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

[Neonchameleon]

True, of course. At least, my memory of reading the first round of 4e core books would indicate so.

But... it strikes me as a kludge. And a particularly glaring, ugly one, at that.* All ritual casting, for anyone at all, at the cost of *one* feat?

Better a (long!) chain of feats, or whatever else, IMO. If you're going to set it up outside of class ability land in the first place.

I'd possibly agree with you if Ritual Caster was a feat considered mandatory. If two non-ritualists out of every three took the ritual casting feat you'd probably be right for PCs. But this doesn't happen. Between four D&D groups and over the course of two years an seven campaigns I've only ever seen one PC take a feat to become a Ritual Caster - and (a) that PC was mine and (b) it was a multiclass feat that provided more benefits than just ritual casting.

This is, I think, due to the other balancing mechanism. The cash-cost for rituals. People don't like spending cash so are more than happy to leave the dirty job up to those with the class feature to cast rituals (of which every group I've been in has had one). So for all it appears to be a kludge, it also appears to be working as intended - opening up formerly barely playable character concepts (The Grey Mouser springs to mind) while not being so strong everyone grabs it.

Hm. So, 4.5 ("Essentials", if you prefer) changed some of this? How so?

None of the classes have rituals. Instead they get extra class features. For instance Clerics get Raise Dead at level 8 (and Druids get Reincarnate).

 

[Neonchameleon]

Which still makes no sense in terms of archetype. Why have classes at all if you're going to pull stunts like this? I'm sorry, but if this is supposed to be D&D then IMO this design decision is thematically completely out to lunch, and worthy of chucking out the whole game over. It's just that wrong for the D&D universe IMO.

Because in combat approach and out of combat skills are different. Rituals are long spells that take finesse and attention to detail. And it's entirely possible to be able to draw magic circles and highly complex shapes and incantations - but not be able to pull a bolt of magic in a few seconds to hurt someone in combat. And it's equally plausible to channel raw magic fast and hard but not have the necessary finesse or even patience for complex rituals (sorcerors spring to mind). Most people who can do one can do both, but the presence of some exceptions doesn't break the universe in the slightest.

If you want a fairly archetypal martial character with ritual casting, try The Grey Mouser. The ability to play him doesn't weaken the D&D universe - in fact he'd be perfectly at home there (and the dual classed wizard/rogue he'd have to be in older editions would fit far worse).

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Choices, choices.

Choices, choices.

What has been entirely ignored in this thread is the idea of opportunity cost, as well as cost in general.

In 3e, for good or for ill, a good solid percentage of a character is his money, and money spent on magic items that he chooses to obtain.

The Wizard must, apart from a measly 2 spells per level (comparable to the sorceror) BUY his spells. These are very expensive. If a wizards wants narrative control over raw combat power, he must make choices, gaining one while losing another.

But so it is with the fighter. Another plus on that magic sword, or a helm of telepathy? Better armor, or a Cloak of the Mountebank?



I suspect that others may bring up that a wizard "can do this without losing anything, while a fighter loses much."

I don't mean that to be a strawman, I'm just trying to think this through and consider objections.

Thing is though, there are two answer to this. The first is, how can a wizard not lose anything? Spells cost money, money that could be spent on magic items (including more hp, better saves, or simply other spells). A wizard could load up on invisibility and detect traps and such, and not be able to cast fireball. He'd be a pretty thiefy wizard, but not much of a fighter at all. I suspect that many of the people who complain about wizards make the mistake of waiving the cost of their spells.

The other side is, why does the fighter "lose" when he spends money on non combat items? Is he losing because he's spending money on something that is not his primary role? That seems to pigeonhole the fighter by choice, not by design. OF COURSE a fighter cannot have narrative control if his ONLY role is to fight.


I think a large chunk of this isn't what classes CAN do, but what they CHOOSE to do (not even getting into the opportunity cost of feats and skills). If a wizard is "allowed" to spend money on non combat, and a fighter is "not allowed", then OF COURSE the fighter can only fight.


