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.