The Role of the Wizard, or "How Come Billy Gets to Create a Demiplane?"

[ProfessorCirno]

I wrote three stupidly long posts on the Paizo forums some time back, so I thought I'd repaste them here with the recent interest in wizards. I split it into three parts for easier reading.

Part one: The problem.

I'm going to not talk about combat. Instead, I'll hit something that bothers me far more - narrative power.

See, casters have all the narrative power. If you want to effect the campaign or the setting itself, you need a spell caster to do so. The fighter is limited to...well, look at the name. He's limited to things he can fight. More skill based classes have some bigger ups, but ultimately also fall behind.

To give an example, let's look at what players can do at level one.

The fighter can hit things with a weapon.

The wizard can put people to sleep, detect magic, charm others, use minor telekinesis, summon fog, or animals, or invisible servants, comprehend all languages, hypnotize, create a magical floating cargo disk, move twice as fast, etc, etc.

At level 3, the fighter can now hit things with a weapon and maybe do one combat trick moderately well.

The wizard can magically lock items, detect surface thoughts, throw out a powerful gust of wind, turn invisible, conjure illusions and images with sound, alter his appearance, magically open any lock, repair anything, conjure an extradimensional space to hide or sleep in.

See where I'm going with this?

Even when you count in skills, it doesn't quite work, because skills start low and end high, while spells start at "Works," with the only variation being "Not Works."

Spellcasters have all the narrative power. For every problem that exists, there's a spell to fix it. if you can think of a long, overreaching campaign, then the wizard could theoretically do all of it on his own.

"Cirno," you say, "the wizard can't do all of that, he's limited by spell slots!" Yes, that's true. In fact, I would state that the level 3 wizard is the best one (more on this later). But the fact is, spell casters eventually get enough spell slots to render the argument moot. Even beyond that, wizards have a hilariously large array of spells that allow them to rest whenever they damn well please. And, quite frankly, the x/day limitation isn't a good one either - being able to control the universe only once per day isn't that bad of a deal, really.

So, the problem seems somewhat clear. Non-spell casters are limited in what they can individually do. This isn't a problem, mind you - it's actually a good thing. It has some heavily flaws I'll be hitting later, but the big problem is simply that there's no holds on what spellcasters can do in terms of narrative ability.

Mind you, it's not just that spellcasters do lots of things, it's that they actively take the roles of other classes with their spells. Spells can let you go invisible and silent, or unlock and open trapped doors and chests. They can charm others. Turn yourself into a bigger, more powerful monster. Heck, summoning spells alone give you an absurd variety of abilities.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Part two: the Reasoning.

The biggest reason for this problem is literally the existence of the wizard class.

Let's go into our fantasy books and our mythology and pull up the archtypes we see. We have brave heroes, sly and clever swashbucklers, daring thieves, powerful warriors, and wise old sages.

Notice something missing?

There is no wizard archtype. The D&D wizard is a mix of two archtypes - the wise old sage, which is fine, and the deus ex machina, which is, well, somewhat obviously not.

See, in books and mythology, there is no "does everything with magic" character. Remember how I mentioned the level 3 wizard is perhaps the best? That's because level 2 spells are typically the most powerful ones mortal wizards know. Turning invisible, opening and unlocking things with a wave of their hand, changing shape - that's a big one. It also sets wizards as having a (relatively) small number of spell slots.

There is the wise old sage, however, and there's deus ex machina. Merlin was a wise old sage. What he does for Arthur is provide information, learning, advice. He doesn't jump around with the knights and throw fireballs. His biggest, most impressive power is to change shape - not to mention one of the only powers he uses. Oh, and he's the antichrist.

What about Gandalf? Again, we don't actually see a lot of magic from the old guy. He makes fireworks and creates choo choo train noises and casts Light a lot. Oh, and he's the archangel Gabriel.