D&D is high magic, and that, very importantly, includes magic items.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Ah, interesting. Thanks for the schoolin' on "4.0" and "4.5", guys.

So skills are necessary for some. Huh. But then, you can just get "trained in" for any skills you like, right? Or am I way off again... In some ways, they remind me of 3e (UA) Incantations. Not altogether a terrible thing.

And it's always good to read some anecdotals - and I actually mean that! It's very real currency, in these kinds of discussions, I believe. More so than many theory-based contributions, IMO. If the usage cost approach works for you and yours, Neonchameleon, then great! And no doubt, it's worked just fine for plenty of others too. Kludges can (more or less) work OK, as any number of IT folks could tell you (... assuming you're not one, natch ).

Yeah, I'm still convinced it was a kludge. "Was", because it appears Essentials has moved... back, perhaps? Back to pre-"4.0" I mean, in a way.

If so, veeery innarestin'. Must admit, I've been totally oblivious to the details of the most recent uh... revision. 'Til now. Was only aware that it existed, basically.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Choices, choices.

Costs, really.

A full spellbook with literally every spell in the game in it costs dramatically less then the belt of strength, necklace of natural armor, ring of protection, fully loaded armor, fully loaded shield, item of flight, side ranged weapon and ammo, etc, etc, that the fighter wants/needs depending on how high level you are.

The wizard, in the end, simply has more open spending money.

 

[Barastrondo]

Which still makes no sense in terms of archetype. Why have classes at all if you're going to pull stunts like this?

Probably it's literary inspiration. The Gray Mouser works better as a rogue with Ritual Casting and some knowledge of the arcane than he does as an AD&D multiclass, for instance; he doesn't use spells with the in-combat regularity of a D&D wizard, but he's capable of rituals a la Lords of Quarmall. It's been a while since I've read some Brust, but I think there were people who used magic only in a ritual capacity there as well, and that universe is so thematically tied to D&D that it involves raising the dead as part of the economy.

I'm sorry, but if this is supposed to be D&D then IMO this design decision is thematically completely out to lunch, and worthy of chucking out the whole game over. It's just that wrong for the D&D universe IMO.

Is there really "the" D&D universe, though? It's been more my experience that long-term DMs frequently make their own campaign worlds more and more distinct, dabbling with themes like weird fantasy and fantasy pulp and the like. It's hard for me to picture one single D&D universe that includes Horror checks, psionic thri-kreen and pistol-wielding hippo-men but recoils from a Gray Mouser-like rogue performing a ritual, especially granted the shadow Leiber throws over the game.

 

[billd91]

The unfortunate asymmetry is, a magic-using PC can still solve problems through non-magical means. (See the Harry Potter examples cited upthread.) However, the reverse is not true, barring magic items or somehow leveraging on a magic-using ally or servant.

Why is that asymmetry unfortunate? If I feel like playing a fighter, why would I want to be able to solve a problem through magical means? I want to be able to solve problems through means that make sense for the character I'm playing. And by choosing to play a fighter, I'm choosing to not do it via spellcasting.

I think a lot of this is a solution searching for a problem. Ultimately, what matters is that the DM is giving both of us a chance to have fun with our characters, to affect the campaign. If the wizard chooses to solve problems non-magically, then we're interacting in the same method. If the wizard chooses to solve problems magically, he's operating in an environment I didn't particularly want to operate in by choosing to play a fighter, so why should that bother me?

This is why I think the 4e solution of allowing anybody to take ritual magic feats, while interesting on some levels, doesn't really solve the problem. If I want to play a fighter, why exactly do I want to blow a two or more feats learning how to use rituals when I can get feats that better support my primary jobs?

It strikes me that the type of player most concerned with character balance, looking at D&D as a balanced, even competitive game, wouldn't spend the resources dividing his character's efforts between game-play aspects of fighting and narrative aspects of rituals. And the type of player most interested in narrative aspects of characters and the game are probably less concerned with absolute character balance in the first place as long as they get freedom to inform the narrative.

