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

[ExploderWizard]

My problem is this: nothing stated here were things wizards cannot do.

On the other hand, fighters cannot do any of the things wizards can.

This brings up an interesting point. What measure do we use to define what a wizard is? In a good deal of fiction a wizard is a person of power in command of forces that ordinary men can barely understand much less control.

The question for the gamer becomes, do I want to include wizards as playable characters in my campaign?

The sharp contrast between those who can manipulate magical forces and those who cannot has been a cornerstone of D&D for a long time. That a fighter cannot do what a wizard can is a feature rather than a bug else why have the two separated?

I think a number of people here are missing the forest for the trees.

Cirno's argument is players of casters, and especially Wizards, hold a degree of control over the story by way of magic that players of non-casters can never match.

To use a "story" example; consider a murder mystery. With magic, the player of a caster simply uses some form of divination to figure out the answer. Hell, a divine caster can even just raise the victim from the dead! That's a degree of narrative control that the player of a non-caster just doesn't have, and never will, save for DM fiat. That is Cirno's point.

Yes, there are ways to equalize the playing field, most of which generally end up (IMO) unsatisfying. Anti-magic is the big one, but more often than not anti-magic feels like a narrative cheat. That's because it is; it's basically a way of railroading by removing narrative tools. Why shouldn't players be able to use the tools they've been given?

Cirno stated that 4E was an example of a system that actually had a solution for that problem. That solution, of course, is that all those spells that were narrative tools were separated from class (and even archetype). Everyone has (almost) equal access to rituals. If the player of a Fighter wanted to cast rituals, there's nothing stopping that player. Is that an edition war thing? No. It's simply a method by which a perceived problem was solved.

I would say that one problem was solved and others were created. Equalizing everything across the board means that the concept of "the wizard" is removed from the game. Depending upon the wishes of the players this may or may not be a desirable outcome. The feel of play shifts from one of fantasy adventurers to a supers or special ops team.
The wizard is now just the one who happens to have a pointy hat.

If strict equality and narrative control powers were actually required for players to enjoy a campaign then no one could ever have fun playing the DC heroes. Superman in the same party as Batman? How could that ever result in a good time?

Yes and no. Presuming that the DM is playing by the rules, the caster classes really can control the narrative to a degree that non-caster classes can't. Even something as simple as stat-buffs can have a very large impact. You can go from being a social leper to the life of the party with a spell or two in any edition.

The fighter is stuck being whatever he started out as at 1st level.

Why can't the fighter grow in power and influence as levels are gained? A fighter can attract a small army and use it to effect the campaign world. A Lord with a keep and a force of men can exert considerable social influence which is something that the 1st level fighter does not do.

The power of a wizard comes in more flashy convenient parcels in the form of spells. It is easy to let the flash blind you to what a powerful fighter can do.

 

[Perram]

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...

Well, not quite. Spells cost 100 gold per spell level to scribe, in adition to obtaining the source spell in 3.x. Pathfinder reduced it to this chart where lower level spells are quite a bit cheaper, but high level spells approach their old costs:

Spell LevelWriting Cost05 gp110 gp240 gp390 gp4160 gp5250 gp6360 gp7490 gp8640 gp9810 gp05 gp110 gp240 gp390 gp4160 gp5250 gp6360 gp7490 gp8640 gp9810 gp
0 - 5gp
1 - 10gp
2 - 40gp
3 - 90gp
4 - 160gp
5 - 250gp
6 - 360gp
7 - 490gp
8 - 640gp
9 - 810gp

 

[Bluenose]

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.

What saving throw does the wall have against being flown over? It has a DC to avoid being climbed, but obstacles being bypassed is narrative control, trying to do something with a chance of failure is narrative.

If a fighter runs out of hit points they're dead. Their power at the end of the day is entirely dependent on someone healing them - magically.

If you're in a null-magic area, any class dependent on magical gear is pretty much screwed, not just the ones who cast spells.