The problem with the D&D is this:

Imagine you are making a game based somewhat loosely on the Trojan War and the Odyssey. You tell your character that they'll be fighting on the side of thee Greeks, and should take inspirations from the likes of Odysseus and Agamemnon, proud and daring warriors and men of battle.

Then one guy shouts "I call dibs on Poseidon!"

D&D is trying to be two games, but they're contradictory. The non-casters are playing a low magic game of strength, wit, and survival. The casters are playing a high magic game of intense magical shenanigans and powerful setting changing abilities. Wizards have narrative power because they're the deus ex machina - they're expected to have a spell for every occasion. In other words, if non-casters play by the rules of the setting, casters get to make the rules.

Someone earlier mentioned that they were fine with the differences in power because, after all, magic should be all powerful. I will grant you that on one condition - there is no class that utilizes it.

In short, wizards appear in fiction quite often, but they fall under one of two catagories.

1) Wise old sage who really doesn't do a whole lot of magic
2) Deus ex machina

The D&D wizard falls under the second. Which is bad.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Part three: Solutions

There's been a few attempts from the start to patch up the discrepency. Magic items were a big one. The assumption goes: "Magic is everything in the game that is strong, including the strongest baddies. We have classes that do not have magic. Therefor, they should have magic items."

This was the birth of the Christmas Tree problem.

See, I don't buy that it's a 3e-ism. It's always been there. I'm literally playing a 2e game as I type this (thus the slowness, sorry ), and I deny the idea that characters didn't need magic item. Our fighter needs magical weapons to even harm many baddies, for starters. In fact, if you look through the books, as others have mentioned, most magic items are either intended for fighters or, in fact, are only usable by fighters. The intent is somewhat clear - wizards have magic, fighters have magic items.

But, for me, this isn't enough. It doesn't solve the problem, only loopholes back into it - at the end of the day, your non-wizard needs items a wizard made.

First off, let's look at the good.

The skill system isn't bad. Personally I think the number of skills could be cut down even more, but that's me. The 2+int has to go, though. That's horrible. The wizard being unskilled isn't so bad because he has spells, but the fighter has nada to make up for it. This is a relic of 2e, where fighters were more or less only capable of, well, fighting, and the paladins and rangers - who were simply better in every way - got extra bonuses to reward you for being lucky. 3.5 also had skill tricks, which were really neat, and I wish more robust and numerous, because they really did add some cool stuff.

Outside of full casters, things generally work rather well. The bard is a great class that really fits the "wise old sage" archtype fantastically well, if perhaps not quite so old. Back in 3.5 we had the beguiler, an awesomely fun class, that hit the magical trickster archtype perfectly. These are examples of magical classes that don't overshadow everyone else. In general, if it doesn't have level 9 spells, it's not that big of a game breaker (if one at all).

I'm going to be stoned to death for this, but I loved Tome of Battle. Consider the following: each ToB class had systems set up around a non-physical attribute. Warblades used intelligence, crusaders used charisma, and swordsages used wisdom. They all also had a robust skill list. But they did lack something - out of combat abilities.

So, what can be done?

First, a decision needs to be made, I think: Is D&D a low magic game, a mid-magic game, or a high magic game? This is a really important decision, I think. Currently, fighters are a low magic class, and wizards are a high magic class. Bards lie somewhere inbetween. The mid-magic classes such as the bard can work with either of the two moderately well, but high and low don't work well together narratively.

Let's say you choose high magic. Martial classes, then, need magic. Tome of Battle is the seemingly obvious suggestion, but that leaves the problem of narrative power. So, step one is, add supernatural stunts that aren't related to combat. Think of them as more potent skill tricks. Perhaps make it literally a "stunt" ability that non-casters get at varrying amounts, or maybe even a secondary "stunt" system. I admittingly don't know the details on this mechanical stuff. The basic idea is to give martial classes the ability to do supernatural things. Let's face it, right now, the wizard is better at wire-fighting then the monk is. That's a shame.

