dagger shit you can kill someone easily with a dagger but you can't use one down a 40 foot long pipe or through a keyhole.

QuoteAlso, people who aren't idiots should probably bind a wizards fingers when they capture them.

If they know about magic and know you are a wizard and are bright sure.
But if they are really smart they will cut out your tongue and remove all your fingers if they know you are a wizard :)

QuoteI just disagree. I don't think it should match the fighter in damage, but it already scales back pretty far depending on how strong the fighter is, and his weapon choice, as it is.

My point is cantrips should be interesting little things you can do. Things that feel magical.
Giving a wizard an at will attack that doesn't fit with the description of how magic works at the macro level and feels like a gamist way to prevent them having to throw daggers just sits ill with me.

I think our difference of opinion comes from our preconceptions of the game world and what we want from a game. You are looking at this as an experienced D&D player. You live in a world where adventurers are common where magic is taken for granted and where a group that has formed with the intention of killing things and taking their stuff are all expected to pull their weight.
I live in a world where the Duke of Kanta's daughter has fled from her father's castle after he tried to marry her off to a fat merchant to swell the kingdom's coffers. She has stowed away in the back of a cart leaving town and is now listening to the carts owners, two snakeoil salesmen of dubious parentage, argue over where they should next alight and whether or not they should have lifted the strongbox from the tavern or not. In that world peasants are peasants, no one knows shit about magic, 99% of people are 0 level and everyone things elves are a myth.

I think its just a different mind set.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;762851I don't really see it as a downside. I don't think anyone is arguing that a Fighter should be able to match a Novaing Wizard 1:1 over a short period of time.

The problem with 99% of the math wonk crowd, is that they try to play it up as PvP at full strength and full planning. And in that case, a Fighter SHOULD lose to a Wizard at anything beyond early levels.

But put a Wizard and a Fighter through a dungeon, filled with monsters, and the Wizard may burn brighter, but the Fighter will consistently be knocking them down.

If the Wizard is able to nova in half of the combats and supplements the rest of the time with pewpews, the damage would be near(most likely greater) than that of the Fighter.  It will only get better the more levels the Wizard has.

Quote from: jibbajibba;762931I live in a world where the Duke of Kanta's daughter has fled from her father's castle after he tried to marry her off to a fat merchant to swell the kingdom's coffers. She has stowed away in the back of a cart leaving town and is now listening to the carts owners, two snakeoil salesmen of dubious parentage, argue over where they should next alight and whether or not they should have lifted the strongbox from the tavern or not. In that world peasants are peasants, no one knows shit about magic, 99% of people are 0 level and everyone things elves are a myth.

I think its just a different mind set.

So your playing Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, just without Hercules or the Legends.

Strange.  Boat floats I guess

Quote from: Brad;762929Sorry, 99.99% of people who drive cars know nothing of the math behind how they're created, and yet can drive those cars and appreciate them for the fine machines which they are. I do NOT have to understand anything whatsoever about game design (i.e. the math behind it) to enjoy a game.

Seriously, the individuals who post on internet message boards are in the .01% of the people who play games, yet act as if they represent the general populace.

To be fair that is not his point. His point is that the math creates the game. The math behind the design leads directly to the way the game plays. So even if you don't care about the math if you are discussing the way the game plays looking at the math can give you a lot of imformation. And even if you don't want to look at the math he has done it already and is teling you the outcome.

To follow through with your car analogy... You might not care about hte math of engines but if you like cars you might read a review of a car that talks bout its torque, break horsepower, fuel consumption etc  which are all underpinned by the math.
You may of course pick your car because it looks awesome which is also cool but then you would end up playing Alpha Omega or Eoris...

Quote from: Sommerjon;762934So your playing Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, just without Hercules or the Legends.

Strange.  Boat floats I guess

No not realy though the premise may be similar. I guess I am playing games where characters feel more embedded in the setting and the setting is more holistic such that "adventuring" isn't an actual job its something that happens to you while you are busy making other plans :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;762936To be fair that is not his point. His point is that the math creates the game. The math behind the design leads directly to the way the game plays.

And pasteurization allows me to drink milk without getting some weird ass disease. Fact: most (like almost all) consumers know absolutely zilch about the products which they purchase and use. Including cucumbers, toilet paper, Chinese finger traps and flashlights.

I get it...I like doing mathematical analysis of games to deconstruct the rationale behind certain choices. Most people on this board do, too, to some degree. The kid who has never played D&D could give one fuck.

Also, I'm seriously not trying to be an ass here, but goddamn...they're just fucking games. There's no need to suck all the fun out of them by talking about them THAT much.

Quote from: jibbajibba;762936To be fair that is not his point. His point is that the math creates the game. The math behind the design leads directly to the way the game plays. So even if you don't care about the math if you are discussing the way the game plays looking at the math can give you a lot of imformation. And even if you don't want to look at the math he has done it already and is teling you the outcome.

To follow through with your car analogy... You might not care about hte math of engines but if you like cars you might read a review of a car that talks bout its torque, break horsepower, fuel consumption etc  which are all underpinned by the math.
You may of course pick your car because it looks awesome which is also cool but then you would end up playing Alpha Omega or Eoris...

Pretty much. I just get tired of the "shut up and play the game" from people who bitch about games themselves. I bet you if next time Brad hated on a game I basically said "Who cares about how that works, shut up and play the game" he would be livid.

I mean, I think most of our (as in me and you specifically) disagreement about the wizard cantrip just has to do with how we think it should fit into the game, which just has to do with stylistic choice.

My math was specifically because people were treating the wizard cantrip as equaling or outdoing Fighter attacks, which I think we can agree they don't.

Quote from: jibbajibba;762936You may of course pick your car because it looks awesome which is also cool but then you would end up playing Alpha Omega or Eoris...

Alpha Omega's artwork was awesome.

Quote from: Brad;762946And pasteurization allows me to drink milk without getting some weird ass disease. Fact: most (like almost all) consumers know absolutely zilch about the products which they purchase and use. Including cucumbers, toilet paper, Chinese finger traps and flashlights.

I get it...I like doing mathematical analysis of games to deconstruct the rationale behind certain choices. Most people on this board do, too, to some degree. The kid who has never played D&D could give one fuck.

Also, I'm seriously not trying to be an ass here, but goddamn...they're just fucking games. There's no need to suck all the fun out of them by talking about them THAT much.

Your trying to equate apples to flounder.

The amount of people into a hobby as a mere consumer is in the outer outliers.

Quote from: Sommerjon;762934So your playing Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, just without Hercules or the Legends.

Strange.  Boat floats I guess

Well that's obvious but it isn't ridiculous like the GoOP argument. Jibba rolls one way and I roll another way. It's normal and expected but it doesn't demand one unique playstyle for us to play at the same table in the same game.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;762948Pretty much. I just get tired of the "shut up and play the game" from people who bitch about games themselves. I bet you if next time Brad hated on a game I basically said "Who cares about how that works, shut up and play the game" he would be livid.

I wouldn't play a game I hated. Why would I?

Quote from: Emperor Norton;762905I will never for the life of me understand why so many roleplayers are anti-math. I hate bad premises (white room, PvP, full preparation/readiness) as much as the next person, but math is one of the most fundamental parts of game design.

That is why I did the 2d8 vs 1d8 + 1d8 test.

Quote from: Omega;762956That is why I did the 2d8 vs 1d8 + 1d8 test.

All I know is that seperate attacks are statisticsally better then single attacks everything being relavitively even numbers wise without the obvious advantage of a physical weapon if you're trained in it.

But the crux of issue is all about playstyle. I hate using a crossbow beyond the fact it's a bad choice for a typical wizard. But I love figuring out which combat cantrip would be my best tactic within my overall strategy for any given fight. And I'm not the minority opinion. End of story
 
If I want to enter melee I will be a Warlock or multi-class. If my concept is about arcane not divine magic of course. If I'm a wizard screw Shocking Grasp.....I'd use Misty Step and tilt the parameters like I AM supposed to. But she was right there honest sir!

Now twist your brain around a F/M with limited teleportation. Or a Paladin/Bard, Paladin/Wizard, or Paladin/Cleric. I would suggest a F/M or Baladin with specific subclasses but that's my preference.:)

If I wanted to fight close in while completely tilting the playing field. If I'm a straight wizard the further away from melee the better.

Quote from: CRKrueger;762865I think he meant in Melee. :D

To be fair, Howard does describe Thoth-Amon as a physically imposing, if not outright powerful, man. ;)

But I see the point.

Quote from: The Butcher;762969To be fair, Howard does describe Thoth-Amon as a physically imposing, if not outright powerful, man. ;)

But I see the point.

How about Conan vs Elric?

Quote from: Emperor Norton;762921If you didn't give a fuck how the game was constructed, you wouldn't have a preference for what games you like. The math of a system works together with the fluff of a system to create a feel for that system. Game design informs game playing, and if you are going to criticize a game DESIGN you should be talking about game DESIGN.

OD&D wouldn't feel like OD&D if a 1st level Wizard could take a shot from an Ogre and not even feel it.

I think that's called Tunnels & Trolls.

JG

Quote from: jibbajibba;762972How about Conan vs Elric?

It depends on whether Stormbringer connects faster than a knee to the groin. :D

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;762974It depends on whether Stormbringer connects faster than a knee to the groin. :D

JG

:)

Conan Vs Merlin?

Conan Vs Gandalf etc etc etc .....


;)

Quote from: James Gillen;762974It depends on whether Stormbringer connects faster than a knee to the groin. :D

JG

So we're back to rocket tag it seems.;)

I am not thrilled with 5e having 1st level spells become at-will cantrips.

4e was about fantasy superheroes, so that unlimited magic worked. I am not a fan of 3e, but cantrips and orisons in 3e worked.

But 5e exists in an era of video games, so it can't really go back to a long ago age where constant pew-pew didn't exist in the fantasy genre.

I still have never figured out how wizards using crossbows is seen as more iconic fantasy than wizards being able to consistently cast spells.

Apparently any wizard who can do weak magic as tirelessly as a fighter swings his sword is a superhero.

Quote from: jibbajibba;762931My point is cantrips should be interesting little things you can do. Things that feel magical.
Giving a wizard an at will attack that doesn't fit with the description of how magic works at the macro level and feels like a gamist way to prevent them having to throw daggers just sits ill with me.

I think our difference of opinion comes from our preconceptions of the game world and what we want from a game. You are looking at this as an experienced D&D player. You live in a world where adventurers are common where magic is taken for granted and where a group that has formed with the intention of killing things and taking their stuff are all expected to pull their weight.
I live in a world where the Duke of Kanta's daughter has fled from her father's castle after he tried to marry her off to a fat merchant to swell the kingdom's coffers. She has stowed away in the back of a cart leaving town and is now listening to the carts owners, two snakeoil salesmen of dubious parentage, argue over where they should next alight and whether or not they should have lifted the strongbox from the tavern or not. In that world peasants are peasants, no one knows shit about magic, 99% of people are 0 level and everyone things elves are a myth.

I think its just a different mind set.

Well said...
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6odkq8jNo1qbolbn.gif)

Quote from: Emperor Norton;763003I still have never figured out how wizards using crossbows is seen as more iconic fantasy than wizards being able to consistently cast spells.

Apparently any wizard who can do weak magic as tirelessly as a fighter swings his sword is a superhero.

The crossbow isn't a great example to be sure but if you look at the source material from novels, wizards are very rarely chucking out magic strikes willy nilly.
If the argument is that modern games need to reflect CRPGs then no CRPGs give the PC unlimited magical pings.