A wizard has rather a lot of ways to avoid having to go toe-to-toe with the enemies - the fighter and monk don't. Who do you think is more likely to end up in melee?

Blur. 20% miss chance due to concealment, you can't sneak attack a target with concealment, now the rogue can make a will save or be my bitch.

If the wizard has the spell in their book, they can cast it tomorrow. If the rogue fails the check, a lot of GMs won't allow them to try again.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Why is that asymmetry unfortunate?

I like the asymmetry too; it creates an internal dynamism to the game which then calls for continual readjustment. I would argue that this can drive a campaign forwards with tremendous power.

Game balance - in terms of allowing players to share the limelight equally - is a process moderated by the DM. Mechanical equivalence (or ensuring the equal mechanical effectiveness for PCs) is one aspect of balancing the game.

A good DM can balance the various kinds of balance, so to speak: but knowledge of an individual player's likes, dislikes and psychology plays the largest part.

For me, I guess what I'm groping for is the idea that in order to have a Really Good Time, some degree of trust and mutual understanding needs to arise between the players and the DM. And that by the time this has happened, ideas such as mechanical equivalence in one dimension have become largely irrelevant.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

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.

The Breakdown (source is Arcane Spells :: d20srd.org):

Let's assume that the wizard goes the cheaper (non scroll) route and copies from other wizards. (Note, again, this is the cheapest route--scrolls are more and research is MUCH more).

Copying from another wiz's spellbook has a fee of "spell's level x 50 gold."

"A spell takes up one page of the spellbook per spell level. Even a 0-level spell (cantrip) takes one page. A spellbook has one hundred pages."

"Materials for writing the spell cost 100 gp per page."


So, given that, the cost in gold for spells, by level, is:
0 - 125 (counting copying at 25 for 1/2 spell lvl)
1 - 150
2 - 300
3 - 450
4 - 600
5 - 750
6 - 900
7 - 1,050
8 - 1,200
9 - 1,350


Also, let us not forget time and effort."The process takes 24 hours, regardless of the spell’s level." If a wizard fails their Spellcraft roll, the day is wasted and they need to try again the next day. So, for each and every spell, a wizard has to find 24 hours or more, depending on spellcraft.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It's telling, I think, how many people here have utterly ignored my main topic and have absolutely refused to comment on the existence or non-existence of the wizard archtype.

They have, naturally, chosen to attack me personally instead.

What a wonderful thread~

Its what happens when you dare to suggest that the nerd class shouldnt dominate the jock class.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

For fun, I decided to see how much every spell in the game would actually cost.

I'm using SRD spells only here. Also, I'm assuming buying them all for easier math (no free spells).

19 0 lvl spells = 2,375
39 1st lvl spells = 5,850
50 2nd lvl spells = 15,000
42 3rd lvl spells = 18,900
41 4th lvl spells = 24,600
43 5th lvl spells = 32,250
43 6th lvl spells = 38,700
35 7th lvl spells = 36,750
35 8th lvl spells = 42,000
24 9th lvl spells = 32,400

Grand total for "every spell in the game" (at the cheapest, non scroll, non research cost) is: 248,825 gold.

 

[Barastrondo]

The sharp contrast between those who can manipulate magical forces and those who cannot has been a cornerstone of D&D for a long time. That a fighter cannot do what a wizard can is a feature rather than a bug else why have the two separated?

I agree, though really you need to also answer the question "what can a fighter do that a wizard cannot?" If there's a good and satisfying answer for both of these, we don't really have much of a problem.

I would say that one problem was solved and others were created. Equalizing everything across the board means that the concept of "the wizard" is removed from the game. Depending upon the wishes of the players this may or may not be a desirable outcome. The feel of play shifts from one of fantasy adventurers to a supers or special ops team.
The wizard is now just the one who happens to have a pointy hat.

Equal power doesn't really remove the concept of "the wizard" from the game, particularly if you equalize power but keep mechanics sufficiently differentiated. Though I admit it probably depends on how you're defining "the wizard" in the first place: if the weak-as-kitten-to-living-god dynamic is part of what it means to be "the wizard," then yeah, that's gone.

