Linear Fighters and Bullshit Wizards
Added 2023-09-22 00:22:30 +0000 UTC
You’re paying the money, so you get the straight dope. Last update turned out to be surprisingly zeitgeisty and folks engaged with it deeply in a way we haven’t seen with our design posts before. TONS of discussion in our Patrons-only Discord channel.
Now that may be people were talking a lot because we posted unformed, untested ideas and we may regret that. In which case, we learned something! But for now, let’s imagine revealing our inner processes (blimey) is a Good Thing. In which case I think it might be useful to talk about what happened yesterday and today.
We designed a Prototype Mage based on the new Casting Time idea, and then we tested it in a session yesterday. I was a player in that game, not playing the Mage but I felt like I learned a lot just watching.
The folks in these tests are fellow MCDM devs and friends and not professional testers, so these early tests are just making sure the whole thing doesn’t just immediately fall apart as soon as we roll initiative. No point wasting testers’ time if we can see it doesn’t work in an internal test.
But it didn’t immediately fall apart. That absolutely does NOT mean it will survive testing, that all remains to be seen. It might not even survive our next internal test! But it didn’t fall apart.
That gave me the opportunity to sort of put the problem down and take a step back and think about Wizards and Mages in the abstract again. Basically I wanted to be ready if it falls apart later.
And I started thinking: why are Wizards so hard to design for? I think I had some useful ideas. What I’m going to do, because I’m lazy and I think some of you might get a kick out of this, is post the actual messages I wrote into the Design Channel in our private discord. You want to know what live design looks like? This is it.
These messages were posted at around 2:30am. MCDM Never Sleeps. Don’t worry about the Wheel of the Web stuff, you’ll hear about that later maybe. 😀 [Brackets indicate text I have added just now to clarify my sleep-deprived stream of consciousness.]
Why Are Wizards Such A Pain In The Ass?
Matt — Today [Wednesday Night] at 2:13 AM
This is completely unrelated to all the different discussions here. But there's nothing that requires us to make our mage a generalist the way the d20 fantasy wizard is.
Like, I know we want this game to compete with D&D [At least in terms of quality design, presentation, and the fantasy we're trying to capture]. And part of that is making sure that we fulfill all the archetypes. But what if the wizard is just a bad archetype? What if the problem between linear fighters and quadratic wizards isn't an equal problem where the whole design is flawed. It's actually just the existence of the d20 wizard. Maybe that's the actual problem.
This comes from me thinking about throwing out the language idea, the interesting idea about the wheel of the web, which may not even work, that absolutely would not surprise me, but it is the kind of unorthodox thinking I find inspiring. And I think will inspire other people.
And I started thinking about the fact that right now I am trying to come up with a design that serves the lore. But the lore is entirely obscure to the vast potential audience of d20 players. What if the lore served the design? What if we could make the wizard whatever we thought was cool?
And that made me start to think what if our Mage was effectively a specialty wizard in d20 fantasy? What if our mage was just a conjurer? Or just an abjurist?
I don't literally mean those schools or ideas. But what if we had a…a fire mage? And that was a class with a unique name. And then we had like a time mage or something. And that was just a different class with a different name.
Really as I'm thinking about this I feel like we have sort of two categories of classes. And maybe all d20 fantasy has been like this and I just never really noticed. Where there's Martial classes. And within that category there's lots of different fun archetypes that are sort of ‘easy’ to implement. Barbarian, monk, rogue, fighter.
And then there's magical archetypes that are often also ‘easy’ to implement. Like the healer, or our idea for the summoner which we're excited by. The d20 warlock is pretty focused.
And then there's just this other weird class called The Wizard that is really like three or four different classes all mashed up together, and we just accept this unthinkingly. I guess what I'm saying is, what if we unmashed them?
Matt — Today at 2:32 AM
I suppose, technically, alternatively, armed with this knowledge it might be easier to design the mage? To make them sort of this weird omniclass where there are three specific things a mage can do in our game. I don't know what those are, they're categories. And it's impossible to do all three equally well. But you can either decide to be mostly one, or mostly the other, or a unique hybrid however you want.
So, in a sense, we could make our Mage the a la carte class. Like "how you build your mage" is what makes the mage special and the fact that there are these three (I mean I don't know if three is the right number, but it has to be a small number) archetypes within the mage, I guess like subclasses? Although I don't know if we would want to make these three classes hidden inside the mage explicit? The way you do a subclass. [Like, we don’t call this out, you can build a Defender Mage or an Offensive Mage, or a Buff/debuff Mage and the player just reads How To Make A Mage, sees these choices, and says “I get it.”]
Anyway the way you choose to build your mage is sort of like building a custom class.
That makes an alarming amount of sense here at 2:30 in the morning. We'll see if it still feels smart when I wake up!
If I'm right about this, then building your mage would have to be part of the playtest. We have to sort of give you a bunch of options and let you pick them and put them together and make whatever kind of mage you want.