So I can't really see a fantasy milieu that has unlimited magical strikes as a feature.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;763003I still have never figured out how wizards using crossbows is seen as more iconic fantasy than wizards being able to consistently cast spells.

Apparently any wizard who can do weak magic as tirelessly as a fighter swings his sword is a superhero.

No, but his magic now becomes mundane as he becomes essentially some form of archer when he's not casting spells.  Yes, he might do less damage then a Fighter or a Rogue as a ranged character, but he can do it at-will with no resources at all.  A fighter, rogue or cleric still needs a weapon to get that base level damage.

Also, the wizard who now still has his spell abilities at the same time, has moved from "some extra damage here and there when he's not casting" to "sustainable damage output at least 50% of a fighter's based on no equipment requirement and no resource requirement".  Let's also remember this is magical damage, isn't it?

That's a pretty big and fundamental shift in how the class operates.

Obviously, if you prefer the class baseline changing fundamentally toward a high fantasy higher-powered version, that's fine.

But please stop pretending you don't understand that this was a fundamental change and misrepresenting those who aren't sold on this quite substantial paradigm shift as making logical errors, which they aren't.

Its one of those really divisive issues, and has been pretty much for a long time.

Personally, if I was playing a wizard I don't think I would take the Damaging Cantrips, and would probably end up getting some sort of Crossbowman feat, because its pretty engrained in me that is how a Wizard should be.

But I can perfectly understand that for a lot of people, they look at that and go WTF?

There was never going to be a solution to this that everyone would be happy with.

Quote from: jadrax;763014There was never going to be a solution to this that everyone would be happy with.

Well as the "please everyone" edition, such an addition certainly could have been an optional rule without such a fundamental alteration to the older style game that Basic seems to be emulating. Instead, now that baseline, non-spell damage is baked into the system and the default assumptions of the game for modules, organized play etc.  It's one of those "butterfly effect" things that WotC has proven themselves unable to judge the effects of.

Global changes and options are always easy to add, not so easy to take away, as we have seen ad infinitum.

Time will tell, it always does, one way or another.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763016Global changes and options are always easy to add, not so easy to take away, as we have seen ad infinitum.

Time will tell, it always does, one way or another.

One spell from a list of spells is one of the absolute easiest things to take away from D&D.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763016Well as the "please everyone" edition, such an addition certainly could have been an optional rule without such a fundamental alteration to the older style game that Basic seems to be emulating. Instead, now that baseline, non-spell damage is baked into the system and the default assumptions of the game for modules, organized play etc.  It's one of those "butterfly effect" things that WotC has proven themselves unable to judge the effects of.

Global changes and options are always easy to add, not so easy to take away, as we have seen ad infinitum.

TBH, I disagree. Most characters will never have more than 5 Cantrips. There are more than 5 basic non offensive cantrips for both clerics and wizards. If you put a line through the four offensive cantrips on day one, your game will run perfectly fine, no further modification required.

For the players who dislike at-wills, how hard would it be to change that to X per day instead? Would it break anything?

Now I'm curious about the Dungeon Master's Guide and what sorts of modular options it might include.

(Personally I like at-wills in this specific context, but whatever)

Quote from: Necrozius;763022For the players who dislike at-wills, how hard would it be to change that to X per day instead? Would it break anything?

Now I'm curious about the Dungeon Master's Guide and what sorts of modular options it might include.

(Personally I like at-wills in this specific context, but whatever)

In my own B/X house rules I added cantrips including an attack cantrip. It even gets the MU's INT modifier to hit. Cantrip uses per day are 5 + caster level, so capacity increases with level.

It is helpful to have such magics available but they are not plentiful enough to be spammable without consideration.

Quote from: Necrozius;763022For the players who dislike at-wills, how hard would it be to change that to X per day instead? Would it break anything?

Now I'm curious about the Dungeon Master's Guide and what sorts of modular options it might include.

(Personally I like at-wills in this specific context, but whatever)

Easy enough to just make cantrips level zero spells and you can cast the same number per day as you get level 1 slots.

Quote from: Warthur;763017One spell from a list of spells is one of the absolute easiest things to take away from D&D.

The absolute easiest thing to take away is one you don't have to because it is an option you can add.

Quote from: jadrax;763018TBH, I disagree. Most characters will never have more than 5 Cantrips. There are more than 5 basic non offensive cantrips for both clerics and wizards. If you put a line through the four offensive cantrips on day one, your game will run perfectly fine, no further modification required.

Spell lists are not the concern, the Mage (and presumably Cleric) now being a class that can pump out 50%+ of base weapon damage of a fighter without expending resources is the concern.  You really think the default assumption is going to be that Mages and Clerics do not have them?

That now affects the HPs of every monster, the design of every module, and the table culture that's going to arise from organized play.

I know WotC has run the numbers, I suspect they lack any interest in analysis of..."and then what".

If I had the correct times free I'd be happy to play 5E casually. More in recognition that most of the people I play with are not willing to give other games so much as a glance as anything else.

I'm coming around to the idea of 'pew-pew-laserz'.  Enough that we'll play it and see how it goes, anyway.

But it is a shift and I still do hope the setting adapts.

For example, if these are at will and don't need to be prepared, then we'll never see a wizard kept as a prisoner in a mundane jail cell again, right?  Perhaps if trussed up in some sort of iron mask that inhibits somatics.  Cantips DO still require somatics, right?

Just so long as we no longer assume that taking a spell book away neutralizes a wizard in the same way taking a fighter's gear would.

Quote from: Spinachcat;763000I am not thrilled with 5e having 1st level spells become at-will cantrips.

4e was about fantasy superheroes, so that unlimited magic worked. I am not a fan of 3e, but cantrips and orisons in 3e worked.

But 5e exists in an era of video games, so it can't really go back to a long ago age where constant pew-pew didn't exist in the fantasy genre.

Currently most of the cantrips, aside from Read Magic. Seem to be taken from or based on older cantrips.

Anything gained as an at-will later tended to be in the playtest either situational or not gained till level 12 or 20. And one or two at 5th.

Illusionist got the most. At will mirror image at level 12 and effectively at will Major Image at 20. Evoker got fireball/lightning bolt at 20 as essentially at wills. Enchanter got charm at 5 and a sort of "dont hit me" aura at level 2 that puts opponents at disadvantage.

How much this changes remains to be seen. But very very soon.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763053The absolute easiest thing to take away is one you don't have to because it is an option you can add.

All spells are optional. There is no law which says you must make every spell available to the players in your games.

Quote from: jibbajibba;763010The crossbow isn't a great example to be sure but if you look at the source material from novels, wizards are very rarely chucking out magic strikes willy nilly.
If the argument is that modern games need to reflect CRPGs then no CRPGs give the PC unlimited magical pings.

So I can't really see a fantasy milieu that has unlimited magical strikes as a feature.

You should read more. Fantasy is a large trope.

Quote from: Warthur;763060All spells are optional. There is no law which says you must make every spell available to the players in your games.

Missed the last 14 years of emergent D&D culture did we?

Quote from: Bill;763044Easy enough to just make cantrips level zero spells and you can cast the same number per day as you get level 1 slots.

They already are in the starter set. So there are multiple ways to tinker with it even now.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763066Missed the last 14 years of emergent D&D culture did we?

Fuck the emergent culture, it's what's happening at my table that I care about.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763011No, but his magic now becomes mundane as he becomes essentially some form of archer when he's not casting spells.  Yes, he might do less damage then a Fighter or a Rogue as a ranged character, but he can do it at-will with no resources at all.  A fighter, rogue or cleric still needs a weapon to get that base level damage.

Also, the wizard who now still has his spell abilities at the same time, has moved from "some extra damage here and there when he's not casting" to "sustainable damage output at least 50% of a fighter's based on no equipment requirement and no resource requirement".  Let's also remember this is magical damage, isn't it?

That's a pretty big and fundamental shift in how the class operates.

Obviously, if you prefer the class baseline changing fundamentally toward a high fantasy higher-powered version, that's fine.

But please stop pretending you don't understand that this was a fundamental change and misrepresenting those who aren't sold on this quite substantial paradigm shift as making logical errors, which they aren't.

As opposed to being a crappy archer? How does this make sense again? I get you like zero to hero or weak to strong as the paradigm especially for wizards but it's not like it's the only preference or fantasy trope out there.

Quote from: Warthur;763068Fuck the emergent culture, it's what's happening at my table that I care about.

Good.  But when you laugh at all the people at purple crying over the Gauntlets of Ogre Power, how do you think we got there?

Quote from: Marleycat;763069As opposed to being a crappy archer? How does this make sense again?

Don't worry about it.  Pew-Pew-LazerMagez-Are-Go! :cheerleader:

Quote from: Warthur;763060All spells are optional. There is no law which says you must make every spell available to the players in your games.

Yeah, but at the same time, it's a dick move if you tell a fresh 5th level Wizard "No fireballs in this setting." Changes to Handbook spells should IMO be made before the guy chooses the class, unless it comes about that the spell is unbalanced in play.

You must hate monks then.  Consistently putting out large amounts of damage at-will endlessly and they don't need any weapons to do so.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763072Don't worry about it.  Pew-Pew-LazerMagez-Are-Go! :cheerleader:

Funny thing is that I bet you'll learn to tolerate if not like them somewhat in the end if not figure out some houserule or use a particular module out of the DMG and all will be fine.

Quote from: mcbobbo;763055I'm coming around to the idea of 'pew-pew-laserz'.  Enough that we'll play it and see how it goes, anyway.

But it is a shift and I still do hope the setting adapts.

For example, if these are at will and don't need to be prepared, then we'll never see a wizard kept as a prisoner in a mundane jail cell again, right?  Perhaps if trussed up in some sort of iron mask that inhibits somatics.  Cantips DO still require somatics, right?

Just so long as we no longer assume that taking a spell book away neutralizes a wizard in the same way taking a fighter's gear would.

If I leave the cantrips as at will, I still consider them spells that require the wizard to be well rested, reasonable conditions to cast; etc..like any other spell.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763053Spell lists are not the concern, the Mage (and presumably Cleric) now being a class that can pump out 50%+ of base weapon damage of a fighter without expending resources is the concern.  You really think the default assumption is going to be that Mages and Clerics do not have them?

But they could already do that, by using a weapon.

Wizard with Quarterstaff, equal base chance to hit as fighter, d8 damage. The only difference between the Wizard and the Fighter is the Fighter's strength.

Cleric with Morningstar, equal base chance to hit as fighter, d8 damage. The only difference between the Cleric and the Fighter is the Fighter's strength.

Quote from: jadrax;763081But they could already do that, by using a weapon.

Wizard with Quarterstaff, equal base chance to hit as fighter, d8 damage. The only difference between the Wizard and the Fighter is the Fighter's strength.

Cleric with Morningstar, equal base chance to hit as fighter, d8 damage. The only difference between the Cleric and the Fighter is the Fighter's strength.

True, however, if they do it melee, then they can get squashed, if they do it ranged, then they could run out of ammunition, and unless those weapons are magical, they are doing mundane damage, none of which applies to an eternal magical attack at range.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763074You must hate monks then.  Consistently putting out large amounts of damage at-will endlessly and they don't need any weapons to do so.

Nope, because that's the Monk's classic function, it's what they do, it's not a side job they can do when they're not casting spells that no one else can.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;763003I still have never figured out how wizards using crossbows is seen as more iconic fantasy than wizards being able to consistently cast spells.