Let's say you choose low magic. Kill the wizard. The druid goes too, and say goodbye to the cleric. Maybe even the sorcerer! "Cirno," you say, "there goes all the healing. What now?" Create an item, a potion bandoleer, let's say, that allows characters to pull and drink as a swift action. Massacre the cost of potions and the time it takes to make them. Maybe even give the Survival skill the ability to act as Craft: Alchemy (Can you tell I've been playing The Witcher lately?). So far, what we've done is remove the highly powerful casters, left the mid-range magical ones such as bards, and given ALL the classes a potential means of buffing and healing themselves inside combat.

One idea I've had for BOTH styles is the removal of all the magic items. Instead, let's grab the best thing to come from 4e - inherent bonuses. To put it another way, there is no +1 sword or +5 sword. Instead, classes gain the +1 as they level. Same with armor. Now, you can have flaming swords or vorpal swords or etc etc, but they'd be how I think earlier editions semi-intended them to be - rare and powerful. In fact, all magic items with inherent bonuses would fit under one of two catagories: Rare/powerful, and weird. After all, if you don't have to worry about keeping up with the magic items, you're free to give whatever bizarro magic gear your heart desires.

However, people like new gear. That goes without saying. Inherent bonuses works well with a high magic style game, but not so much with a low magic style. So what do we do?

We learn some more from video games. Monster Hunter, to be precise.

The idea is, we don't just grab magical items lying around (though certainly we can have that, as rare and powerful magic items works in a low-magic style game). Instead, we use monster bits to make weapons. The rogue's magic dagger is fashioned from the tooth of a chimera. The fighter's axe blade is the sharpened scale of a sea serpent's tail. And of course, there's the classical magical animal skin armor. In essence, you can actually use this AS magical armor. Combine this with the now very cheap and numerous potions and you have the basics of a semi-normal 3.5 game, just with loop arounds.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Reposting all that destroyed the actual paragraph structure. Fixing that now.

Additionally, while the solutions are based in 3.x, it's important to note that the issue with narrative power is one that's been present in all editions until 4e. It's not a 3e-only problem. 3e game wizards better combat power, but they've always reigned supreme narratively.

Edit: Ok, done editing.

 

[Hussar]

being able to control the universe only once per day isn't that bad of a deal, really.

That's siggable. I'll be back here with the popcorn.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Someone else where has asked me what I see the sort of "ideal party" for the low-magic style game.

Bard, Factotum, Ranger, Warblade.

The bard is your loremaster. Monsters are weird, but he's the guy who knows his way around them. Ancient temples, dank dungeons, long lost ruins, or even the strange behaviors of magical animals, the bard knows how to apply his knowledge right where it matters. The ranger can take you to the chimera, but the bard knows where the soft scales are, and where it's blind spot is. Tag teams with the ranger to make the items for the rest of the group. Admittingly the whole "perform" thing is a bit off :B

The factotum is your jack of trades. Certainly she knows her way around locks and traps, but she's more then that. Caught and arrested and put naked in a cell? She's your woman who finds a way out and breaks the rest of you free. Need to infiltrate a ballroom party? She and the bard grab their respective costumes and open the backdoor for the others. She's sneaky, she's wild, she's got more skills she knows what to do with, she's your trickster

The ranger is your wild lore professional. The bard might be the one to identify the monster's weak points, but the ranger is the one who brings you to it. She and the bard together know that if you mix the blood of a wolf and fallenflower together you make a curative that can heal any wound. Or that you can cure the hide of a chimera to create a suit of protective armor. She's a marksman and sharpshooter as well, tagging monsters with an arrow to give the warblade a weakness or blind spot to attack. And you'll never go hungry in the woods with her by your side.

