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

[Bluenose]

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.

I'm sure his/her 2 skill points and wide range of class skills really help the fighter in doing this well. And that it's something a wizard/cleric/expert gaining levels and attracting followers by taking the Leadership feat would be less capable of.

Of course, using 3e in this example is shooting fish in a barrel. In earlier editions, the fighter was in a better position. But then, the 1e/2e MU had less spells and those spells often had more drawbacks.

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.

See my point above. I'm convinced that 3rd edition altered a lot more about the game than some people like to admit.

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.

I think I'd argue that if the Bard is a class that does everything other classes do; it does it badly.

I do play Runequest. In fact the RPG book I'm currently reading is Pavis Rises. It almost has the opposite of narrative control for players, in that everything is a bit of a gamble rather than the sure thing of D&D-style magic. Which isn't a bad thing, of course.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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...

Mordenkainen was also Gary's personal little Mary Sue. Assuming the player of a wizard in a typical D&D campaign will not be playing the " I wrote this game so I can do whatever I want" card everything should work out just fine.

Oh, and I think you were referring to Rob Kuntz.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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

No. The Bard is the Jack of All Trades and master of none. At least pre-4e. There is nothng wrong with an improviser who can fill in in a classy system. It becomes a serious worry under two conditions. 1: Some of those he is filling in for are much more powerful than others. 2: He can match people on their primary role. Regrettably things in 3.X were lopsided enough that the Bard's power level was "Weakest of the primary casters".

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.

Why? Why do people not want people who can rewrite reality on their side and consider them much more valuble than someone who can swing a sword really well. In terms of strategic resources, the wizard has them - and you can hire a couple of dozen thugs. Where does the fighting man get his connections from? Thin air? There is more incentive for wizards to cooperate with people (and trade spells) than there is for fighters - trading spells and you both win. Where do these notions come from?

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.

So a wizard is a cleric is a druid? Right. That works. But everyone should be able to do some things others can't. And that's the root of the problem.

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.

So. Your point isn't that wizards can't do what fighters do. It's that they only leave it to the fighters because they have better things to do. Fighters are given keeps as consolation prizes while wizards get spells - wizards could have keeps too if they actually wanted them but normally can't be bothered. Yes, that sounds about right.

 

[Ariosto]

in 1E dispel magic is a very effective trick against a flying magic user.

So is shooting poisoned arrows (magic ones, if the m-u has protection from normal missiles). Three poison saves = 78.4% chance of killing level 21+ wizard.

(vs. 27.1% for a level 17+ fighter)

Ten magic arrows average 45 points of damage, while a 29th-level wizard (when topped up) averages 45.5 hit points barring a high constitution. Ten poisoned arrows = 99.4% kill chance.

(vs. only 65.1% for the fighter, and the arrows have to get past armor first)

Or, just get a couple of 13th-level wizards to cast lightning bolts. Even if Super Maggie makes both saves, that's an average of 45.5 points.

Meanwhile, a 29th-level fighter averages about 110 h.p. without a constitution bonus. Even without a save, that's typically about 20 to spare after 26 dice of shock treatment.

Then, let's say the m-us have (one way or another) effective AC -2. I think that's unlikely, but let's go for it. Their actual type is still 10, against which a long sword gets +2. A long bow gets +3, if our fighter prefers to plunk (maybe more fun vs. mirror image).

Let's go with a sword +2. With two attacks per round, that's one per mage. Assume +1 to hit and damage for strength 17. That's average 7.5 points per round, because the fighter hits AC -2 on any roll of the dice. (Needs 6+, has +5 in bonuses).

If the m-us are fresh as daisies, it takes on average 4 rounds to cut 'em both down. Our fighter has, let us say, only AC 0 (plate & shield, +1 each) and his opponents are armed with daggers +1 (and no strength bonus). Versus type 2, they take a -5 penalty. Final AC row: -4. The chance to hit is 5%, so our fighter takes on average .05x2x4x3.5= 1.4 more points of damage.

Yeah, almost a point for each pointy hat.

 

[Barastrondo]

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.

Absolutely. But fighting better than a wizard for a longer period of time is something that proves to have a pretty narrow window of advantage: it requires there to be enough combat that the difference is clear, which puts the burden on the GM rather than on the mechanics. It also doesn't hurt to give the fighter more to do out of combat, because even though he may not catch up with a wizard utility-wise, there's really no excuse for the "least skills/skill points of any class" characterization they tend to get. The more a fighter is reliant on combat to "get his own back," the more a GM must think about balancing combat to non-combat time.