Apparently any wizard who can do weak magic as tirelessly as a fighter swings his sword is a superhero.

Wizards throwing endless spells is definitely not Swords & Sorcery, but certainly within the realm of fantasy. I don't really think it's D&D, either, if by D&D we're talking about pre-3.5ish D&D. Videogame fantasy, absolutely.

Gotta agree with the crossbow thing...I never liked the expanded weapons list in the newer versions of D&D.

Has anyone ever seen magic users run out of sling stones or crossbow bolts before?

I haven't, and I suspect it's a spurious argument.  I'm sure it could happen, but if it occurs less than 1%, then it's really not a strong basis for reasoning. IMO anyway.

Much like at will cantrips, they are last resort attacks after all other more powerful means have been exhausted/not applicable to the scenario.

To be honest, I hardly ever saw a decent level magic user, even in AD&D, resort to slings or crossbows when they had spells, scrolls, and wands at that point.

And I see little difference in the AD&D 'pew pew" wizard with a wand of magic missles vs. a "pew pew" wizard in 5e who has at wills and not nearly as many wands*.  They are both pew pewing.


*wands in 5e don't have nearly the # of charges as in 1e

Quote from: Rincewind1;763073Yeah, but at the same time, it's a dick move if you tell a fresh 5th level Wizard "No fireballs in this setting." Changes to Handbook spells should IMO be made before the guy chooses the class, unless it comes about that the spell is unbalanced in play.

Well, we're talking about cantrips here, so that's a decision which is going to come up early on.

And anyone who can't adapt to not getting the spells they expected isn't a very skilled wizard player in the first place.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763084Nope, because that's the Monk's classic function, it's what they do, it's not a side job they can do when they're not casting spells that no one else can.

This makes no sense.  Casting magic is what mages do.  Magic is not a side job for a mage.  It's the thing they do as a class feature.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763082True, however, if they do it melee, then they can get squashed, if they do it ranged, then they could run out of ammunition, and unless those weapons are magical, they are doing mundane damage, none of which applies to an eternal magical attack at range.

This is true, but I really do not think that its ever going to be important in terms of the core assumptions of the game. Honestly, ruling out damaging cantrips is not going to fuck up your game in the slightest. If I am wrong, I will buy you a beer.

Quote from: Brad;763085Wizards throwing endless spells is definitely not Swords & Sorcery, but certainly within the realm of fantasy. I don't really think it's D&D, either, if by D&D we're talking about pre-3.5ish D&D. Videogame fantasy, absolutely.

Gotta agree with the crossbow thing...I never liked the expanded weapons list in the newer versions of D&D.

Tolkien as been referenced as a huge influence of D&D.  The Shannara series has widely been cited as a rip off of Tolkien, and is a hugely popular fantasy series that came out in the 1970s.  Allanon cast spells all the time, whenever he wanted, at will.

Quote from: Bill;763076If I leave the cantrips as at will, I still consider them spells that require the wizard to be well rested, reasonable conditions to cast; etc..like any other spell.

Yep. It's not like they are doing magic by will alone. It's just that cantrips are simple enough that they're always memorized. They are a spell like any other not a supernatural ability. 5e is trying to keep it simplified as much as possible and figures you would use these 15-20 times a day screw tracking that. Similar to you recover half your arrows after each battle and move on.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763090Tolkien as been referenced as a huge influence of D&D.  The Shannara series has widely been cited as a rip off of Tolkien, and is a hugely popular fantasy series that came out in the 1970s.  Allanon cast spells all the time, whenever he wanted, at will.

Yes, but Gandalf hardly ever cast spells, and he's pretty much the iconic wizard most people think about when you say Tolkien. Having read a ton of Forgotten Realms novels and bunches of other stuff, wizards casting spells all the time works for a specific sub-set of fantasy, which alters the old D&D paradigms. It's not a bad thing, but it is different.

Quote from: Marleycat;763075Funny thing is that I bet you'll learn to tolerate if not like them somewhat in the end if not figure out some houserule or use a particular module out of the DMG and all will be fine.

I've already decided to houserule them, limit the list, or cut out at-wills all together.  As I said, my table's not the issue.  

Things don't happen in a vacuum.  We didn't start with 3.0 and then magically teleport to the Gauntlets of Ogre Power thread at purple.  That kind of idiocy over there was built over time and was supported by the rules WotC kept issuing.

Quote from: Brad;763093Yes, but Gandalf hardly ever cast spells, and he's pretty much the iconic wizard most people think about when you say Tolkien. Having read a ton of Forgotten Realms novels and bunches of other stuff, wizards casting spells all the time works for a specific sub-set of fantasy, which alters the old D&D paradigms. It's not a bad thing, but it is different.

Liking or disliking a change has nothing to do with admitting that a change has taken place.

As you said, a change has taken place. :)

Will it have a positive or negative effect, at this point no one knows, but I have my doubts.

At will cantrips do have some setting implications if you look at it for too long - something that 4e got away with by being batshit crazy and not caring about anything beyond the encounter.

I don't care for them much, but i also don't see them as a problem either.

I gave AD&D wizards in my campaign a 1d3 "magic ray" attack, that bases on burning one 20 GP gem per 100 shots, since I prefer that to them tossing darts :P.

Quote from: Brad;763093Yes, but Gandalf hardly ever cast spells, and he's pretty much the iconic wizard most people think about when you say Tolkien. Having read a ton of Forgotten Realms novels and bunches of other stuff, wizards casting spells all the time works for a specific sub-set of fantasy, which alters the old D&D paradigms. It's not a bad thing, but it is different.

Don't conflate "didn't cast spells often" with "can't cast spells often".  I strongly suspect that if Gandalf wasn't also the best melee fighter in the group, he's be casting more spells.

Point is, is that in much of Appendix N literature, there is nothing that says the casters couldn't cast at will spells.  Just like my personal experience playing 5e, the mages having the ability to cast at will didn't mean they did cast it over and over.

Quote from: Brad;763085Wizards throwing endless spells is definitely not Swords & Sorcery, but certainly within the realm of fantasy. I don't really think it's D&D, either, if by D&D we're talking about pre-3.5ish D&D. Videogame fantasy, absolutely.

Gotta agree with the crossbow thing...I never liked the expanded weapons list in the newer versions of D&D.

Dnd isn't really Sword and Sorcery anyway. Warhammer is closer to it though.

What would be interesting is if the DM's guide introduces "Setting Option Rulesets" or something like...

Low Fantasy
Sword & Sorcery
High Fantasy

...or whatever, and then listed options for each class of setting to help newbie GM's hit the right tone.  What would be even more interesting, is if they released different settings with different base assumptions like back in the 2e setting days.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763095Will it have a positive or negative effect, at this point no one knows, but I have my doubts.

If you enjoy low-magic settings like me, at-will cantrips will totally fuck up the game. Completely. Right? Well, only if I'm a pedantic jackass and ASSume every wizard out there has nothing better to do with their time but cast ray of frost 5000 times a day to make igloos in the Sahara. Instead, I could assume wizards are fucking WIZARDS doing THINGS that wizards DO, like poring over old tomes and cackling loudly when their minions bring them eye of newt.

It's definitely how you want to interpret the material. If anyone can be a wizard, then yes, at-will cantrips will destroy the game. If wizards are special, then IDGAF, honestly.

I'll probably nerf the damage-dealing cantrips to 1d6, and scrap mage hand.

Quote from: Marleycat;763100Dnd isn't really Sword and Sorcery anyway. Warhammer is closer to it though.

Absolutely not; it's D&D fantasy. Which is a specific brand of fantasy that has more in common with pulps than it does Tolkien. I just brought up S&S because for some reason people always want to play Conan, even though D&D doesn't do a very good job of modeling him.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763099Don't conflate "didn't cast spells often" with "can't cast spells often".  I strongly suspect that if Gandalf wasn't also the best melee fighter in the group, he's be casting more spells.

I'm going by what Gandalf did, not what you suspect he could do.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763094I've already decided to houserule them, limit the list, or cut out at-wills all together.  As I said, my table's not the issue.  

Things don't happen in a vacuum.  We didn't start with 3.0 and then magically teleport to the Gauntlets of Ogre Power thread at purple.  That kind of idiocy over there was built over time and was supported by the rules WotC kept issuing.

So you have a satisfactory solution good.

Quote from: Brad;763105I'm going by what Gandalf did, not what you suspect he could do.

That's dumb, especially when he have a lot of reference material to work with to get a good idea of what he was capable of.  Do you think Gandalf didn't have to ability to cast something like a levitation spell because he never actually did that?

That's like saying Aragron couldn't fight with an axe because he never did.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763086Has anyone ever seen magic users run out of sling stones or crossbow bolts before?

I have run out of sling stones before. But that was because we were in a hall holding the line and I'd swept the floor of any debris. I prefer darts and I run out of those pretty fast if I dont get a chance to recover them afterwards.

Inside a dungeon the chances for nabbing some rocks on the floor dropped dramatically. So Id be counting ammo as we went and allways on the lookout for suitable stones to replenish.

Never used a crossbow with a mage type. But I'd have run out there too.

As DM I tend to have the players track ammo loosely. Players choice as to how rigorous they want to track. Toothpicks or glass beads if handy and now-a-days Ive got a couple of jars of beads.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763107That's dumb, especially when he have a lot of reference material to work with to get a good idea of what he was capable of.  Do you think Gandalf didn't have to ability to cast something like a levitation spell because he never actually did that?

That's like saying Aragron couldn't fight with an axe because he never did.

Going by the books, including the Silmarillion, Gandalf could have simply been using the power of Narya to do everything that you're considering a spell. If I use that line of logic, then no, he couldn't cast levitation as the ring was tied to controlling fire and sustaining life. Further, casting "spells" would probably be seen as the work of Sauron, hence, I doubt Gandalf would ever do such a thing except in the most dire of circumstances. Could he? I think it'd be against his nature, so no.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763086Has anyone ever seen magic users run out of sling stones or crossbow bolts before?

I haven't, and I suspect it's a spurious argument.

Seek and ye shall find. :) If you never keep track of ammo or weight, you never will.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763086Much like at will cantrips, they are last resort attacks after all other more powerful means have been exhausted/not applicable to the scenario.

So you must have never run out of spells either.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763086To be honest, I hardly ever saw a decent level magic user, even in AD&D, resort to slings or crossbows when they had spells, scrolls, and wands at that point.

If you hand out unlimited scrolls and wands, well sure.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763086And I see little difference in the AD&D 'pew pew" wizard with a wand of magic missles vs. a "pew pew" wizard in 5e who has at wills and not nearly as many wands*.  They are both pew pewing.  

*wands in 5e don't have nearly the # of charges as in 1e

Ever read the 1e spell Enchant Item?  Some more charges, and entire orders of magnitude harder to create.

Quote from: Omega;763109I have run out of sling stones before. But that was because we were in a hall holding the line and I'd swept the floor of any debris. I prefer darts and I run out of those pretty fast if I dont get a chance to recover them afterwards.

Inside a dungeon the chances for nabbing some rocks on the floor dropped dramatically. So Id be counting ammo as we went and allways on the lookout for suitable stones to replenish.

Never used a crossbow with a mage type. But I'd have run out there too.

As DM I tend to have the players track ammo loosely. Players choice as to how rigorous they want to track. Toothpicks or glass beads if handy and now-a-days Ive got a couple of jars of beads.