I mean you can customize all first level characters I presume. And regardless of when you can specialize, all classes are going to have specializations. So how would the mage be different here?
Well I don't know exactly. The only thing I can think of is that the mages are uniquely able to decide to be a striker, or a defender, or a leader, or a controller. [And maybe you could change these during a Rest.] Or a generalist! Do a little of all of them!
Matt — Today at 3:19 AM
Whatever else it is going on I'm convinced that the issue is related to the fact that either the mage is a generalist and that has been difficult for us to design thus far [because we weren’t making it EXPLICIT in the choices the player makes], or the problem is that we assume the mage needs to be a generalist and breaking out of that mode gives us more and better options.
Anyway
Back to the present! 😀
None of this has anything to do with wizards having spells that take different numbers of turns to cast. It’s just me thinking about how we think about Wizards and what the “real” problem is. If there even is a problem.
Wherever we land, I think we’re going to end up with the Mage either being a kind of Specialist Wizard, the way our Summoner would, in d20 Fantasy, be a Specialist Wizard (Conjurist).
OR we design the Mage explicitly to be a generalist but instead of this crazy bucket of random powers like the d20 Wizard, we know what our archetypes are, and you get to decide which your mage is, or whether you do a little of all of them. Like, what if the archetypes were just the normal class roles; striker, defender, commander, leader, controller?
No idea when we’ll see these ideas in action, if at all. We’re hyperfocused on the Resource Economy right now and how Encounters fit into the Adventuring “Day.”
I just thought you folks would find some value reading our literal, actual thought process.
Comments
Hit return sans shift by accident That, said, declaring, "Ignis!" then adding points to shape it and send it where you want ... that sort of system might work for a fireball analogy. A lot of the silly spells (repair, etc) are just assumed away in the role playing imo.
Richard Boulanger
2023-12-11 20:47:04 +0000 UTCI've played D&D for longer than I care to recall (started in 77 in high school), and I've always thought of Magic Users as literally, spell chuckers. In those days, sometimes literally one-hit wonders. I looked around for years for better ways to handle magic in D&D, but never found a system that was usuable. I LIKED Ars Magicka, but it was just unwieldy. That, said, I like the concept of making your own spells, and getting better at each spell you make over time, with use. Like growing a firebolt into a fireball with time. That makes sense for an ongoing campaign, but when everyone starts as the hero ... not so much.
Richard Boulanger
2023-12-11 20:44:56 +0000 UTCThe fact all wizards can freely learn and prepare any spell from any school is absolutely preposterous and has been for as long as they've existed. I house-rule that wizards pick a primary and secondary school, and get spells only from those two schools, with bonuses and features for their primary school, and then all other schools they only get cantrips and maybe lvl1 spells but it takes a long time to learn them and they can only prepare a small number of them. This is a really hackey solution, but it has worked totally fine for my groups and has not led to wizards feeling even remotely underpowered. Some kind of similarly lateral approach would be totally fine. Some people would be upset at the lack of god-tier wizards, but that's a necessary cost of making the game better. Granted it also doesn't help that so many of the spells in current DND are just way too flexible and powerful. And they cut most of them from 4th Ed but people complained so they just put them all back *facepalm*
William Gross
2023-11-08 22:13:25 +0000 UTCI mean, in theory, *anyone* can just take a level in wizard and instantly gain access to quite a few pretty useful spells. But the way it lines up in the current game the opportunity cost just doesn't make much sense.
William Gross
2023-11-08 22:08:11 +0000 UTCReally cool idea. Perhaps mages can mimic real life education? You can spend 4 year learning programming, then 2 years learning nutrition, and you will end with your own nutrition app for sure. Same with the mage. Say, when you create a wizard, you have X speciality points to spend however you want, distributing them among Y number of "school" (not conjuration, evocation, but more like Harry Potter's factions). Something like MTG's 5 color wheel. You can have a pretty solid idea of what a Blue/Red deck will do; or a White/Green/Black one; or a pure White deck. As you level up, you gain more speciality points to spend ?? hmmm. Anyways. Cool to see your thought process Matt!
