Wizard @ Large
In Mike Mearls' latest Legends & Lore column, he discussed the wizard in D&D Next. This was the fourth such column, following elaborations regarding the other three classic core classes, and I had an interestingly mixed reaction to it. After reading an insightful blog at Writer(at)Large with reactions to the story, I thought I'd consider it in greater detail.
My reaction to the article was a little contrary to Mr. (at)Large's. I am not a fan of 4E, so it has been important to me to see what kind of language is being used to bandy about the design philosophy for the new edition. I found Mike's previous articles on the Fighter, Cleric, and Rogue to be kind of comforting, if not terribly informative - and I really think that was the point of the articles. In each instance, Mike walked through the most important bullet points regarding design decisions for each class, and they seemed largely consistent with the classic concepts, if tempered in a few cases by more contemporary interpretations. And don't misunderstand - conceptually, the classes in 4E were still pretty much spot-on. My issues with the game had more to do with execution than conceptualization, which admittedly keeps me somewhat cautious in my enthusiasm at this point.
But the description of the wizard was a little more mechanical, and I'm not sure if I like it. So let's take it one point at a time:
Cantrips as At-Will Magic: Okay. Despite my cringing at the gamey term "at-will", this idea is definitely in line with my expectations. Even in my 3.5 game, I have developed a subsystem of house rules which allow the use of 0-level magic with virtually no limits and low-level magic with more significant scope. If the spell selection in the game is appropriately utilitarian and versatile, this one feature could calm any fears I have about the restrictions Mike is suggesting for higher-level spells. Traditionally, however, "cantrips" are very limited in scope and often of little to no use in mid- to high-level gaming. Still... I really like this idea.
Keep Spells Under Control: Again, this seems an important design decision when building the class. It's a little vague, but quite relevant.
Reducing Total Spell Slots: Here, Mike discusses the balancing factor for the unlimited cantripping (is that a word?). I get his point - with at-will cantrips, a tighter leash on higher level magic would seem appropriate. In my experience, however, the attrition of the game's overall balance should fall within the pillars of total capability, rather than versatility, and this tactic seems tailored to restrict a character's overall versatility. Admittedly, part of my fears may extend from the overt restrictions of the 4E powers, where wizards had such limited options.
Spells Don't Automatically Scale: This. This is interesting. It feels a little awkward to a gamer who has always lived inside a system with magic that scaled by level of spellcaster, but I think I shall endeavor to suppress my instincts and see how this idea develops. I have seen systems where the level of magic employed determined the outcome, rather than the raw potential of the caster, and I have always thought they were pretty cool.
Spellcasting is Dangerous: A lot of people will probably have mixed reactions to this idea. Inherently, it's a cool design philosophy, but the execution could be very swingy. Mike's example of a spellcaster taking damage while working magic is fairly classic, but it seems very obvious. Even in the olden days, we would often make judgment calls or use alternate systems to determine such things, and 3.xE had a system for it in the core rules. But what else could this idea mean...? Should there be challenges inherent in the use of magic, or potential sacrifices needed to control it? I have never been a fan of systems that require a die roll just to successfully cast a spell - if a traditional wizard (read as little martial skill or other abilities) can't get his spells off, he quickly becomes a liability - but sometimes a statistical element can be applied to manipulate the quality of an effect. There's potential in this concept... I'd like to see it developed a bit.
Keep Magic Items Under Control: D&D never had real magic item creation rules until 3E, and I thought they were very elegant. I loved the feel of using "life energy" or something similar to craft devices. I didn't so much dig it in play, however, so I have never been really happy with it. I'm glad they are planning to include some sort of rules. The revisions he discusses to the use of scrolls and wands, however, seem quite a handicap at first glance. Scrolls that require a caster to spend a slot might add versatility, but the wizard would have little call to craft them since he would never need a scroll containing one of his own spells. The limitaion on wands, obviously, depends entirely on the options presented.
Keep Buff Spells Under Control: As a DM, I'm all for this.
Creativity, Not Dominance: This is a very cool design philosophy, though the description makes me wonder what he has in mind. Often, to add versatility to a spell, you have to scale back its particulars. In my experience, some players work very well with a looser framework to draw from, but others want a little more hand-holding at that stage.