How...spurious of you. :rolleyes:

Thanks to all who had an honest discussion, it was a pleasant change, alas it couldn't last. :hatsoff:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763088This makes no sense.  Casting magic is what mages do.  Magic is not a side job for a mage.  It's the thing they do as a class feature.

Precisely. Magic is what wizards DO. The magic does not come from them directly, they channel it from some other plane and shape it to their purpose through study. Such magic is a resource which has a cost.

I actually have less of an issue with clerical at-will magic because it is powered by a deity and can be withheld should the cleric cease to be a shining example of the faith.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763090Tolkien as been referenced as a huge influence of D&D.  The Shannara series has widely been cited as a rip off of Tolkien, and is a hugely popular fantasy series that came out in the 1970s.  Allanon cast spells all the time, whenever he wanted, at will.

Allanon used his magic only when the need was dire. Remember that using his magic actually drained his life force. He had to hibernate for years to regain the energy he spent in a few weeks.

His magic was not Vancian but it was not free either.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763086And I see little difference in the AD&D 'pew pew" wizard with a wand of magic missles vs. a "pew pew" wizard in 5e who has at wills and not nearly as many wands*.  They are both pew pewing.

*wands in 5e don't have nearly the # of charges as in 1e

Some differences:

1)  You can take the wand away.  See the prisoner scenario above.  Disarm, too, maybe.
2)  Wands are limited resources with a GP cost, at least.
3)  You can identify wands and could sort them at the gate, so to speak.

There's a lot more, I am sure.  I agree they're mostly similar in combat, but that's about where it ends.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763111How...spurious of you. :rolleyes:

Thanks to all who had an honest discussion, it was a pleasant change, alas it couldn't last. :hatsoff:

/me makes sanity check. roll-roll...

Oh fuck! there goes the meds again! Guess it was all a hallucination...

Here. Have some toothpicks... :D

Regardless of the anecdotal evidence by a few forum posters, I can easily look at published material for AD&D and see that wands were everywhere.  So I think it's pretty sound to say that pew pew mages existed long before at will spells.

And for those who are saying, "well, you can just take those away"?  You can also just as easily make cantrips limited per day.  See how that works?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763123You can also just as easily make cantrips limited per day.  See how that works?

Exactly. That there be some limit or cost is my only opposition.

There is a place for completely at-will magic. Magical beings such as fairies & demons for example. Elves might qualify depending on your view of elves for the campaign world.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;763115Precisely. Magic is what wizards DO. The magic does not come from them directly, they channel it from some other plane and shape it to their purpose through study. Such magic is a resource which has a cost.

Maybe to your opinion.  But I have a hard time seeing how magic in a generic D&D setting is a singular resource that can run out.  As long as one mage can tap it to cast a 9th level spell, that means certainly there's plenty of magic out there for a bunch of minor spells.  Or are you saying that as soon as a mage, any mage, casts the last bit of energy, no other mage can cast a spell again anywhere in the world?

Magic is what the mage class does, just like punching things well is what a monk class does.  Magical energy is not finite, otherwise we'd know what that limit is.  No, it's an infinite resource that takes skill to tap into.  If a mage has that skill, they should be able to tap into it just like if a monk has the skill to do a flying kick, he can.  Which he does.  The only way that argument works is if you assume casting magic is more tiring than doing flying kicks, and there's nothing that explicitly says that anywhere.

Wands in AD&D tended to have around 90 charges. (Modules varied a fair amount.)
Which was 9 times what our BX wands had which was 1d10 charges! We didnt rely on wands at all.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763125Maybe to your opinion.

and your opinion is...you really like the change.

So noted.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763129and your opinion is...you really like the change.

So noted.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I like it.  Don't turn an objective comparison to subjective one.  Nevermind the fact the numerous times I've expressed my own concern at at will magic over the years.  Once again, you're pulling a SJW tactic.  If I'm not lockstep with you, I must love it.  That tactic gets real old real fast.  When they do it, and when you do it.

The fact is, in AD&D, wands were all over the place, with lots of charges.

That, along with scrolls and other magic items (like rings of spell storing, staves, etc) effectively meant pew pew mages have existed from darn near the get go, and not some new thing, so the argument that at-will cantrips turn mages into pew pew mages is a spurious argument based on the fact they existed long before at will cantrips did.  In fact, most want/rod/staff spells were significantly more powerful than any cantrip found in 5e.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763125Maybe to your opinion.  But I have a hard time seeing how magic in a generic D&D setting is a singular resource that can run out.  As long as one mage can tap it to cast a 9th level spell, that means certainly there's plenty of magic out there for a bunch of minor spells.  Or are you saying that as soon as a mage, any mage, casts the last bit of energy, no other mage can cast a spell again anywhere in the world?

Magic is what the mage class does, just like punching things well is what a monk class does.  Magical energy is not finite, otherwise we'd know what that limit is.  No, it's an infinite resource that takes skill to tap into.  If a mage has that skill, they should be able to tap into it just like if a monk has the skill to do a flying kick, he can.  Which he does.  The only way that argument works is if you assume casting magic is more tiring than doing flying kicks, and there's nothing that explicitly says that anywhere.

I see where the need for pew pew comes from if you are playing a monster fighting game (which is what WOTC has turned D&D into sadly).

Everything revolves around "the encounter" and making sure every class can contribute during them more or less on some level of parity.

That isn't how I like to play D&D. I don't want all classes feeling the same. The mage goes pew pew and the fighter goes hew hew  and monsters are killed. >>>repeat.

A wizard in an exploration game doesn't need a generic "attack" button regardless if its a crossbow or magic darts that originate from his sphincter. It is perfectly fine for a wizard to either hide or find something clever to do during combat at times, especially when low level and magic is in short supply.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763123Regardless of the anecdotal evidence by a few forum posters, I can easily look at published material for AD&D and see that wands were everywhere.  So I think it's pretty sound to say that pew pew mages existed long before at will spells.

And for those who are saying, "well, you can just take those away"?  You can also just as easily make cantrips limited per day.  See how that works?

I'm referring to in-game limits.  You're referencing a remedy only available to the DM.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;763136I see where the need for pew pew comes from if you are playing a monster fighting game (which is what WOTC has turned D&D into sadly).

Everything revolves around "the encounter" and making sure every class can contribute during them more or less on some level of parity.

That isn't how I like to play D&D. I don't want all classes feeling the same. The mage goes pew pew and the fighter goes hew hew  and monsters are killed. >>>repeat.

A wizard in an exploration game doesn't need a generic "attack" button regardless if its a crossbow or magic darts that originate from his sphincter. It is perfectly fine for a wizard to either hide or find something clever to do during combat at times, especially when low level and magic is in short supply.

I can't say I disagree with any of this. It all resonates.

So your argument is that there isn't a change between...
1.)  Requiring the possession and use of a limited resource item or power in order to do magical damage.
2.) Allowing innate, at-will magical damage requiring absolutely nothing once you know the spell.

...ok.

SJW? :idunno: Sometimes a wand is just a wand.

I'm saying that pew pew wizards aren't a new thing that started with at will magic, and thus arguments like "at will magic turns wizards into pew pew wizards" are flawed.

On a personal subjective level, I'll add that I also don't see a significant difference in the feel of the game when the wizard is going pew pew with a wand or with a spell.  If I'm not playing the wizard, I simply don't care what he uses to call forth the magic.  Just that he does.

Hmm, Cantrips/day equal to Int + Prof? And no short rest spell slot recharges? Maybe...

I'll have to check Basic .pdf and DMG to see if I like that fix, and if it is worth going through the effort. Might just scrap it outright and bump Cantrips up to 1st lvl spell and just be a flexible slot, capable of doing any of the functions within the category Cantrips.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763141I'm saying that pew pew wizards aren't a new thing that started with at will magic

Right you're saying there isn't a change between...
1.)  Requiring the possession and use of a limited resource item or power in order to do magical damage.
2.) Allowing innate, at-will magical damage requiring absolutely nothing once you know the spell.

Got it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763144Right you're saying there isn't a change between...
1.)  Requiring the possession and use of a limited resource item or power in order to do magical damage.
2.) Allowing innate, at-will magical damage requiring absolutely nothing once you know the spell.

Got it.

1. Wands and staves are rechargeable always have been.  Most the time it was just easier to get another by some other means but it was there.
2. At-will doesn't mean psionics you wiggle your fingers and the rest. Realistically it means until you're fatigued. Unlimited is a simplification much like hitpoints are.

Quote from: Marleycat;7631471. Wands and staves are rechargeable always have been.  Most the time it was just easier to get another by some other means but it was there.

Yes, but you did indeed have to go through the process, expense, etc. not to mention actually have the wand to begin with, as opposed to, say...having a finger, no resources required.

So, it is a change.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763154Yes, but you did indeed have to go through the process, expense, etc. not to mention actually have the wand to begin with, as opposed to, say...having a finger, no resources required.

So, it is a change.

I don't disagree that it's different but it's not as different as you make it out to be. What's the big deal anyway? You could remove the direct combat cantrips and it very likely it wouldn't mess with your game. I can't guarantee that only because I am not at your table. But your players don't seem the type to be abusing the system.

Or if you really are bothered just slot them maybe 6+attribute is the total number you can have in your book and then you can use any of them at attribute + level per day.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;763115Precisely. Magic is what wizards DO. The magic does not come from them directly, they channel it from some other plane and shape it to their purpose through study. Such magic is a resource which has a cost.

The question D&D designers have to answer what reflects generic fantasy of D&D the best while remaining easy to learn.

Of all the subsystems in a fantasy RPG, magic and how it works is perhaps the most arbitrary. The rules are the rules because that how the implied setting works.

Plenty of other RPGs work fine with Wizards being able to cast low damage spells every combat round. Work fine in that they have this feature but still feel like their targeted subgenre and not like fantasy superheroes.

So the question is how does a 5e Wizard stack up vs a classic D&D wizard? From running a recent high level playtest my experience is that they are the big guns. The at will spells pale in comparisons to what the fighting classes can do. Their main effect is to allow the wizard player to do something magically when all the big booms are used up.

That from low level play and high level play the fighters are far more balenced with mages than in previous editions with classic D&D mechanics. The number of big booms been reduced in favor of roleplaying with magic flexibiiity (rituals, at wills, etc)

QuoteThat from low level play and high level play the fighters are far more balenced with mages than in previous editions with classic D&D mechanics. The number of big booms been reduced in favor of roleplaying with magic flexibiiity (rituals, at wills, etc)

This is something that keeps getting overlooked time and time again. Everybody runs off the same number of slots because it makes multiclassing far easier.

5e has maybe half the slots of 0-3e more likely less. At 20th level you have 19 total slots, just 19 shots. 15 are before 6th level. So that means you get 4 game changers a day that cannot be recovered. So to balance this all off you get to be far more flexible with you're low level spells.

Also in a on the fly situation you can only prepare 25 spells (without magic items or whatever) at 20th level so that helps stop the batman syndrome because things that are situational will tend to be cast as a ritual only after there is no other option that some other class probably already has (Rogue).

Quote from: estar;763158So the question is how does a 5e Wizard stack up vs a classic D&D wizard? From running a recent high level playtest my experience is that they are the big guns. The at will spells pale in comparisons to what the fighting classes can do. Their main effect is to allow the wizard player to do something magically when all the big booms are used up.

Yes, and that is only an important consideration in a monster fighting game.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;763170Yes, and that is only an important consideration in a monster fighting game.

Stop with the monster fighting bullshit. When I explore I use spells also. Walking around with a ten foot pole and clueless never using magic, with the intention of coming up with some whacky plan to find a way to accomplish your goal without ever fighting or using magic may be what you like but it's not a majority opinion anymore. It hasn't been for several editions now many made by TSR.