Rodrigo
2023-10-08 21:44:59 +0000 UTCGating magic behind specific classes makes no sense to me. In D&D, the Wizard and Bard classes expressly establish that magic is something anybody can learn, so why doesn't every adventurer? I don't care how much you wanna study the blade, if learnable magic helps you win a fight, you're going to probably spend some downtime picking that up. Rather than classes, a more à la carte leveling system makes a lot more sense for the fantasy D&D analogues are selling. I'm sure it could also be more intimidating to new players, but it's not any kind of mystery why the warrior protagonist in most fantasy stories is able to use at least some kind of magic to back up their swordplay. The DMs in here would likely have very little trouble recalling a half-dozen characters from fantasy stories a player wanted to run, but couldn't figure out how to make it work in a class-based system. The 2003 Marvel Universe RPG did a phenomenal job of breaking out of the class-based shackles that limit most tabletop RPGs (It was also kind of a not-great system, but that was for other, unrelated reasons). Classes just make characters less interesting and increases the number of abilities to track. If any character in D&D could take the Prestidigitation cantrip for example, that significantly increases the the build and play options without actually needing to design or create more content for players. By restricting abilities by class, the characters become flatter and less interesting. The other (probably more obvious) issue, is that there are hundreds of spells and only a few dozen weapons, and most of those weapons are effectively identical. Even without customizing spells in any way, there is always going to be a spell that probably fits exactly what you were looking to do. Whereas with weapons, well, hope you like one of these 4-5 options because that's all you get. Weapons also have the issue that their only real specialization option is how you do more damage, even when we are talking about magically enhancing them. Combat maneuvers help a bit, but most encounters are designed in a way that interacting with the physical environment is a penalty rather than fun or creative way to fight. I find even something simple like giving Barbarians a pit or fire to kick a mouthy witch-man into goes a long way. It might also be nice if there was some kind of improvised weapon system that isn't exclusively for when you can't get a real weapon. Like an ability that lets your character throw a chair into somebody's legs mid-barfight to trip them up.
Eli David Dierks
2023-10-06 03:32:33 +0000 UTCI agree, and I think this touches a little on what a "generalist" would look like in this world, namely that you are sacrificing depth of knowledge for breath of knowledge. A generalist would know the basics of many things, from summoning small forms of different elements (evocation) and summoning small objects, to healing minor wounds and layering protective charms. Unlike a specialist evoker (for example) who might know very advanced elemental abilities while being unable to cast healing magic at all. It would definitely be interesting in 5e terms to have a wizard who say, had extra spell slots but only learned spell levels at half caster speed. Vs a "specialized" evocation wizard who say, couldn't use non-evocation spells above 2nd level.
David L
2023-09-30 06:24:01 +0000 UTCAlso I've homebrewed that high intelligence is arguably the most important stat in the game. I frequently give high int characters, "insight" into all sorts of areas, due to their copious reading and natural talent to deduce how things work or what is going on. Think about Michelangelo vs any man at arms, padfoot or even man of the cloth of time period. This high intelligence helps the party in any number of ways, and gives the wizard stuff to do when not casting (generating risk). In my opinion there is no balance. The wizard class is the one choice in the game that should be mostly risk. Only the smallest percent reach full potential.
Aaron Moffett
2023-09-26 15:31:49 +0000 UTCYeah it is a tough nut to crack. I remember when I first rolled a wizard in WoW and you could just spam the attack button. It immediately turned me off. However, it's a game. Sitting around doing nothing waiting on spell recharge is not fun for most people. However, I feel the wizard should be high investment, high risk and then finally high reward. We loved the idea of strain. My group and I (GM) are getting ready to start a new Shadowdark campaign and have been discussing how arcane magic should work. We have a hybrid blend of D&D, Shadowdark, DCC and others. "Prepared" spells mean you have the components (all but the weakest spells have a physical resource component (harvest those monsters!)) the components are at hand and the spell is practiced. All spells have a cast DC, "prepared" spells have a lower DC and cannot cause a critical failure. If you roll a nat 1, the components are consumed, and the spell fails. However, a nat #1 on an unprepared spell sends you to the critical spell failure table. Concerning strain, failed prepared spells do not produce strain. Failed unprepared spells increment all spell DC checks by +1 till after a long rest.
Aaron Moffett
2023-09-26 14:55:52 +0000 UTCI'd go with later final fantasy method : each mage is specializing with certian type of magic with a generalized specialist who's good at attack ranged magic, one that's good at buff based magic, so and so forth. The closest to a generalized wizard should be a notably weaker physically (playing into the squishy mage ) but a powerhouse if allowed to cast.
That black guy
2023-09-26 11:37:50 +0000 UTCOne of the things I've always been conflicted about D&D Magic is how, in many ways, it mirrors some of the human nuances of science so well and yet when it comes to logistics, it drops the ball completely. The apprentice - master and arcane (academic) lineage is a 1:1 translation from real world dynamics to the metafiction of D&D. Naming spells? Perfect parallel to physical rules, mathematical theorems, and specific reactions that carry in perpetuity the name of assumed first discoverer. You find a new way to rearrange atoms in space? Congratulations, that reaction is now your reaction. Same as Otiluke's Resilient Sphere is forever named after its fictional discoverer. Where the contrast comes in, is that to master *any* sliver of science to any degree where other scientists would consider you a peer, it takes somewhere between seven years and a decade, and you end up deeply specialized in one, two or three subfields. As an electrochemist I know a few things well *within* electrochemistry, I have world class in one component of an electrochemical sensor, and that's about it. I know the fundamentals of cheems and mathematics, and I could make educated guesses and train myself in new areas of knowledge, but it would take me weeks if not months to do molecular biology experiments in a way a molecular biologist would deem acceptable. This goes to say that the Wizard's fantasy is still too damn broad. No, the wizard from the evocation school who is good at ice spells shouldn't be likely to know plasma and lightning with the same expertice, and as consequence he shouldn't be able to prepare anything but the most basic lightning spells in a night. Same Wizard wants to do necromancy spells? That should take a month of prep to do something a trained necromancer would laugh at. Time is *the* critical resource for a scientist and I suspect it should be the same for any semblance of a "balanced" Wizard.