If strict equality and narrative control powers were actually required for players to enjoy a campaign then no one could ever have fun playing the DC heroes. Superman in the same party as Batman? How could that ever result in a good time?

That's a pretty good example. What can Batman do that Superman can't? To some extent they answered this by leveling the playing field a bit: the Silver Age Superman who's super-intelligent enough to build his own robots fades away to be replaced by a clever, but not quite genius-level man. Batman, conversely, gets elevated in the number of things he's mastered and the kinds of resources he can call on. So Batman can do things that no other JLA character can, and with decent writing, so can everyone else have their own shtick: it's why they remain relevant.

Why can't the fighter grow in power and influence as levels are gained? A fighter can attract a small army and use it to effect the campaign world. A Lord with a keep and a force of men can exert considerable social influence which is something that the 1st level fighter does not do.

Right. But if this is a big differentiation, you do have to have something in place that prevents the wizard from claiming a keep and raising an army (of loyal men, or ensorcelled troops, or living dead, or whatever). Since many people like the thought of necromancers with hordes of undead with which they can challenge the world, it makes sense that wizards can do that, but then if they can, what does the high-level fighter do that the high-level wizard cannot? There should, at least in my opinion, be a good answer for this.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The wizard has mechanics to support their narrative control, the fighter doesn't; the best the fighter can do is roleplay their narrative control, which the wizard can also do. The wizard just has mechanics backing them up.

My question is: How do you have *Magic* without giving one class/archetype more narrative control than another? (Game design wise; your DM can probably handle this)

You have *Magic* be outside the control of the players. You have magic (small m) be controlled by the player spell caters. You limit the power of spells available to be used as tools. You refluff skill checks to be magical spells. When my 4th edition mage rolls a diplomacy, he's dropping words of suggestion, unnoticed by mortal minds, in addition to honeyed words.

Some difference is expected, and ok, but the gulf of power difference is what I and others have a problem with.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I like the asymmetry too; it creates an internal dynamism to the game which then calls for continual readjustment. I would argue that this can drive a campaign forwards with tremendous power.

Mechanical imbalance creates work a particular kind, and you happen to *like* that kind of work? Um. Fair enough! It takes all types, I suppose. Though there is a very direct way to make that work "front-loaded" - see below.*

Still doesn't mean the game can't be balanced without sacrificing any "internal dynamism". And, I feel compelled to say, just because 4e failed in this regard (IMO, etc.) doesn't mean anything much at all.

Mechanical balance has historically been striven for - creators have even at times said as much, in corebooks (e.g., the AD&D 1e PHB) - but not always achieved. Or not as well as could be, perhaps. Again: IMO, etc.

A good DM can balance the various kinds of balance, so to speak: but knowledge of an individual player's likes, dislikes and psychology plays the largest part.

Perhaps, and perhaps not. I would say that system matters quite a bit, regardless of the group in question. *And* that group matters a lot, regardless of the system in question.

* Oh, and one of the most time-honoured ways for DMs to achieve better game balance is to *house rule*. Those creating games in the first place, including the very first RPGs, do / have done it. Just for starters. With unbalanced systems left and right, apart from anything else, it's no wonder!

For me, I guess what I'm groping for is the idea that in order to have a Really Good Time, some degree of trust and mutual understanding needs to arise between the players and the DM. And that by the time this has happened, ideas such as mechanical equivalence in one dimension have become largely irrelevant.

Or in other words, may as well use any game, or none at all, for all the rules matter.

Sure.

It's a popular method of attempting to invalidate concerns or points regarding system balance - or anything to do with system, at times - but stating that it's all about the fun, the people, etc., etc... really isn't saying anything that any player or DM isn't automatically, instinctively aware of. Yes, some go out of their way to fight against that, for whatever reasons, but they would be in a (tiny) minority, I imagine.

Or, in other words, you can have both. False dichotomy, and all that.