You don't have to just play monster slaughterer and never explore, there is a middle ground and that is completely dependent on the DM and the group.

Quote from: Marleycat;763173Stop with the monster fighting bullshit. When I explore I use spells also. Walking around with a ten foot pole and clueless never using magic, with the intention of coming up with some whacky plan to find a way to accomplish your goal without ever fighting or using magic may be what you like but it's not a majority opinion anymore. It hasn't been for several editions now many made by TSR.

You don't have to just play monster slaughterer and never explore, there is a middle ground and that is completely dependent on the DM and the group.

Anyone can play however they wish. That isn't an issue. I'm talking about the primary mode of play the rules are designed to support. 5E primarily supports monster fighting - kill 3 hobgoblins & gain a level. The source of XP is a huge driver of in-game activity and accompanying play style.

You can of course, change the game at your table however you wish. The question simply becomes one of the game being worth so much contorting when another tool already supports the play style one is looking for.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;763178Anyone can play however they wish. That isn't an issue. I'm talking about the primary mode of play the rules are designed to support. 5E primarily supports monster fighting - kill 3 hobgoblins & gain a level. The source of XP is a huge driver of in-game activity and accompanying play style.

You can of course, change the game at your table however you wish. The question simply becomes one of the game being worth so much contorting when another tool already supports the play style one is looking for.

That's up to you to answer, Just stop with the derogatory verbage. You have no idea how a particular person plays the game unless it's you and your table. I told you there is a middle ground to that is easily achievable regardless of the what the rules will encourage or support. Rules can be changed anyway and often are in Dnd.

What gets me mad is that the prior conversation was getting interesting then you threadcrap about something completely unrelated.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763139So your argument is that there isn't a change between...
1.)  Requiring the possession and use of a limited resource item or power in order to do magical damage.
2.) Allowing innate, at-will magical damage requiring absolutely nothing once you know the spell.

...ok.

SJW? :idunno: Sometimes a wand is just a wand.

I think in this case the cantrips are being treated as more or less ingrained into the casters very being through a combination of their simplicity, the casters nature, and early training.

They use up little if any of the casters innate magical stores or equivalent thereof.

Simmilar to how in my own book two of the professions regained spell points at a certain rate and if you cast low wattage stuff you could regain it about as fast as you cast it just plinking away.

Here is a rule that fits for next.

QuoteOnce you use up all your spell slots you also cannot access cantrips or untill you can do a long rest.

Or once you use up all your slots the attack cantrips function at 1/2 power.

This would tie the cantrips back into the casters overall reserves.

Quote from: Omega;763183I think in this case the cantrips are being treated as more or less ingrained into the casters very being through a combination of their simplicity, the casters nature, and early training.

They use up little if any of the casters innate magical stores or equivalent thereof.

Simmilar to how in my own book two of the professions regained spell points at a certain rate and if you cast low wattage stuff you could regain it about as fast as you cast it just plinking away.

Here is a rule that fits for next.



Or once you use up all your slots the attack cantrips function at 1/2 power.

This would tie the cantrips back into the casters overall reserves.

The second option is better because the first may have you run into the stupid situation of a caster purposely holding on to 1 slot no matter what because the non attack cantrips are really good in and of themselves.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;763178Anyone can play however they wish. That isn't an issue. I'm talking about the primary mode of play the rules are designed to support. 5E primarily supports monster fighting - kill 3 hobgoblins & gain a level. The source of XP is a huge driver of in-game activity and accompanying play style.

You can of course, change the game at your table however you wish. The question simply becomes one of the game being worth so much contorting when another tool already supports the play style one is looking for.

the more you insist on using the term "monster fighting", the more I'm convinced it's just another term like "magic tea party", meant as a catchphrase  to handwave away an argument in an immature manner rather than to even look at the reality of the way the game is actually played.

saying 5e is all about monster fighting because you level up after killing 3 hobgoblin is like saying AD&D is all about monster fighting because you level up after killing an old dragon.  It ignores the fact that that just ain't gonna happen in any typical actual game play.  A hobgoblin is going to wipe the floor with any level 1 PC, let alone 3 of them.

it also ignores the fact that you get XP for bypassing or otherwise "defeating" the creature, so you can get XP without fighting at all if you're clever.  And you also get XP for things like creative ideas and role-playing just like in AD&D.  The only difference is that you don't get XP for gold.  And guess what?  5e isn't the only edition to not have that rule.

Personally I like the wizard having some more shooty and stabby, with the bow and sword; the cantrips thing could be overused, depends on how the game is run though.

Quote from: dragoner;763195Personally I like the wizard having some more shooty and stabby, with the bow and sword; the cantrips thing could be overused, depends on how the game is run though.

heh, its not so usefull in the wrong situations.
Assumng these make it over... all of the following were immune to cond attacks.

B: White Dragons, Geleatinous Cube, Grey Ooze, Yellow Mould.
X: Frost giants, Bone Golems, Frost Salamanders.
Anyone the GM arms with a ring of frost resistance.

During the playtest run through of Caves of Chaos we ran into the Geleatinous cube and that at-will ray of frost was all of a sudden totally useless. Worked fine on the damn Ogre we blundered into though... Later ran into the Grey Ooze in another section and yup, immune too.

I like the idea of much slower progression so I'd probably just use the AD&D XP charts by class, thief gets one, fighter gets one, magic-user gets one, etc.

350xp (3 hobgoblins) to advance from 1st to 2nd level?

lolno

Quote from: Omega;763212heh, its not so usefull in the wrong situations.
Assumng these make it over... all of the following were immune to cond attacks.

B: White Dragons, Geleatinous Cube, Grey Ooze, Yellow Mould.
X: Frost giants, Bone Golems, Frost Salamanders.
Anyone the GM arms with a ring of frost resistance.

During the playtest run through of Caves of Chaos we ran into the Geleatinous cube and that at-will ray of frost was all of a sudden totally useless. Worked fine on the damn Ogre we blundered into though... Later ran into the Grey Ooze in another section and yup, immune too.

Well there is Flame Bolt and Shocking Grasp for something direct still.

Regarding at-will magic, one of the the easiest solutions is to require some kind of focus as a material component.  If you want a mage to be disarmable in combat, make it a wand, staff, rod, or scepter.  Or even say, make it a longsword or longbow for an elf (or any specific weapon if it fits a concept).  If you don't want it easily removed make it a ring, necklace, bracelet or some other jewelry.  If you want minor injury to be required to stop it, make it a tattoo (ouch).  And it could be easy or hard to "re-attune" a different item, depending on how you want handle captured mages.  Making all magic at-will and not needing a focus makes keeping mages tied up a minimum for capture and might make it so mages don't survive capture very often if the only way to stop em is to shut em up and make them immobile.

I kind of expect that the PHB or DMG will offer solutions for these sorts of ideas, to fit different settings.

Quote from: Brander;763219Regarding at-will magic, one of the the easiest solutions is to require some kind of focus as a material component.  

The easiest solution is to simply say "no".

Quote from: thedungeondelver;763221The easiest solution is to simply say "no".

No that's the dumbest.

EDIT/Addendum:
"That's not how magic works in my/this setting" is a wonderful answer.  "No" by itself, is what strikes me as the dumbest answer.

Quote from: Marleycat;763215Well there is Flame Bolt and Shocking Grasp for something direct still.

Playtest only allowed you two cantrips and I spent one on Read Magic.

Quote from: Omega;763212heh, its not so usefull in the wrong situations.
Assumng these make it over... all of the following were immune to cond attacks.

Somebody shooting at you from behind a wall is always a son of a bitch, or through murder holes. Really it's going to come down how it's played, frontal attacks are often save vs stupid.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;763213350xp (3 hobgoblins) to advance from 1st to 2nd level?

lolno

Quite.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;763170Yes, and that is only an important consideration in a monster fighting game.

If I wasn't clear in my previous post, I will restate.

In the place of the reduced spell slot 5e Wizard have more flexibility to cast spells of all types. That some of the expanded flexibility can only be used to cast spells useful for pure roleplaying encounters namely rituals and many of the at will cantrips.

Quote from: Omega;763226Playtest only allowed you two cantrips and I spent one on Read Magic.

From the starter set it looks like you get 3 and high elves get 4 plus you learn another at 4th level.

I like Brander's focus idea it would be very appropriate in certain settings at the very least.

Quote from: Omega;763126Wands in AD&D tended to have around 90 charges. (Modules varied a fair amount.)
Which was 9 times what our BX wands had which was 1d10 charges! We didnt rely on wands at all.

We woudl say a wand woudl have 100 charges when it was made when you found it it had %d charges left and you had no idea how many as it didn't have a battery power level meter on the side so we never relied on wands either.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763134This has nothing to do with whether or not I like it.  Don't turn an objective comparison to subjective one.  Nevermind the fact the numerous times I've expressed my own concern at at will magic over the years.  Once again, you're pulling a SJW tactic.  If I'm not lockstep with you, I must love it.  That tactic gets real old real fast.  When they do it, and when you do it.

The fact is, in AD&D, wands were all over the place, with lots of charges.

That, along with scrolls and other magic items (like rings of spell storing, staves, etc) effectively meant pew pew mages have existed from darn near the get go, and not some new thing, so the argument that at-will cantrips turn mages into pew pew mages is a spurious argument based on the fact they existed long before at will cantrips did.  In fact, most want/rod/staff spells were significantly more powerful than any cantrip found in 5e.

So to me its about how magic works.

In D&D vancian magic the wizard reads through the spell and locks a version of it in his head which is released when the spell is cast. That is how arcane wizard magic works.
If there are spells that break that paradigm you are undermining it. So if a wizard can hit you with a ray of frost at will then how does that fit with creating a construct in your head that is released along with the magical energy it contains when the spell is cast? it doesn't at all and becuase it doesn;t becuase you can just cast a ray of frost at will that means that metaphysically there is an alternate way to tap magical power one that is simply able to channle magical energy directly and shape it at will into a number of forms. If that is the case then a wizard who could master it could cast any spells whenever they like of any type.

So again with me its setting consistency.

Quote from: estar;763158The question D&D designers have to answer what reflects generic fantasy of D&D the best while remaining easy to learn.

Of all the subsystems in a fantasy RPG, magic and how it works is perhaps the most arbitrary. The rules are the rules because that how the implied setting works.

Plenty of other RPGs work fine with Wizards being able to cast low damage spells every combat round. Work fine in that they have this feature but still feel like their targeted subgenre and not like fantasy superheroes.

So the question is how does a 5e Wizard stack up vs a classic D&D wizard? From running a recent high level playtest my experience is that they are the big guns. The at will spells pale in comparisons to what the fighting classes can do. Their main effect is to allow the wizard player to do something magically when all the big booms are used up.

That from low level play and high level play the fighters are far more balenced with mages than in previous editions with classic D&D mechanics. The number of big booms been reduced in favor of roleplaying with magic flexibiiity (rituals, at wills, etc)

But that is the problem right there.

The at will damage spells feel like they have been added just to let the wizard do something in combat.

The Spell slot paradigm and its Vancian antecedents have a very specific "metaphysical explanation". You lock the power of the spell in a mental construct that is destroyed when the spell is cast and the energy is released.  If you have at will spells they break that paradigm.

The logcal extensin of at wills is that there is another way to tap magic that lets you do whatever you like. Well hold on forget vancian casting I am going to use the other sort of magic and just work out how to cast Fireballs and fly spells with it.