Axiomatic
2023-09-26 02:02:12 +0000 UTCBuffalo style: spell schools/elements act like weapons? Augment things
Plaidpoet
2023-09-25 21:38:46 +0000 UTCI break it down by element and domain, basically...
MShin
2023-09-25 09:16:06 +0000 UTCI definitely find myself nervous at the prospect of there being no generalist wizard. Honestly I even find it weird that wizards can't do healing magic! So personally at least I think I'd advocate for the solution where the player essentially builds their own custom class. But maybe I'm wrong and too attached to one way of thinking! I just feel like if you separate the mage into a bunch of distinct classes, you'd need to cover *a lot* of different archetypes to capture all the necessary fantasies.
Noah Topper
2023-09-25 03:05:35 +0000 UTCI think you've hit on something important. DND wizards are based of a fiction of wizards as gods. Vance really conceptualized these guys as able to do the fantastical and that's it. When we look at other fiction mages have a theme or an element or some rule they cannot break. Then, the problem solve around that limitation. A fire mage can not summon a bridge. The might melt stone in bursts cooling it in stages in the river to create steps across or something. Or a diviner might see which pieces of deadfall won't destroy a bridge someone else builds. Etc... I think systems like fate are good for this kind of magic because they mostly ask for the description to make sense and then decide on how hard it is to do the thing asked. D20 systems all follow Vance in having an expansive list of both specific and general spells which may be used in any number of ways. The longer a game like that is out the better the community has determined which options are flexible or potent enough to use consistently. Idk the solution but I think the direction is in specificity. We can either write in tricks, " your fire mage can reshape stone at level 6" or expect the DM to do that work. "The time mage tries to halt the river so it can be walked across, what is the DC? "
kaemon bonet
2023-09-24 12:00:53 +0000 UTCA book of specialist casters could be pretty cool. Codex Arcanum: a collection of rare magicks (archetypes), the factions that safeguard them (organizations), and those that would use these magicks to oppose you (monsters). Hope crowdfunding for the game goes well 😁 Generalist mage sounds hard to implement. I think part of the fantasy is being able to pull a creative solution out of your very long pointed hat, and feel smart. I don't know how to marry that with tactical combat, incentivize that type of play, or give tools for that which don't turn into a once novel trick that becomes the default mode of operation. Thanks for the posts!
natehole
2023-09-24 02:04:36 +0000 UTCI guess in the end, it is hard to seperate magic-based classes from the lore and how characters gain access to it. On the one hand, you could say that magic has to be learned, either by studying or with the help of a special device. This is what I think is the core fantasy behind the Wizard and Artificer in 5e. However, the spellbook in 5e often feels like something that you can handwave and has no big function aside from giving you the ability to swap out spells as you please (which is still huge btw). On the other hand, you have those who are born with magic, think the Sorcerer who have a stronger ability to manipulate the spells that they cast. Then you have casters who gain their magic by attuning to or having it gifted to them from a higher entity, think the Druid, Warlock or the Cleric. Magic is just soo diverse and open to interpretation that I can understand how hard it is to build a class that doesn't turn out to be busted in the end. I guess what they all have in common are things such as ranged, lightly armored and magical.
BRex
2023-09-23 11:29:00 +0000 UTCI know this is a common complaint, about "wizards solving the adventure", but I've never found it to be a real problem. Some of this comes down to adventure design and some comes down to actually using the rules. Take Plane Shift in D&D. Are tuning forks attuned to the plane you want to go to just lying around? If not, you still have to travel to find a way into the plane. Also, having the means to get to a plane is not the same as having the tools to survive a plane, and remember those tools have to cover the whole party. Did they just hit 13th level? Well then I hope everything goes right in this other plane, because they blew their 7th level spell slot getting there, they're not coming back today (mitigated by multiple casters, but that still requires allocating multiple highest level spell slots just to travel). Most importantly, plane shift comes into play well over halfway through the level progression. I think a lot of us see Plane Shift as a 7th level spell and just write off planar adventures as not happening til then, but you can use quests and portals and so forth for planar travel at any level. If you do that, Plane Shift becomes not just a sudden new vista of places to visit but a tool to control your travel to places you're already going.
Wesley
2023-09-23 05:34:40 +0000 UTCIn a lot of ttrpgs, you choosing to be the fire mage just closes of a lot of cool spells, without giving you any cool fire-mage-only spells to make up for the loss. Shadowrun is one of the few system I've seen pull off generalist and specialist mages.