The warblade is your tough guy, master at arms. One warblade ability that I cannot freaking believe Paizo passed up is the ability to change your weapon focus, which is amazing. He's not dumb, mind you - warblade champions intelligence alongside physical stats. He's a powerful guy, he can handle most weapons after a bit of training, and he's got his mind in the game, too. If the bard identifies monsters and strange, mystic lore, if the factotum can snap a trap a mile away and has enough tricks to get himself out of almost any jam, and if the ranger is a master of the wilderness and wild lore, then the warblade is their front liner, the man who's in it for the glory and love of battle.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Great points. Mage has all powerful casters, and its OK, because EVERYONE is an all powerful caster. Ars Magica has both magi and grogs, and magic are much better than grogs. but that's ok, because each player controls both. But 1st-3rd edition D&D eally felt like "Hey, I'll be the magi, you be the grog". Which I wasnt fine with. 4th edition is the first version I've played where the traditional heroes of fantasy get a fair shake past low level.

Sure, the old schoolers will whine that magic isnt special anymore, but "special" is just their good old boys club slang for "better than anyone dumb enough not to roll up a caster". If you want magic to be special, get rid of PC wizards. Because when your character breaks the laws of reality more often than he changes his underwear, magic isnt special.

Your option of upgrading the TOB classes works if you allow skill stunts to emulate demigod acts. The fighter can fly because he wrestles a tornado. The thief can come back to life after being killed because he bluffs Death that he was only playing dead (alternatively, he Melvins Death). The monk rolls concentration, peers into the akashic records, knows where the enemy is moving their troops to in 2 weeks, because the future is already written.

Oh, and in before the caster supremacists try and deny that magic users werent just flat out better, both in combat, and more importantly, out of combat than non-casters.

 

[Ariosto]

It is (or at least used to be) a free market. If you want to field an m-u, then there's no rule against it!

Usually, in my experience, one gets to take just one full-fledged player character (as opposed to henchmen) per expedition. The guy who puts all his eggs in one basket, so to speak, may see it rise faster than the one who spreads out the experience points among several characters. On the other hand, he may end up with no Plan B except to start over if his one and only perishes.

Magic-users tend to kick the bucket a lot. That's what those tiny hit dice, poor AC, etc., are supposed to do. What m-us are best at doing, above all else, is potting their fellows. The most attractive targets of all are m-us a level (or several) higher, because those tend to have nice magical goodies to covet.

That's how it is in old D&D, anyhow.

Clerics are a lot hotter coming out of the gate. They're like combo fighter-mages, very flexible and resilient. In the Original rules, they even get for the first few levels after 1st the same hit dice and rolls to hit as fighters but sooner (fewer x.p.). Once they get spells (not until 2nd level, originally), they can heal fighters -- or they can heal themselves and beat fighters at their own game.

Good luck getting a magic weapon, though. Swords are by far the most common, and access to them is one of the boons granted the thief class when it comes along.

In the long run of a campaign, the fighter catches up. A "name level" cleric has to choose sides, and then gets a lot of aid in setting up a stronghold, but after that is not so spectacular.

Even the magic-user comes from behind to end up (on average) with more hit points (and mostly better saves)!

Depending on situation, the cleric may even before that be playing mainly a supporting role. This has a lot to do with the nature of clerical magic.

Give the cleric sufficient "blast 'em" magic, and it can put the other classes into shadow.

If that happens, then you'll know it because you'll be up to your ears in clerics!

Sure, there were always people who wanted to play Hobbits despite their being so limited originally. To this day, I know of people who insist on playing magic-users in Basic/Expert even though Elves really are all that and more until the very highest level (which they are so much more likely to attain in the first place).

Most game players, though, can and will use the obviously superior strategy if there really is one.

 

[kinem]

Cirno, it seems to me that all you're saying is "I don't like D&D".

Casters are more powerful and more complex at high level. Hitting things with a sword is fun and gives you more time to joke around or hit the munchies since you don't need to study the books so much. There is some supension of disbelief because magic is required to do things people otherwise can't do. I am OK with it.

 

[Tilenas]

<--all-->

+1.

http://cdn-i.dmdentertainment.com/funpages/cms_content/17505/dumbledore_chartdrop.jpghttp://cdn-i.dmdentertainment.com/funpages/cms_content/17505/dumbledore_chartdrop.jpg