Now in line with Vancian casting i can see that there might be some simple effects you could construct in your head at will through mental training. If we say that Fly is like construcuting a polygon of 3 linked Dodecahedrons in your mind then maybe you coudl train yourself to construct a simple cube or a single sphere of "magic" as a purely mental exercise. Now this does break pure Vance becuase in pure vance you actually forget the spell  because the mind can only memorise it through teh spell construct. But assuming there were some simple base shapes that aprentice wizards learn I could see that you could use them as a cantrip. You mind effectively doing the mental gymnastics to get a simple effect. But these effects should be of the most simple kind and they will be things that a wizard uses every day through their study, reading magic, correcting an ink spill, findign a reference ina  book. etc etc .

The at will damage spell doesn;t feel liek its been through this process at all. It feels like its totally bolted on on the settigns metaphysics so the wizard can do something each round in combat.

Quote from: estar;763158So the question is how does a 5e Wizard stack up vs a classic D&D wizard? From running a recent high level playtest my experience is that they are the big guns. The at will spells pale in comparisons to what the fighting classes can do. Their main effect is to allow the wizard player to do something magically when all the big booms are used up.

This is admittedly a matter of personal taste, but for my money I like having wizard spells be big booms only, and for the wizard to look for something other to do in between the peals of thunder.  Having magic to use every single round cheapens it for me, and has seemed to stifle creativity.

Quote from: jibbajibba;763272But that is the problem right there.

The at will damage spells feel like they have been added just to let the wizard do something in combat.

The Spell slot paradigm and its Vancian antecedents have a very specific "metaphysical explanation". You lock the power of the spell in a mental construct that is destroyed when the spell is cast and the energy is released.  If you have at will spells they break that paradigm.

The logcal extensin of at wills is that there is another way to tap magic that lets you do whatever you like. Well hold on forget vancian casting I am going to use the other sort of magic and just work out how to cast Fireballs and fly spells with it.

5e doesn't use vancian as 0-3e define it. You have flexible spells and slots, arcane recovery and innate specialty spells as a thing. Cantrips are just the logical extension of that.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;763213I like the idea of much slower progression so I'd probably just use the AD&D XP charts by class, thief gets one, fighter gets one, magic-user gets one, etc.

350xp (3 hobgoblins) to advance from 1st to 2nd level?

lolno

The trouble is you are equating the 5e hobgoblin with the AD&D hobgoblin

This might be valid or it might not be but you are making a big assumption either way.

And split XP tables was not a great idea. The main reason to have levels in a game is to provide some sort of comparison between PCs. So havign classes that are wildly different in power levels and having wildly ranging xp requirements for levels means you may as well dump levels ad adopt a skill systme

Quote from: jibbajibba;763265So again with me its setting consistency.

Yep.  I am betting we still find casters locked away in dungeons though.  Probably in official modules.  Anyone want to take that bet?

There aren't any 0 level spells that will get them out from behind a locked iron door. Might make them a little bit more dangerous if you open the door without some backup, but you have a couple guys with crossbows and readied actions and you'll be fine.

Quote from: mcbobbo;763285Yep.  I am betting we still find casters locked away in dungeons though.  Probably in official modules.  Anyone want to take that bet?

Why? Given 5e is trying to be setting based like 2e while making the PHB and DMG a big toolbox.

Quote from: JonWake;763290There aren't any 0 level spells that will get them out from behind a locked iron door. Might make them a little bit more dangerous if you open the door without some backup, but you have a couple guys with crossbows and readied actions and you'll be fine.

Cantrips are 0 level spells via the starter set. And well....mage hand.....;)

Then you strategize......be a wizard already, obvious isn't the best tactic in this situation. Make them open the door and let the fun begin.

Cantrips aren't bullshit in 5e much like feats. They define your character and class more often then not. Again very little amount of slots so cantrips have to be versitile and important for a class that "are the supreme magic using class" yes?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;763136I see where the need for pew pew comes from if you are playing a monster fighting game (which is what WOTC has turned D&D into sadly).

Old School Revisionist bullshit.

D&D became a monster fighting game when Gygax could no longer personally show all the players how he meant it to be played - which is about a week after he started selling OD&D at conventions. Literally millions of players in the 80s played D&D as a monster fighting game.

Quote from: Haffrung;763304Old School Revisionist bullshit.

D&D became a monster fighting game when Gygax could no longer personally show all the players how he meant it to be played - which is about a week after he started selling OD&D at conventions. Literally millions of players in the 80s played D&D as a monster fighting game.

Say it ain't so! Even OG will back you on this by the way.

Quote from: One Horse Town;763096At will cantrips do have some setting implications if you look at it for too long - something that 4e got away with by being batshit crazy and not caring about anything beyond the encounter.

I don't care for them much, but i also don't see them as a problem either.

As I recall, Pathfinder makes cantrips effectively at-will, and when my GM didn't like that he modified them to be 3 (+ modifier) times per day.
Of course I also don't think PF/3X cantrips are that powerful.

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;763334As I recall, Pathfinder makes cantrips effectively at-will, and when my GM didn't like that he modified them to be 3 (+ modifier) times per day.
Of course I also don't think PF/3X cantrips are that powerful.

JG

They do. 3x slots them per day like 1/2e. Then again I can build a pure magic user with 70+ slots in those games. And I would give you nightmares with how I can break the game with a staff fighting Magus in PF.

It's all about the 19 spell slots you get in 5e. End of story because the magic items you give are on you not the game itself.

Quote from: James Gillen;763334As I recall, Pathfinder makes cantrips effectively at-will, and when my GM didn't like that he modified them to be 3 (+ modifier) times per day.
Of course I also don't think PF/3X cantrips are that powerful.

JG

They are normally only d3 Damage. However, one of the Pathfinder Cantrips is Acid based, which I think has far more implications for breaking the game than any other energy type.

Quote from: mcbobbo;763285Yep.  I am betting we still find casters locked away in dungeons though.  Probably in official modules.  Anyone want to take that bet?

Using the play-test rules at least, as long as the caster is manacled or cuffed, he can't cast spells (including cantrips) at all.

Quote from: jadrax;763363Using the play-test rules at least, as long as the caster is manacled or cuffed, he can't cast spells (including cantrips) at all.

And ray of frost or the other cantrips arent likely to be much use against a stone wall or iron door. Caves of chaos additional DM info even states this. That players with base weapons or spells are not going to be able to tunnel through stone walls.

Quote from: Omega;763377And ray of frost or the other cantrips arent likely to be much use against a stone wall or iron door. Caves of chaos additional DM info even states this. That players with base weapons or spells are not going to be able to tunnel through stone walls.

Well if a pick can't tunnel through stone, how were the tunnels made in the first place?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;763416Well if a pick can't tunnel through stone, how were the tunnels made in the first place?

Purple Worms.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;763416Well if a pick can't tunnel through stone, how were the tunnels made in the first place?

Slowly. Even with the picks tunneling through stone it's not a simple matter of bashing at the rock, you need to ferry the rock out, you need to constantly work on stabilising the tunnel you've produced, and it takes a hell of a lot of swings of that pick to advance a full-sized tunnel any appreciable distance. PCs typically do not have time during a dungeon exploration to start up a small mining operation.

Quote from: Warthur;763420Slowly. Even with the picks tunneling through stone it's not a simple matter of bashing at the rock, you need to ferry the rock out, you need to constantly work on stabilising the tunnel you've produced, and it takes a hell of a lot of swings of that pick to advance a full-sized tunnel any appreciable distance. PCs typically do not have time during a dungeon exploration to start up a small mining operation.

My first concern is the guards who bring the meals.  A 22 isn't a great mining tool either, but they don't typically lock people up without removing their handguns.

My second concern is how that unlimited d8 damage is expected not to harm the door.

I genuinely think wizards would never be jailed in a setting like this.  It could have been said before also, I mean an unspent fireball is also bad news for the jailors.  But now that skinny, long-bearded asshole is never going to stop blasting the door to his cell and there's no good way to make him stop short of leaving him trussed up all the time.  Better just to kill him.

It's like a guy with a handgun welded to his arm.  Too dangerous to try and warehouse.

I'm particularly fond of just making cantrips require a focus of some type. That solves the imprisonment problem.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;763465I'm particularly fond of just making cantrips require a focus of some type. That solves the imprisonment problem.

I would generally not let a wizard cast any spell, cantrip or otherwise, while manacled.

The wizard might be able to use a contingency, or a verbal only spell if the captors screw up.

A wizard using ray of frost on a door is not much different than a big fighter kicking a door. 1-8 vs 1-2+3 or whatever.

The door is probably immune to both.

Arguing with myself for a moment - there is one way to do it:  some kind of bend-necked oubliette.

The wizard would be down a hole with only rock to chip at.  Let him, it'll take years.

The jailors can lob food down a bendy hole/tube that blocks line of sight.

That might work.

Still I doubt the setting even accommodates this as a change to the assumption that a wizard can be disarmed.

Quote from: Bill;763470I would generally not let a wizard cast any spell, cantrip or otherwise, while manacled.

The wizard might be able to use a contingency, or a verbal only spell if the captors screw up.

A wizard using ray of frost on a door is not much different than a big fighter kicking a door. 1-8 vs 1-2+3 or whatever.

The door is probably immune to both.

So to be clear I do see how a DM could address it as a design problem.  More interesting is the SETTING problem.

Is that fighter's damage lethal or subdual?  Does that exist in 5e?  Swap it with monk, though, and it maps logically.

Same setting problem.  If you wanted to jail a monk...

Quote from: mcbobbo;763481Same setting problem.  If you wanted to jail a monk...

1) Beat him until he smells like onions and is knocked out.
2) Lock him in a cell.

Pretty much, locking any PC in a jail cell without manacling him is a recipe for your own death.

I will admit this.  Allowing at will cantrips?  Sort of fucks up adventures like the beginning of module A4.  Then again, all I hear from people is how much they hated A4 because it was just a railroad and it was horrible game design to have an adventure where PCs are forced to be stripped of all items.

Wait, they removed V,S,M components as well? What're y'all talking about?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763491I will admit this.  Allowing at will cantrips?  Sort of fucks up adventures like the beginning of module A4.  Then again, all I hear from people is how much they hated A4 because it was just a railroad and it was horrible game design to have an adventure where PCs are forced to be stripped of all items.

A4 was also a hell of a lot of fun to play. Granted, a railroaded capture is annoying, but the challenge of making it out of Suderham alive and getting revenge is really cool.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;763494A4 was also a hell of a lot of fun to play. Granted, a railroaded capture is annoying, but the challenge of making it out of Suderham alive and getting revenge is really cool.

Oh, I agree.  However, it seems some people (including unnamed reviewers here) who think that even if the main plot of an adventure is "escape from capture", being captured in the first place is a horrible railroad designed module.

Quote from: Opaopajr;763493Wait, they removed V,S,M components as well? What're y'all talking about?

In the play test, all spells required verbal utterance and gestures (unless they said otherwise).

In Basic they seem to have returned to the old V,S,M listing per spell.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;763494A4 was also a hell of a lot of fun to play. Granted, a railroaded capture is annoying, but the challenge of making it out of Suderham alive and getting revenge is really cool.

A4 naturally followed A3, and it was a series of convention modules, so railroading was to be expected.

I think a lot of the hate and discontent about "escape from capture" modules has to do with the ham-fisted nature of how the RPGA of that era handled it. RPGA modules would literally start with box text of, "For no apparant reason, your character decides to strip naked and walk into a jail cell while placing manacles on their wrists and feet."