Jan Plewa
2023-09-23 00:35:22 +0000 UTCI definitely think you're on to something here. The biggest issue I see with D&D Wizards is that, for the most part, the list of spells isn't a set of tools that you can use to approach a problem with. They're not a framework to work within. It feels like a book of silver bullets. A list of things that either solve whole encounters by themselves, or, at higher level, spells that solve entire adventures by themselves. Like if you remove Plane Shift from the spell list, think what the PCs have to do to travel the planes. They have to find a way to travel the planes! By giving the PCs Plane Shift, they circumvent the whole travel-to-the-planes scenario. But only spellcasters get this ability. If it were a party of 17th level Fighters, well, they're still travelling around trying to find a way to travel the planes. That's not really what magic should be. It should be like the Hither-Thither Staff in the D&D movie. It's a tool. Here's how it works, and it has limitations. But within those confines, it can do a lot. Or the Druid in the D&D movie. She didn't have spells, really. She just had Wild Shape. And unlimited Wild Shape by itself is a really powerful magic. That Druid didn't need spells. Very specialized. So what tools do you give to a player to force them to think creatively, but that establish an identity for a unique form of magic?
BaconBits
2023-09-22 23:31:49 +0000 UTCI like this concept a lot! I was imagining something like a color wheel for the different magic types where it became more challenging/costly to use a spell that was farther around the wheel.
Robert Rushton
2023-09-22 20:38:55 +0000 UTCThis post makes me feel inspired about the direction they are taking the wizard. What if (and I’m thinking in terms of the 5e wizard) you picked a school of magic and you always had spells of that school prepared. But also allow you to prepare any other spell outside of your school but make it cost two spell slots. Why would a throw out a fireball when I, *an illusionist wizard* could throw out two hypnotic patterns instead. This feels like a good way to still specialize the wizard but allow some flexibility at a price. Just a thought
John Wescott
2023-09-22 19:35:52 +0000 UTCMatt, I think you were onto something in the previous post when you said "mages break the rules." People (especially new players) choose to be a mage because they like magic and magic is about the unknown. Like, literally not knowing what could happen. This means allowing spells to be stretched by either the player's imagination, the Director's, or both. In game terms, they have what they know the spell does (e.g. Earthquake makes everyone prone if they fail a save) but then there's what can be improvised (e.g. a small cave-in that changes the landscape). They roll against a DC to see whether it does the default or is stretched. Or choose to aquire Strain to push the spell/themselves further. Either the player asks if the spell can do this and the Director sets a DC, or they just roll and, if the roll is high, the Director comes up with something special. Something unknown. Something dramatic.
Jeff Love
2023-09-22 16:37:53 +0000 UTCI think the class is not the real problem here when talking about MAGIC. It's the SPELLS (maybe more specifically complex spells). That is going to be the tough issue to tackle. How you make them fit into Tactical Heroic Cinematic Fantasy to make encounters fast and fun? Noting else breaks the Cinematic feel when a player needs to sit and look up the spell to see what it does (because at 5th level they have 9 spells to choose from to cast but they could also upcast a couple of them) or the DM needs to ponder whether the creative use of a spell is valid. The Wizard is a blessing and a curse. I find that players are drawn to it because of the versatility. Arcane Spells in general evoke the kind of fantasy that so many of us are drawn to. Yet, that versatility and the breadth of spells is what slows the game down. So often I find as a DM, as the players get higher in level and have a large amount of spells to sort through, it really takes a moment for them to look through their list and say "A HA!" here is what I was looking for. Sometimes that is a momentum killer for that part of the encounter. So lower level Wizards (as thus lower level spells), I feel are not the problem. The spells usually are fairly simple and the versatility sets them apart from other classes without making them feel like they overstep the roles of the other classes. I would wonder, is there a way to keep the versatility and breadth of the Mage class (and its spells) at lower levels but then move them to focus on specialties as the grow in power without those spells being overly wordy in how they interact with the game. I don't want to have to read four paragraphs to figure out what a spell does in the middle of combat.
Ian Hastings
2023-09-22 14:39:17 +0000 UTCI’ve often come up against this issue in dnd. - as a wizard player I don’t want to necessarily be all things to all people but the game sort of expects you to do that even if you want to be a cool fire mage dude. I’m very interested to keep seeing how this design evolves!
Dave Molnar
2023-09-22 09:49:34 +0000 UTCI like the idea of building a wizard to be more specific. I never really understood the fantasy in other games and it always felt a wizard could do "everything" and "anything" and that is super hard to design for. Excited to see where you land.
Roman Penna
2023-09-22 09:12:26 +0000 UTCReally loving the new vibe of posts. The raw stuff is the most inspiring, for sure. I'm here for the journey, dead ends and all.
Josh Rodell
2023-09-22 07:53:20 +0000 UTCI agree with you but, also, "Forcecage" and "Maze" for the win...