 

[Imaro]

You want to give a fighter the same type of narrative control as a wizard...then use Incantations, (these are actually skill challenges that allow anyone to cast magic.) from Unearthed Arcana. It's not easy for non-casters (which I don't think it should be) and it's not everyone's cup of tea, but the rules for it most certainly exsist in 3.5.

On another note...How is this any different from the fact that a Rogue in 4e starts with twice as many skills as a Fighter? Or that a Wizard starts with both more skills and free rituals? That's all under the type of narrative control you are speaking to... isn't it? So what exactly was "fixed"?

NOTE: bild91, I can't give you xp until I spread some around but your post above contains much truth.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In 3e, for good or for ill, a good solid percentage of a character is his money, and money spent on magic items that he chooses to obtain.

The Wizard must, apart from a measly 2 spells per level (comparable to the sorceror) BUY his spells. These are very expensive. If a wizards wants narrative control over raw combat power, he must make choices, gaining one while losing another.

But so it is with the fighter. Another plus on that magic sword, or a helm of telepathy? Better armor, or a Cloak of the Mountebank?

Run the numbers. A vanilla +1 sword costs over 2000 gp - this is not a cost the wizard needs to worry about. Writing spell books costs 10 gp per spell level, I think. Adding in the cost of a scroll to learn from (25gp * spell level * (spell level*2-1), a 1st level spell costs 35gp, a second level spell costs 170gp, a 3rd level spell costs 405gp, and a 4th level spell costs 740gp. So for that +2 sword, a 7th level wizard could buy 1 4th level spell (for a total of 3), 2 3rd level spells (for a total of 6), 2 2nd level spells (for a further 6), and 3 1st level spells (for a total of 7). Much cheaper if he learned from a spellbook, of course. And that's quite a lot of versatility there...

Ah, interesting. Thanks for the schoolin' on "4.0" and "4.5", guys.

So skills are necessary for some. Huh. But then, you can just get "trained in" for any skills you like, right? Or am I way off again...

You start off being able to pick your skills from a restricted list (e.g. Fighters don't have easy access to Arcana and Wizards can't pick Athletics). You can also buy training in any skill for a feat.

And it's always good to read some anecdotals - and I actually mean that! It's very real currency, in these kinds of discussions, I believe. More so than many theory-based contributions, IMO. If the usage cost approach works for you and yours, Neonchameleon, then great! And no doubt, it's worked just fine for plenty of others too.

If anything, rituals are seen as useless - threads show up on Rpg.net to ask whether anyone actually uses them. (The normal answer is not often when the rituals first become available - too expensive - but once you've levelled up half a dozen times after they become available the exponential nature of treasure means that people use them a lot more.)

Kludges can (more or less) work OK, as any number of IT folks could tell you (... assuming you're not one, natch ).

I dabble. (Statistics/Healthcare Analytics/more VBA than I want - and if I ever hear the phrase "Excel Database" again...)

 

[Elf Witch]

I agree that wizards are petty powerful but I don't agree that they have the total narrative power that is being claimed.

You are making it sound like wizards can't fail. Most spells have saving throws and to hit so it is very possible to have a spell not do anything or not even hit.

If a wizard runs out of spells they are just a class with a poor BAB and low AC and lower hit points. Non magical PCs have the same level of power at the end of the day as they did at the start.

Throw a wizard in a null magic area they are screwed not so for non magical PCs.

A wizard no matter how powerful cannot usually survive going toe to toe with a fighter or monk or say a troll with rend.

A rogue can ruin a wizards day by flanking and backstabbing while being able to resit damage from the spells.

As for being able to do what other classes do with spells even that is limited. They have to know the spell and have slots open to cast it. A rogue can disarm traps and pick locks all day and night long.

I have played every ed from 1 to 3.5 and I have never felt that the MU had total control over the narrative. Maybe because I was lucky enough to have excellent DMs who knew how to run a game where every class shined.