Fighting, failing, and getting captured makes the set-up expected. Giving yourself up for capture without preamble just seems clumsy.

Quote from: mcbobbo;763464My first concern is the guards who bring the meals.  A 22 isn't a great mining tool either, but they don't typically lock people up without removing their handguns.

My second concern is how that unlimited d8 damage is expected not to harm the door.

I genuinely think wizards would never be jailed in a setting like this.  It could have been said before also, I mean an unspent fireball is also bad news for the jailors.  But now that skinny, long-bearded asshole is never going to stop blasting the door to his cell and there's no good way to make him stop short of leaving him trussed up all the time.  Better just to kill him.

It's like a guy with a handgun welded to his arm.  Too dangerous to try and warehouse.

Now consider that problem magnified when you toss the damn cleric in the cell. He or she doesnt even need a spellbook or anything to get a recharge from the patron by morning.

This is the age old problem of fantasy law and order. How do you curb those pesky casters.

Easiest is cells with a permanent silence. Or better yet. Cells that are anti-magic or magic dead zones. Dragon mag had the occasional articles and items for those purposes too. Magic cancelling manacles showing up at least twice.

Quote from: jadrax;763489Pretty much, locking any PC in a jail cell without manacling him is a recipe for your own death.

This is also how some modules start...

One of the old starter sets even has you end up in jail and having to escape it as part of a sort of limited pick your path walkthrough.

Quote from: mcbobbo;763464I genuinely think wizards would never be jailed in a setting like this.  It could have been said before also, I mean an unspent fireball is also bad news for the jailors.  But now that skinny, long-bearded asshole is never going to stop blasting the door to his cell and there's no good way to make him stop short of leaving him trussed up all the time.  Better just to kill him.

It's like a guy with a handgun welded to his arm.  Too dangerous to try and warehouse.

Exact issue with GURPS Magic. In a less social evolved society mages are kill on sight unless there is a special relationship with a culturally significant authority.

In a more complex society mages behavior would be guaranteed by their guild. Any non guild Mage would be kill on sight.

Remember in most fantasy RPGs the Achilles heel of mages (note the plural) is that they are a scholarly profession. They need a certain amount of stability and peace in order to learn the basics and even the advance material. For all their  power mages can be wiped out in a generation if society decided to make eat on them. By cutting of the ability to train new mages and let attrition wear down the middle level and isolating the most powerful.

Let not forget clerics as their patrons have their own proactive agenda whose power can break the rules that mages are bound by via miracles.

Don't take the above as THE answer. I posted it to illustrate that even the most unconstrained magic system can have limits imposed through roleplaying alone.

The practical effect on a PC wizard would be that they would be continually tracked down and attacked. They may win the fire few battle but there are thousands of mundanes and one of them. And if they. managed to survive it would a lonely existence of limited resources.

Quote from: Omega;763518Now consider that problem magnified when you toss the damn cleric in the cell. He or she doesnt even need a spellbook or anything to get a recharge from the patron by morning.

This is the age old problem of fantasy law and order. How do you curb those pesky casters.

Easiest is cells with a permanent silence. Or better yet. Cells that are anti-magic or magic dead zones. Dragon mag had the occasional articles and items for those purposes too. Magic cancelling manacles showing up at least twice.

Or just fucking cut out their tongue... Well over 90% of spells had Verbal components.

Lopping off a fighter's thumb was great for curbing them, too.

Sometimes the old ways are best.

I hate it when those darn pc's do not stay in jail like the plot demands. The nerve.

Quote from: estar;763521The practical effect on a PC wizard would be that they would be continually tracked down and attacked. They may win the fire few battle but there are thousands of mundanes and one of them. And if they. managed to survive it would a lonely existence of limited resources.

Good post, and I agree.  It will be interesting to see if the cantrips have a material component of any significant cost...

Quote from: Haffrung;763304Old School Revisionist bullshit.

D&D became a monster fighting game when Gygax could no longer personally show all the players how he meant it to be played - which is about a week after he started selling OD&D at conventions. Literally millions of players in the 80s played D&D as a monster fighting game.

I don't think anybody really argues against that.

2e started the rules modifications in that direction, but 3.x and 4e really cranked it up to 11.

Personally, I prefer the "exploration/adventure" version of D&D, even though the "monster killing" version is what I grew up with.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763501Oh, I agree.  However, it seems some people (including unnamed reviewers here) who think that even if the main plot of an adventure is "escape from capture", being captured in the first place is a horrible railroad designed module.

I'd call it "buy-in".  As in, before starting the adventure, I'd say "so how about we play a game about , but to start your characters get captured.  Cool?"

Quote from: robiswrong;7635872e started the rules modifications in that direction, but 3.x and 4e really cranked it up to 11.

I think this is a good test - does your party carry (or wish they were carrying) a ten foot pole?

Jailing any middling level character starts to resemble one of the Special Containment Procedure creepypastas.  I was running a superhero game where the mind controller was always followed by two squads. The first had orders to shoot him if he hesitated at all, and the second had orders to shoot the first if they acted strange in any way. It was a stressful work environment.

In my current Game store campaign using S&W/Majestic Wilderlands I have a group of 8th level PCs that are largely unjailable.
When they interact with locals, they don't act like mad dogs. The main reason is that early I successfully established that they are part of a living breathing world with its own agenda.

What makes it doubly interesting in regards to this group is that they are disinterested in the setting and focus on dungeon adventuring. It like they don't like the Majestic Wilderlands, is that what this group is interested in is collecting maps, and rumors of dungeons and exploring. The bigger the place the better. Like Tegal Manor or my own Majestic Fastness megadungeon.

They do deal with the life of the setting it mostly as a pit stop to outfit for the next expedition. They don't have many allies but they don't have many enemies. That is until the most recent adventure where they dealt a very powerful foe a little hurt.


Again despite their growing personal power they don't go mad dog like some of the horror stories. To stress the point it is because of how I roleplay the setting elements.

The problems mentioned with Wizards and their at will abilities can easily be fixed with roleplaying. Make the setting a living breathing place that had these types of people for generations and roleplay accordingly.

Quote from: estar;763642The problems mentioned with Wizards and their at will abilities can easily be fixed with roleplaying. Make the setting a living breathing place that had these types of people for generations and roleplay accordingly.

Forgive me if you 'get this' already, but that's not what I'm talking about.  Homebrew, home games, personalized settings, and all that aside:

1) I don't feel that WotC et al depict Wizards in a way like you're advocating
and
2) I honestly think that at-will cantrips make it worse*.

*Unless they wind up having spell components that can't be found in a jail cell, for example.

So YES, it CAN be fixed.  WILL they, though, particularly with it amplified?

And as Sacrosanct pointed out, Slavers pretty much demonstrates that they won't.  They did release it as Next compatible, IIRC?

Quote from: estar;763642The problems mentioned with Wizards and their at will abilities can easily be fixed with roleplaying. Make the setting a living breathing place that had these types of people for generations and roleplay accordingly.

It's not hard to create the expectation that abusing magic in any form is looked at harshly without being obvious like having a couple guards have the initiate feat or be a low level F/M.....

This is easily believable without even entering in setting considerations like Dragonlance or Dark Sun or anything in between.

Quote from: Marleycat;763646It's not hard to create the expectation that abusing magic in any form is looked at harshly without being obvious like having a couple guards have the initiate feat or be a low level F/M.....

This is easily believable without even entering in setting considerations like Dragonlance or Dark Sun or anything in between.

Mad wizards get put down early. They may be able to shoot a bolt of freezing energy or whisper messages to people, but the local archer can drop them at 200 paces and a rogue can cut his throat without being seen.

When they get more powerful, then they get to be trouble. That's why most wizards are expected to police their own.

It's perfectly acceptable that some wizards go power-mad. Who else raises those orc armies, builds a labyrinth base, and populates it with arcane guardians? And how else did they get so strong except by preying on the weaker power-hungry mages of the milieu and taking their stuff?

As for imprisoning PCs, by the time they're mid level it should be apparent to any would-be captors just how deadly they are. Execution is the only way to deal with adventurers with any certainty. You don't toss a couple black mambas you find in the backyard into your basement and wash your hands of the matter.

Quote from: JonWake;763621Jailing any middling level character starts to resemble one of the Special Containment Procedure creepypastas.  I was running a superhero game where the mind controller was always followed by two squads. The first had orders to shoot him if he hesitated at all, and the second had orders to shoot the first if they acted strange in any way. It was a stressful work environment.

Or just steal a trope from Lord of the Rings.  Wizards need their staff to do the continuous low level effects -- like Gandalf with light.  

"Did I not counsel you to forbid him his staff?" And all.

Flavorful, fun, and makes prison viable.  If you worry about too much casting, make the staff suffer stress if it is under continuous use.  And make the process of replacing it non-trivial.

Quote from: Haffrung;763678It's perfectly acceptable that some wizards go power-mad. Who else raises those orc armies, builds a labyrinth base, and populates it with arcane guardians? And how else did they get so strong except by preying on the weaker power-hungry mages of the milieu and taking their stuff?

As for imprisoning PCs, by the time they're mid level it should be apparent to any would-be captors just how deadly they are. Execution is the only way to deal with adventurers with any certainty. You don't toss a couple black mambas you find in the backyard into your basement and wash your hands of the matter.

I figure that the power mad wizards get their start like adventuring wizards do: they find a bunch of mad bastards to look out for each other. By the time the crazy's in full swing, they're too dangerous to confront.

I also like the explanation for death traps. Why do you have a room that slowly fills with acid?  Have you ever tried to behead a monk? Or hang a wizard? Sure, they might get out, but you can buy a new death trap.

Hmmm ... the ecology of wizards, what an odd discussion, but useful in it's own way. I guess with magic there might be anti-magic as well, such as golden thread spun by an elf, or elf enchanted maiden. Tie the thread around the wizard's hands, such as woven into a rope, then they can be hung from the wall.

Quote from: Haffrung;763678It's perfectly acceptable that some wizards go power-mad. Who else raises those orc armies, builds a labyrinth base, and populates it with arcane guardians? And how else did they get so strong except by preying on the weaker power-hungry mages of the milieu and taking their stuff?

And that's why I love Eldritch Ass Kicking!
http://www.mysticages.com/games/eak/

Anybody who loves Magic + Easy Rules should check it out.

Quote from: Votan;763683Or just steal a trope from Lord of the Rings.  Wizards need their staff to do the continuous low level effects -- like Gandalf with light.  

"Did I not counsel you to forbid him his staff?" And all.

Flavorful, fun, and makes prison viable.  If you worry about too much casting, make the staff suffer stress if it is under continuous use.  And make the process of replacing it non-trivial.

I really like this idea. It is an easily accepted trope, as you said from Lord of the Rings but also for wands in Harry Potter. Or even other media in which the hero "needs" his/her item (lightsaber, Mjolnir etcc)

Quote from: Votan;763683Or just steal a trope from Lord of the Rings.  Wizards need their staff to do the continuous low level effects -- like Gandalf with light.  

"Did I not counsel you to forbid him his staff?" And all.

Flavorful, fun, and makes prison viable.  If you worry about too much casting, make the staff suffer stress if it is under continuous use.  And make the process of replacing it non-trivial.

Great idea. :)

Quote from: JonWake;763621Jailing any middling level character starts to resemble one of the Special Containment Procedure creepypastas.  I was running a superhero game where the mind controller was always followed by two squads. The first had orders to shoot him if he hesitated at all, and the second had orders to shoot the first if they acted strange in any way. It was a stressful work environment.