Samhain
2023-09-22 07:30:27 +0000 UTCThis. Playing the Talent at the con felt quite a bit like playing an extremely fun generalist wizard (and I mean that in the most positive way possible - I always play them and you can't pay me to be a fighter). Telepathy, teleportation, psychokenesis. What more do you want? Also, love the idea that wizards specialize.
Samhain
2023-09-22 07:28:42 +0000 UTCD&D has this peculiar problem of having Wizard players that want to do as much damage as martials do _and_ being able to bend reality _and_ (and I think this part is somewhat missing from the analysis) not wanting martials to be able to "bend reality". I really liked how 4e fixed that, and I also liked how Wizard was specifically made into a controller. That said I also think it's a good idea to have subclasses that either change or dilute the assigned role of a class. 4e run into this weird class bloat where it took an existing class, and then made a new class out of it that's almost the same class fantasy, but in a different role, eg. Warden was effectively a Barbarian defender, and Invoker was a Cleric controller etc. [insert "it's the same picture" meme from The Office]
Maciej
2023-09-22 07:20:47 +0000 UTCI think they might not be using stamina as a mechanic anymore?
Haezan
2023-09-22 06:58:50 +0000 UTCLove the idea of reworking the mage concept! There are so many exciting novels about mages, but the spells and mechanics of some RPGs just boil everything down to something too generic and at the same time too specific. There often aren't enough spells to make all specialties interesting and I find myself and my players homebrewing spells that align with other existing spells, twisting them into their characters' specialties. And the idea of having a single core language (verbal component) for casting spells might be too limiting. I like having classes like the cleric or druid that channel (divine/ritual component) magic, and other classes that dance or sign (somatic component), play/perform/paint/draw (artistic component?) or tinker/alchemize (material engineering components) their spells into existence. Perhaps an underlying arcane language that can be evoked in many ways would be more versatile as the core?
Richard Rogers
2023-09-22 06:54:32 +0000 UTCThese are exactly the sort of posts I was hoping to read by being a patron. Thank you for sharing. Best of luck with tackling the class!
Andy Jones
2023-09-22 06:26:26 +0000 UTCBut it’s only an issue for everyone not playing a wizard. I think that’s the problem.
Louis Paese
2023-09-22 04:52:48 +0000 UTCGreat post, MCDM - your RPG challenging conventions brought me here, these posts are why I’m staying. The “Mage à la carte” approach would double-down on the class’s “rule-breaking” trend. This excites me, as it begets unique and chaotic results, but could bring with it design hell. Excited to see where you go with these ideas!
Josh Williams
2023-09-22 04:52:46 +0000 UTCThis is definitely a tricky issue because I think the main draw of the wizard is the chaos. Trying to make that more uniform could possibly make the class feel diluted. However I think this out of the box thinking is an extremely good process!
Louis Paese
2023-09-22 04:50:43 +0000 UTCClass roles mimicking some of the creature roles from Flee, Mortal! makes a lot of sense and might steer you in the right direction to class resource economy making each class unique. You’ve probably already thought of that 😅 but it’s something that slapped me in the face while reading about the difficulties of creating a wizard. “…class roles; striker, defender, commander, leader, controller?” Core 5 classes with clear purpose kinda reminds me of the Magic: The Gathering color pie, where each color has a distinct purpose. I’ve gotta double back on the pervious posts, but if I remember correctly you have the Shadow, Beastheart, Talent, Tactician, Censor, and Fury (Summoner?). Attempting to follow my train of thought, one of these is a blend between the 5 distinct core classes of your game. It may not make sense, but maybe each class resource has a different consumption rate, like how spell casting works in the pervious post. This consumption rate follows inline to the actions a specific role is known for taking. Great update! Still reeling from the idea of speaking the words on each turn to complete casting. Such a dope idea.
Otto
2023-09-22 04:29:25 +0000 UTCI really like the idea of multiple specialty wizards — fire mage, earth mage, thaumaturgist (enchanter), necromancer, etc. Focused classes like that will be very different from the typical d20 magic user. Agreed that some might miss having a generalist, so how about a “hedge wizard” class which follows the “jack of all trades, master of none” rule. They can pick spells and features from each specialty, but will be limited in some way so not as strong in each kind of magic. I also like the idea, for other archtypes, of using stamina to power certain features. How about applying that to wizards so to get the more powerful effects of their spells they have to use stamina to boost the spell, otherwise it just has a basic power effect. How much stamina one can use to boost the spell is dependent on the wizards level, maybe? And maybe that’s one thing a hedge wizard can’t do. Just some thoughts, but I like where your minds are going.
Ron Griffis
2023-09-22 03:35:59 +0000 UTCI fully agree that a wizard being a generalist is the root of the problem, and the idea of there being a mage that fills out each role that you mention towards the end is really interesting to me, id love to see what the rest of that design looks like....But yeah where magic is concerned I feel like you can either have power or flexibility, but you shouldn't have both bc then wizard starts expanding in two directions and becomes quadratic again.