Like I said... my reactions are mixed. I'm excited to see some particulars in the playtest material next week. I'm crossposting this at our forums in case anyone would like to discuss with our community of gamers.
My reaction to the article was a little contrary to Mr. (at)Large's. I am not a fan of 4E, so it has been important to me to see what kind of language is being used to bandy about the design philosophy for the new edition. I found Mike's previous articles on the Fighter, Cleric, and Rogue to be kind of comforting, if not terribly informative - and I really think that was the point of the articles. In each instance, Mike walked through the most important bullet points regarding design decisions for each class, and they seemed largely consistent with the classic concepts, if tempered in a few cases by more contemporary interpretations. And don't misunderstand - conceptually, the classes in 4E were still pretty much spot-on. My issues with the game had more to do with execution than conceptualization, which admittedly keeps me somewhat cautious in my enthusiasm at this point.
But the description of the wizard was a little more mechanical, and I'm not sure if I like it. So let's take it one point at a time:
Cantrips as At-Will Magic: Okay. Despite my cringing at the gamey term "at-will", this idea is definitely in line with my expectations. Even in my 3.5 game, I have developed a subsystem of house rules which allow the use of 0-level magic with virtually no limits and low-level magic with more significant scope. If the spell selection in the game is appropriately utilitarian and versatile, this one feature could calm any fears I have about the restrictions Mike is suggesting for higher-level spells. Traditionally, however, "cantrips" are very limited in scope and often of little to no use in mid- to high-level gaming. Still... I really like this idea.
Keep Spells Under Control: Again, this seems an important design decision when building the class. It's a little vague, but quite relevant.
Reducing Total Spell Slots: Here, Mike discusses the balancing factor for the unlimited cantripping (is that a word?). I get his point - with at-will cantrips, a tighter leash on higher level magic would seem appropriate. In my experience, however, the attrition of the game's overall balance should fall within the pillars of total capability, rather than versatility, and this tactic seems tailored to restrict a character's overall versatility. Admittedly, part of my fears may extend from the overt restrictions of the 4E powers, where wizards had such limited options.
Spells Don't Automatically Scale: This. This is interesting. It feels a little awkward to a gamer who has always lived inside a system with magic that scaled by level of spellcaster, but I think I shall endeavor to suppress my instincts and see how this idea develops. I have seen systems where the level of magic employed determined the outcome, rather than the raw potential of the caster, and I have always thought they were pretty cool.
Spellcasting is Dangerous: A lot of people will probably have mixed reactions to this idea. Inherently, it's a cool design philosophy, but the execution could be very swingy. Mike's example of a spellcaster taking damage while working magic is fairly classic, but it seems very obvious. Even in the olden days, we would often make judgment calls or use alternate systems to determine such things, and 3.xE had a system for it in the core rules. But what else could this idea mean...? Should there be challenges inherent in the use of magic, or potential sacrifices needed to control it? I have never been a fan of systems that require a die roll just to successfully cast a spell - if a traditional wizard (read as little martial skill or other abilities) can't get his spells off, he quickly becomes a liability - but sometimes a statistical element can be applied to manipulate the quality of an effect. There's potential in this concept... I'd like to see it developed a bit.
Keep Magic Items Under Control: D&D never had real magic item creation rules until 3E, and I thought they were very elegant. I loved the feel of using "life energy" or something similar to craft devices. I didn't so much dig it in play, however, so I have never been really happy with it. I'm glad they are planning to include some sort of rules. The revisions he discusses to the use of scrolls and wands, however, seem quite a handicap at first glance. Scrolls that require a caster to spend a slot might add versatility, but the wizard would have little call to craft them since he would never need a scroll containing one of his own spells. The limitaion on wands, obviously, depends entirely on the options presented.
Keep Buff Spells Under Control: As a DM, I'm all for this.
Creativity, Not Dominance: This is a very cool design philosophy, though the description makes me wonder what he has in mind. Often, to add versatility to a spell, you have to scale back its particulars. In my experience, some players work very well with a looser framework to draw from, but others want a little more hand-holding at that stage.
Like I said... my reactions are mixed. I'm excited to see some particulars in the playtest material next week. I'm crossposting this at our forums in case anyone would like to discuss with our community of gamers.