That's a cool way for normals to at leats try to deal with a mind controller.

You also reminded me of a supers game where the pc heroes were freaking out about a villain they locked up; they were worried he would mind control the guards.
Funny thing is that this villain only had telekinesis; no mind control at all..they just assumed.

Quote from: Bill;763724You also reminded me of a supers game where the pc heroes were freaking out about a villain they locked up; they were worried he would mind control the guards.
Funny thing is that this villain only had telekinesis; no mind control at all..they just assumed.

I love it when PCs overestimate (or outright hallucinate) threats like this. Seriously, it makes my day. As a GM I think it's a sign that they're hanging at the edge of their seats and that you're doing a good job. Well done. :hatsoff:

Quote from: The Butcher;763739I love it when PCs overestimate (or outright hallucinate) threats like this. Seriously, it makes my day. As a GM I think it's a sign that they're hanging at the edge of their seats and that you're doing a good job. Well done. :hatsoff:

Thanks!

And it was also fun to see the players absolutely seethe with fury at the 'revolving door' 'escap-o-matic' mental health and prison system.

Quote from: Bill;763766Thanks!

And it was also fun to see the players absolutely seethe with fury at the 'revolving door' 'escap-o-matic' mental health and prison system.

Yeah, could never get into Supers... execution was almost always the right answer.

Quote from: Opaopajr;763791Yeah, could never get into Supers... execution was almost always the right answer.

Take the Joker, for example.   Dude is never, ever, ever going to be rehabilitated.  After the 18th escape or so it seems to benefit society just to put him down...

Quote from: mcbobbo;763793Take the Joker, for example.   Dude is never, ever, ever going to be rehabilitated.  After the 18th escape or so it seems to benefit society just to put him down...

They did, he came with Demonic powers and really raised hell.

Prisons may have a revolving door, but they revolve a lot slower than the one from the afterlife.

Quote from: Votan;763683Or just steal a trope from Lord of the Rings.  Wizards need their staff to do the continuous low level effects -- like Gandalf with light.  

"Did I not counsel you to forbid him his staff?" And all.

Flavorful, fun, and makes prison viable.  If you worry about too much casting, make the staff suffer stress if it is under continuous use.  And make the process of replacing it non-trivial.

Quote from: Necrozius;763713I really like this idea. It is an easily accepted trope, as you said from Lord of the Rings but also for wands in Harry Potter. Or even other media in which the hero "needs" his/her item (lightsaber, Mjolnir etcc)

What's more, there's even some some in-game support for the idea, since in the playtest, at least, there were implements. I think you could use them to add your proficiency bonus to the effectiveness of spells, but I forget the details. Making cantrips dependent on them would be fair too I think.

Quote from: LibraryLass;763807What's more, there's even some some in-game support for the idea, since in the playtest, at least, there were implements. I think you could use them to add your proficiency bonus to the effectiveness of spells, but I forget the details. Making cantrips dependent on them would be fair too I think.

I like implements and foci. They will be a part of my game and a focus will be a requirement for unlimited cantrip use. It's just how I roll.

Quote from: LibraryLass;763807What's more, there's even some some in-game support for the idea, since in the playtest, at least, there were implements. I think you could use them to add your proficiency bonus to the effectiveness of spells, but I forget the details.

DCC does it better with the wizard staff spell.

Quote from: mcbobbo;763793Take the Joker, for example.   Dude is never, ever, ever going to be rehabilitated.  After the 18th escape or so it seems to benefit society just to put him down...

This post struck such a chord with me (and my continued frustration with supers RPGs) that I'm spinning it off on its own thread, right here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=763816#post763816).

Quote from: The Butcher;763813DCC does it better with the wizard staff spell.

Sounds similar to how it works in Chivalry and Sorcery 3e? And much like something I will do in my games.

Quote from: Marleycat;763809I like implements and foci. They will be a part of my game and a focus will be a requirement for unlimited cantrip use. It's just how I roll.

I was thinking that if I ran it (unlikely admittedly), I'd make casting without a focus at least a +1 penalty to spell level , so they would no longer be at-will and you would be limited to no more cantrips than 1st level spells (and so on, so you would lose the ability to cast your highest level spells as well).

It would be nice for there to have a bigger or smaller foci have trade-offs but I'm not sure the system lends itself to that level of differentiation.  Perhaps it could be like the "staff" spell in Gurps, which allows the "staff" to count as touching for touch range spells.  So having a larger foci gives reach at the expense of being harder to conceal and perhaps easier to disarm.  And the negative for say a tattoo as a focus (from my earlier post) is that people are going to slash it up or skin part of you instead of just take your stick away.

Quote from: Brander;763883I was thinking that if I ran it (unlikely admittedly), I'd make casting without a focus at least a +1 penalty to spell level , so they would no longer be at-will and you would be limited to no more cantrips than 1st level spells (and so on, so you would lose the ability to cast your highest level spells as well).

It would be nice for there to have a bigger or smaller foci have trade-offs but I'm not sure the system lends itself to that level of differentiation.  Perhaps it could be like the "staff" spell in Gurps, which allows the "staff" to count as touching for touch range spells.  So having a larger foci gives reach at the expense of being harder to conceal and perhaps easier to disarm.  And the negative for say a tattoo as a focus (from my earlier post) is that people are going to slash it up or skin part of you instead of just take your stick away.

The BASIC rules for foci are cursory I would like to see what's in the PHB or DMG before going hog wild. I figure for now I say wizards have both and need a focus to cast cantrips but your idea about +1 is intriguing I just wonder if it will mess other subsystems up.

I just noticed in the Basic pdf that you can use a spellcasting focus in lieu of material components that do not have a cost and are not consumed upon casting.  That's news to me.

Quote from: Brander;764269I just noticed in the Basic pdf that you can use a spellcasting focus in lieu of material components that do not have a cost and are not consumed upon casting.  That's news to me.

That's why I would hold off as my above post said.  What gets me crazy is that this is basically the playtest rules without the cruft yet people that should know better are spreading lies.

They toned the Fighters down a bit, clarified the Rogues, toned down cantrips but amped the actual spells for wizards so they do spike damage not consistent damage just like they wanted. But Clerics as usual are an issue...any kind of MC with them could be big problems especially with certain domains and subclasses without CharOP on purpose.

Quote from: Brander;764269I just noticed in the Basic pdf that you can use a spellcasting focus in lieu of material components that do not have a cost and are not consumed upon casting.  That's news to me.

I think that's a fair compromise. It means you don't have to be a wizard who carries around pouches of random trash unless you particularly want that flavour, it means you can still deprive the wizard of being able to cast those spells (taking away the focus being tantamount to taking away the material components), and in general if a material component is free and isn't consumed on casting I think that's a clear sign that it isn't really intended to be a barrier to spellcasting except under special circumstances.

Plus it opens the door to clever wizard players MacGuyvering their way out of being captured if they can work out a way to get some of those apparently-innocuous material components.

Looks like the worry about jailing wizards is moot. Like many D&D editions, spells require Verbal, Somatic, or Material components. Chain the archmage up. Hannibal Lecter style, he isn't doing squat.

Quote from: Brander;764269I just noticed in the Basic pdf that you can use a spellcasting focus in lieu of material components that do not have a cost and are not consumed upon casting.  That's news to me.

Or a Component Bag. However components with a cost have to be purchased and tracked separately.

Quote from: estar;764328Looks like the worry about jailing wizards is moot. Like many D&D editions, spells require Verbal, Somatic, or Material components. Chain the archmage up. Hannibal Lecter style, he isn't doing squat.

I am amused by how many people in this thread seem to think that "manacles plus a gag" would be beyond the capability of most jailers.

Quote from: Warthur;764332I am amused by how many people in this thread seem to think that "manacles plus a gag" would be beyond the capability of most jailers.

It's just not practical for long term storage.  Bed sores and the like.  He's going to die without constant and disgusting care.  Particularly in an age without antibiotics.  I suppose you could have a cleric come by and heal him every day to keep him alive...

The oubliette is better.

Quote from: Warthur;764332I am amused by how many people in this thread seem to think that "manacles plus a gag" would be beyond the capability of most jailers.

Look, The Gaolers' Guild charter insist that you always lock up PCs unrestrained and with all their gear, in the only cell with a secret passage that leads further into the complex. It's the rules!

Quote from: jadrax;764336Look, The Gaolers' Guild charter insist that you always lock up PCs unrestrained and with all their gear, in the only cell with a secret passage that leads further into the complex. It's the rules!

Gone to the Elder Scrolls School of Gaoling, I see.

Now that I have the rules,  I have noticed another problem with 'tunnel via cantrip' - they all explicitly say 'creature'.  By strict reading, they have no effect on non-creatures.

Not sure if that was intended or not, but there's at least one 1st level spell that's not worded that way.

Quote from: mcbobbo;764486Now that I have the rules,  I have noticed another problem with 'tunnel via cantrip' - they all explicitly say 'creature'.  By strict reading, they have no effect on non-creatures.

Not sure if that was intended or not, but there's at least one 1st level spell that's not worded that way.

I am not sure if objects take Hit Point damage in 5e?

I notice the fire spells just set objects alight rather than doing damage to them.

Quote from: mcbobbo;764486Now that I have the rules,  I have noticed another problem with 'tunnel via cantrip' - they all explicitly say 'creature'.  By strict reading, they have no effect on non-creatures.

Not sure if that was intended or not, but there's at least one 1st level spell that's not worded that way.

Fitrebolt says creature or object but ray of frost and shocking grasp explicirly says creature.

Quote from: mcbobbo;764486Now that I have the rules,  I have noticed another problem with 'tunnel via cantrip' - they all explicitly say 'creature'.  By strict reading, they have no effect on non-creatures.

Not sure if that was intended or not, but there's at least one 1st level spell that's not worded that way.

That wasn't intentional trust me. And go and start a big fire in your cell no one will ever find out.

Quote from: mcbobbo;764486Now that I have the rules,  I have noticed another problem with 'tunnel via cantrip' - they all explicitly say 'creature'.  By strict reading, they have no effect on non-creatures.

Not sure if that was intended or not, but there's at least one 1st level spell that's not worded that way.

Smartass Twink Player-

"I aim the cantrip at that cockroach on the wall over there."

Quote from: Exploderwizard;764499Fitrebolt says creature or object but ray of frost and shocking grasp explicirly says creature.

Yeah, it is madly inconsistent.

Magic Missile, Force Damage, just says creature
Mordenkainen's Sword, Force Damage, just says target

Quote from: jadrax;764515Yeah, it is madly inconsistent.

Magic Missile, Force Damage, just says creature
Mordenkainen’s Sword, Force Damage, just says target

Again because magic missile isn't supposed to be used like a siege weapon and Mordenkainen's Sword is functionally a sword.

Quote from: jeff37923;764514Smartass Twink Player-

"I aim the cantrip at that cockroach on the wall over there."

Smartass DM: "Well that roach sure is dead......." :cool:

Quote from: Marleycat;764519Again because magic missile isn't supposed to be used like a siege weapon and Mordenkainen's Sword is functionally a sword.

I could even imagine this 'in game'.  Perhaps the it's a safety switch built into the spell so misses don't wreck the mage tower?

Quote from: mcbobbo;764550I could even imagine this 'in game'.  Perhaps the it's a safety switch built into the spell so misses don't wreck the mage tower?

Makes sense to me.