Caleb McBride
2023-09-22 03:30:32 +0000 UTCWhile I love the idea of a customizable mage class in creation, I'm wondering if the customizability of the mage/wizard class might set expectations that may carry over to other more established classes.
Connor Wriston
2023-09-22 03:28:58 +0000 UTC“maybe the d20 wizard is the problem” is exactly what i said to myself when i read the post before this one, haha.
Wright Johnson
2023-09-22 02:55:20 +0000 UTCInteresting! In my (admittedly somewhat limited in breadth) experience, the main problem my group keyed-in on with the d20 wizard was primarily related to the idea of "niche protection" that was raised a couple of Q&As back. Our problem with wizards was that not only do they have a huge range of out-of-combat influence that martials don't, it's also how easily they outclassed the martials in terms of in-combat power as well. So I guess the conclusion that I would have drawn based on my own experiences was that "mage as a generalist" is fine.....so long as they aren't consistently outclassing the characters whose niche is based on how much damage the can deal. I'm looking forward to seeing how this ends up shaking out!
Chris Comstock
2023-09-22 02:53:12 +0000 UTCThe issue I have always had with D20 Wizards (and somewhat their casters in general) is the lack of opportunity cost to them. The Rogue will never be as heavily armored as the Fighter, and the Barbarian will never have as much utility as the Monk, but when it comes to the Wizard expressing mastery over the Arcane, they get to have it all. You've probably heard the expression "Cheap, good, fast, pick two". This is the essence of opportunity cost, that you can't have it all. But unless you're making a specialist wizard, the wizard *can* have it all. Priests/Clerics have a deity with a domain that influences both their spells and (more importantly) their roleplay, Druids have a distinct theme, and Bards are usually not going to be casting lightning bolts or summoning demons. But the Wizard can do the arcane equivalent of being a Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian gestalt. The worst part of this is how it influences roleplay. A Wizard who wants to summon things from another plane will probably seek out shady bargains, but then when it comes time to enter the volcano and fight lava monsters, they're gonna prepare cone of cold or snowball swarm rather than something thematic. The design essentially offloads the opportunity cost that should be the character's and makes it the player's.
Jared Pond
2023-09-22 02:36:03 +0000 UTCThank you for opening up your ideas about designing this game. I like how you are questioning the conventions. I appreciate this post!
Richard Jyles
2023-09-22 02:17:25 +0000 UTCThanks for giving us an unfiltered (but annotated) glimpse at this party of the process. It’s super interesting and I’m sure some of us are finding it tremendously valuable.
Kurt Anderson
2023-09-22 02:14:21 +0000 UTCI've always thought Wizards were a bullshit class, so I'm 100% down with this line of thinking.
Dave
2023-09-22 02:03:02 +0000 UTCHelps to see that others have fits of inspiration at unconventional hours too - I'm not an insomniac; I'm just staying ready for when the writing comes!
simbini2004
2023-09-22 01:58:58 +0000 UTCI dislike in 5e that the magic classes can do absolutely everything and then some...I don't like being able to use fire magic and then ice magic and it's just all the same... Make the magic itself feel impactful... If I know fire magic and only fire maybe it's more damagy, or more ...firey? If it's ice, make it more cold? There can be general things they can do, like both make a wall of element to hinder movement... But those should perform and feel differently Plus think of all the dlc classes that can be added
wyatt wustrau
2023-09-22 01:55:30 +0000 UTCRegardless of what character building choices are given to me, if I'm playing and MCDM mage, I want to be able to execute the fantasy of pondering an orb and crafting spells. As long as I could reasonably do that, I'd be happy
Asher Winnie
2023-09-22 01:51:31 +0000 UTCI think if you break it up in to different "classes" that would be fine, and for the generalist you just allow a multi-classing of sorts. Allowing you to kind of dip into the things you like about each individual class of spellcaster. My experience with just 5e, I've had the lost fun with multiclassed characters even though they might not have been as "strong" as other fully classed characters. Maybe that's a bad idea, but its an idea. Lol
Tyler Bonheur
2023-09-22 01:47:05 +0000 UTCThe idea that you stated about the various roles (ie defender, controller, etc...) that feels really good and fits with your concept... But that concept of for the bad guys, but seems to fit really well. It creates a function specialization to the wizard. As they level up (if that happens in your game) do those controller abilities become more advanced, or can you grab some defender abilities? Iike your ideas!
Craig Pressley
2023-09-22 01:43:44 +0000 UTCVery thoughtful. I like the idea a lot. I am looking forward to seeing where the MCDM team takes it.
Craig Pressley
2023-09-22 01:40:50 +0000 UTCBoth the fantasy of being a generalist or being a magic specialist is part of what makes the wizard fantasy for me. Maybe being a generalist is a sort of specialization?
Alex P.
