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

[MrMyth]

I'm mostly in agreement, though I think non-casters did have more narrative power prior to 3rd Edition - the assumption that characters would eventually attain a level of power (such as a lord with a stronghold), and would have followers and influence, gave them a certain amount of narrative control.

Regardless of edition, most such influence comes from three things:

-Player ingenuity;
-Character skills;
-Magic items.

Spellcasters basically get to add a 4th category (spells), which also tends to be more potent than the second category, and more available/renewable than the third category. The first category is hard to define, as it often comes down to how much the DM is willing to work with the player to let them accomplish what they are aiming for. It also tends to be connected to the other categories - a creative character with the right skills and magic items can do interesting things, but a creative character with the right skills, magic items, and spells, can probably accomplish even more.

Limitations on the spells, in the past, came from the cost of them - both in terms of in-character time and money, potential limitation on spell components, and even direct costs from spells that could age the caster or go wrong in other ways. It also had the underlying cost of playing a theoretically frailer character than most others, and the dangers that entailed - though by higher levels (especially in 3rd Edition), the right spells could mitigate or even completely remove that weakness. Other hidden costs include the actions it takes to cast the spells - another area where I think this could be mitigated in 3rd Edition, either from casting lots of spells in rapid succession (via quickened spells, haste, familiars, contingencies, etc) or by extending durations of spells in various ways.

Many of these limitations, meanwhile, are ones not heavily enforced, or are wildly erratic between campaigns - some games will have tons of downtown for spell research. Others, none at all. The vast majority of DMs won't bother with micro-managing spell components other than the ones that are rarest or most expensive.

I'm not really sure what my conclusion is, here. I think many games can run with a wizard who contributes to the party without overwhelming other PC's efforts. I think that a wizard's capability certainly can become an issue for the DM and other players by later levels, especially the more system mastery the caster's player has. I think that solutions exist, whether consisting of in-game limitations (an urgent plot and stingy DM keeping the wizard from learning too many spells) or a system restriction on power level (such as with 4E.) And I think there certainly are some players who like or even indulge in wizards that can overwhelm the rest of the party, and that style of play can fit some campaigns if everyone is happy with it.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

In a null area even the bad guys are in the same boat but the non casters still have their armor and weapons they may not have their magical bonuses but they still work. And usually they have higher hit points to survive longer.

It depends on location in a small enclosed area they may not have a choice of avoiding melee which requires casting defensively or taking an AOO. In melee non magical casters don't provoke AOO using their chosen weapons.

Sure you can cast blur if the rouge is already on you though you need to cast defensibly oh wait the wizard failed the check good bye spell. Or wait I don't have the spell or it is not memorized guess who becomes whose bitch then.

Some encounters are time sensitive you cannot wait until the next day or even 15 minutes. So the rogue and the wizard can't open the door well now it is up to the burly fighter to break it down.

It all comes down to the DM knowing how to challenge all the classes and make the game fun for everyone.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It is also, IMO, absolutely abyssmal design in terms of suspension of disbelief and maintenance of archetypes. Anybody can cast spells, for balance reasons?

In D&D, magic is technology. Its codified, simple, and rarely fails. When your wizard casts magic missile, it always hits, and barring weird circumstances, doesnt backfires.

Outside of a few spells, D&D magic isnt Cthulhu magic, where it erodes your sanity and is dangerous to use. Its not Deadlands, where a bad hand can hurt you, or Rolemaster where a flubbed roll can turn you inside out. Its routine and mundane. Your character casts spells more often than he takes a leak.

Given that, complaining about anyone being able to learn simple magic makes about as much sense as complaining that anyone can spend skill points to drive a car in a modern RPG.

Verisimilitude, suspension of disbelief, realism are just strawmen thrown out to distract from the core issue. The good old boys club doesnt want my fighter as useful as their mage.

Because its never about wanting their fighter to be weaker than my mage... after all, its much easier to make a chaqracter weaker or less effective if desired.

 

[Ariosto]

Other classes have had to change (Bards, most notably, every edition). Why shouldn't wizards?

The bard is not a class; it's the munchkin's notion of powers of all the classes in one package.

That's so basically lacking in class in a classy system that of course it keeps getting revised.

When "wizard" was a title one earned, the game worked. All the "new and improved" has simply made the mess you all are complaining about!

Well, it's also made 4e. That is what it is, but it ain't what D&D was.

Why not broaden your horizons? Come play RuneQuest sometime. I reckon that would be better for the hobby than the pursuit of killing and burying the game that started it.

 

[renau1g]

In a null area even the bad guys are in the same boat but the non casters still have their armor and weapons they may not have their magical bonuses but they still work. And usually they have higher hit points to survive longer.

It depends on location in a small enclosed area they may not have a choice of avoiding melee which requires casting defensively or taking an AOO. In melee non magical casters don't provoke AOO using their chosen weapons.

Sure you can cast blur if the rouge is already on you though you need to cast defensibly oh wait the wizard failed the check good bye spell. Or wait I don't have the spell or it is not memorized guess who becomes whose bitch then.

Some encounters are time sensitive you cannot wait until the next day or even 15 minutes. So the rogue and the wizard can't open the door well now it is up to the burly fighter to break it down.

It all comes down to the DM knowing how to challenge all the classes and make the game fun for everyone.