2023-09-22 01:40:23 +0000 UTCBreaking apart the Mage into multiple smaller classes (Abjurist, Chronomancer, Pyromancer) is what I would prefer. But, having it be a single "generalist" class that you can craft to fulfill the archetype you want is closer to what people sorta expect from d20 Fantasy.
Schoopdoop McGoop
2023-09-22 01:34:11 +0000 UTCWhat about the Death Mage (ie Necromancer)? Or the Fate Mage (the Seer)? Or the Forces Mage (the Evoker)? Or the Life Mage (Druid)?
Mal
2023-09-22 01:32:30 +0000 UTCDoesn't the Shadow have abilities which are explicitly magical? Would that mean they're a Mage too, if you went the way of Specialist Mages? Or is it like, Mages are the ones who study the magic words and Shadow are supernatural but not magical
Dayten Rose
2023-09-22 01:22:37 +0000 UTCI think "what if the D20 Wizard is the problem" is a really good insight. Asking myself what is the fantasy? What makes a wizard? For me, I think the answer is study! In that vein I absolutely think wizards should be specialists. Sure as a wizard you still have to take your gen-eds so there are some things all wizards should know but an Evocationist maybe shouldn't have access to the most epic of illusions.
Jim
2023-09-22 01:16:52 +0000 UTCSuper cools stuff, I personally really like the idea of a class that is a Fire Mage, or a Time Wizard, or a summoner. Its more specific and limiting for sure but I don’t see why that can’t be a good thing. Same deal for fighters, makes sense to me that a Knight and a back ally Taver Brawler might both be melee fights, they might even both us long swords, but why would they both have the same weapons and armor proficiencies? They would obviously have different abilities and roles on the battlefield, but other d20 systems basically just say they’re wearing different equipment and everything else is the same. Anyway…different mages as stand along classes, I love that. Even if you can’t live out any and all potential fantasies the ones you can choose from are unique, special, and can feel great without being everything to everyone.
Spencer Aurand
2023-09-22 01:07:38 +0000 UTCI like the idea of specialist mages. Someone else mentioned 13th Age. The necromancer there is one of the most flavorful class designs I've seen, and it can be because it's so focused.
Matt Cortez
2023-09-22 01:05:05 +0000 UTCWizards are 100% the problem. I don't think there was a lot of thought besides, "This is so cool!" when 8th & 9th level spells were created in the mid 70s.That doesn't mean it isn't a problem worth having, but it is a tough nut to crack to come to a satisfactory solution that makes the majority of players happy. I love the insight into the process!
Eric Gershik
2023-09-22 00:50:23 +0000 UTCI like the idea of different mage archetypes like Conjurist, Pyromancer, Diviner each having their own moves and mechanics. I love wizards but in that d20 game I feel like I'm never quite able to make the wizard archetype I want. Maybe in 10 levels my spells will be focused enough where someone could look at my character and say "That's definitely a necromancer." But I want to get that feeling right off the bat.
DizzyDew
2023-09-22 00:43:32 +0000 UTCI like that thought process. Really evokes the Final Fantasy Tactics magic classes in my mind: summoner, black mage, time mage, etc. I wonder if Gandalf or Raziel type of wizard would inspire some creative juices. It takes a few moments to cast spells, that’s how I’m envisioning this. The higher the level or longer the battle the more “warmed up” or attuned to “the force” the wizard becomes. Maybe it lowers casting times or can allow for casting multiple spells?
Philip Richardson
2023-09-22 00:40:26 +0000 UTCNope. Because you're not doing it on someone else's turn, you're doing it between turns. We tested it yesterday and today and it seemed to work pretty well, but lots more to do!
MCDM Productions
2023-09-22 00:40:10 +0000 UTCI think the idea of a wizard as a generalist class with specializations in some or all of the combat roles is a really fun idea. You could have a set spell list and have modifiers for each of those spells depending on how they specialized.
Kyle Lowman
2023-09-22 00:39:31 +0000 UTCVery interesting ideas. To take it even further, maybe magic use isn't a class, it's a skill like a proficiency. Or, everyone has a bit of magic available to them, and the wizard can choose from among other people's abilities.
Sean Newton
2023-09-22 00:38:20 +0000 UTCI remember you discussing the counter attack mechanic that you scrapped, the issue being that things happening on somebody else's turn disrupted the flow of combat. Do you have similar concerns about casting times?
Nick Gutierrez
2023-09-22 00:36:55 +0000 UTCLast thing I said to James just now: "Maybe the Talent IS our Generalist, we don't have a "Mage" class, and we move the Summoner up in the queue."
MCDM Productions
2023-09-22 00:33:56 +0000 UTCI for one adore the specialist Wizard as classes concept. Some of my favourite class designs in stuff like 13th Age Glorantha have been casters with a very narrow niche.
Velara
2023-09-22 00:32:58 +0000 UTCThese are some really neat ideas!
Michael Hughes
2023-09-22 00:31:26 +0000 UTC