Null area = DM being forced to have an element to screw over the MU's. They could alternatively just have Ao (or insert god of choice) come from the sky and snuff out the PC. Either way.

Even in a small area, the wizard has lots of ways to avoid going toe-to-toe, various elements of teleportation, Benign Transposition, etc.

Can't you just 5 ft step and break his flanking?

Sure the fighter can break it down, the wizard can just go around or through it or summon something to break it down or disintegrate it. So many options

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

Swords have attack rolls. Moreover, some of the most powerful spells DONT hvae saves, or even effect the enemy.

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.

And if the wizard and cleric run out of spells, the group rests. I'm always puzzled by this whole idea that no one ever rememorized spells in 1st/2nd edition. Nope, rope trick wasnt invented for a reason. No one ever spiked a door with a piton, posted guards, and healed up. Fighters had infinite hit points, so never needed heals that ran out (and mid to high 3rd edition combat does require active healing to keep a fighter vertical).

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

And throw a fighter in a no fighter zone and they are also screwed. When you have to resort to kryptonite, you've reached a problem.

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

Hell, fighters cant either without a pocket cleric. We ran a game up to 20, and in the teens, the fighters were stuck with what we termed "full attack mexican standoff", where no one wanted to charge the dragon or demon, due to only gettng a single attack while the creature got a full attack on its turn.

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.

Wands and scrolls are cheap in 3rd edition

A rogue can disarm traps and pick locks all day and night long.

I dunno, I might apply a -2 or so after the first 14 hours of lock picking.

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.

Based on your comments, I'd guess the casters of your game focused on damage spells, which greatly limits the issue. However from 1st through third, the caster classes rose in power relative to others, with an ever expending spell list to get.

Also, if its only a good DM that lets a game work, or players limiting themselves, then its a systemic issue. A good driver could theoretically race in a car with a the steering wheel on the ceiling, but its not necessarily good design.

 

[Griego]

Could somebody give xp to the OP for me, please? I am being told I have to spread xp around a bit before I can give any more to him. Thanks.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

From a purely combative standpoint, a fighter can fight better than a wizard (thus the name) for a longer period of time. A wizard can pile up on combat magic and be quite an effective combatant for a time but doing so would mean giving up the versatility of all the utility magic in the meantime.

If we are talking about a 3.X wizard with access to cheap and plentiful wands,scrolls, and such this doesn't hold up. We effectively stop employing the balancing tools that provide drawbacks to wizards.

In the scope of the campaign world, the fighter will command more political clout than the wizard. While wizards are respected and feared they are also largely untrusted. A fighting man with property and soldiers usually has more connections and can get better assistance from nobles.

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.

Every class in the older editions had the zero to hero thing going so that isn't it. The definition of wizard I was using was someone capable of doing things that ordinary non-magic using people cannot. If everyone can do the same things using different methods then the wizard is gone because every adventurer is thier own style of wizard.

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.

Why do we need to keep a wizard from trying to imitate a fighter? In a well run campaign a wizard spending the time required to train with troops and administer holdings won't have the time to do spell research, craft magic items and do general wizarding stuff. They certainly can if they want to do so but I think seeing other wizards researching custom spells and get cool new magic while they are off playing Lord of the keep should be enough of a deterrent.

There is a reason most wizards prefer to build a tower and just get a few apprentices.

 

[DandD]

In the scope of the campaign world, the fighter will command more political clout than the wizard. While wizards are respected and feared they are also largely untrusted. A fighting man with property and soldiers usually has more connections and can get better assistance from nobles.

There is a reason most wizards prefer to build a tower and just get a few apprentices.

Mordenkainen had an entire army bigger, more powerful and better trained than Robilar. Also, Mordenkainen ensures some kind of balance with other superpowerful arch-wizards, whereas Robilar... did what Gary Gygax allowed Rob Kurtz to do... Mordenkainen had also better political connections going so far that gods had to obey his rules lest they get a kick in their divine butts...

 

[Elf Witch]

Null area = DM being forced to have an element to screw over the MU's. They could alternatively just have Ao (or insert god of choice) come from the sky and snuff out the PC. Either way.

Even in a small area, the wizard has lots of ways to avoid going toe-to-toe, various elements of teleportation, Benign Transposition, etc.

Can't you just 5 ft step and break his flanking?

Sure the fighter can break it down, the wizard can just go around or through it or summon something to break it down or disintegrate it. So many options

No it is not the DM being forced to screw the MU it the DM providing a challenging encounter to the party and giving some variety to the game world. In Eberron going into the mournlands is hard one everyone there is no magical healing and magic acts screwy.

Going into null magic areas requires different tactics to survive and I as a player have always enjoyed challenges that require my wits.

The rest of it depends on if the wizard has the spells prepared that is the whole point.

If you don't like wizards don't allow them if you want a lower magic game play that. Or play a game like E6 which stops a lot of higher level spells that some people don't like.

I have never played in a game where I felt that the wizard was better than everyone else and we were nothing but minions. I have seen plenty of wizards die while the rest of the party lived. When I am playing a non magical type I don't begrudge the wizards their powers because those powers because they benefit the entire party in succeeding with their goals.

When I play a wizard I know I need the rest of the party to help me stay alive.