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.

This is also reliant on the DM to enforce, and to some extent on the players to play along (for instance, not having wizards going around trying to use magic to make similar connections by removing curses and charming princes). Now, I think that's fine, because I enjoy the give-and-take that comes from that dynamic of interacting with the players, but I faintly suspect that the lack of interest in enforcing this is what both led the wizards to their 3.X incarnation and also caused some backlash.

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.

Hm. I tend to like fighters who are capable of doing things that ordinary non-magic using people cannot, but it's a different point of focus. It rests on the "ordinary" (player characters are theoretically out of the ordinary) rather than the "non-magic using".

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.

I quite agree with you. I think, however, that without player buy-in you're going to see players who want their wizards to effectively become as the sorcerer-kings of Athas: to have the power, and also to have the armies of minions. Or who feel that if Gandalf can rally Eomer and lead the big charge of Helm's Deep, so can they. The many sources of inspiration for wizards that are out there often conflict with the social regulation that earlier versions of D&D assume.

 

[Elf Witch]

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



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).



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.



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.




Wands and scrolls are cheap in 3rd edition



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




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.

I was just casually glancing through the players handbook and a lot of spells have saving throws and a fair amount have to hit. At higher levels wizards cast one spell around fighters get to try an hit several times.

In the games I play in we don't get to rest when the spell casters are out of spells. I know some people play that way I never had a DM that would let you get away with that. We usually had time sensitive missions and if we tried it things got tougher because the bad guys had time to regroup.

Throwing in a -2 is a house rule there is nothing stopping you from house ruling limits on spellcasters.

If you don't like high magic then 3.5 is not the right system for you. It is my game of choice and as a player and DM I have never had an issue with dealing with magic in game. I have never seen the issues brought up here crop up in my games.

While I find this topic interesting I have to bow out for now. I am recovering from a broken back and I just reached maxim sitting up time. Time for pain pills and maybe a nap.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't have time for the lengthy reply that the OP's effort deserves.

I don't disagree all that much with the OP's conclusions, but I do disagree with his premises. I recognize that for many D&D games of any edition spellcasters are problems, and I understand why 3e in particular exacerbated the problem to the point that it made alot of people ask the sort of questions the OP is making.

However, I don't have time just now to talk about that. I do want to take the thread in a somewhat different direction than I think it is going.

How many NPC spellcasters do your PCs kill over the course of a typical campaign?

How much narrative authority did they have?

 

[chaochou]

Back in the day the GM had a lot of control over the limits of the magic user.

When we played you rolled your starting spells as per the DMG - no automatic Sleep and Magic Missile. You could easily end up with something like Read Magic, Enlarge and Comprehend Languages. And after that, spell availability was down to the GM. It's all there in the DMG. It also tended to get handily forgotten by players assuming they could pick their optimal spell set from the lists.

What got eroded, IMO, was the willingness of DMs to stand up to M-U powergaming. I found the best way round that was to play at levels 3-8.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why? Why do people not want people who can rewrite reality on their side and consider them much more valuble than someone who can swing a sword really well. In terms of strategic resources, the wizard has them - and you can hire a couple of dozen thugs. Where does the fighting man get his connections from? Thin air? There is more incentive for wizards to cooperate with people (and trade spells) than there is for fighters - trading spells and you both win. Where do these notions come from?

It is a question of trust. Wizards can be mysterious and bend normal folks to thier own purposes. Wizards can certainly be very valuable allies. If you know that someone can rewrite reality when it pleases them in manner you do not understand in such a way that you would never even realize that it had happened how much could you really trust them?

The fighting man gains his connections through his actions. A fighter could choose to give up those connections by taking his soldiers and fighting other nobles instead of befriending them. A couple dozen hired thugs are not equal to a company of sworn loyal men who show up to serve you after hearing how badass you are.

So a wizard is a cleric is a druid? Right. That works. But everyone should be able to do some things others can't. And that's the root of the problem.

And so it has always been. A wizard can't fight like fighter any more than a fighter can cast spells.

So. Your point isn't that wizards can't do what fighters do. It's that they only leave it to the fighters because they have better things to do. Fighters are given keeps as consolation prizes while wizards get spells - wizards could have keeps too if they actually wanted them but normally can't be bothered. Yes, that sounds about right.

My point is that being a wizard allows you to do certain things well and that being a fighter allows you to do different things well. Engaging in activities outside the scope of your class is somewhat counter-productive. It is part of using a class based system. If you don't want any real differences between the classes beyond cosmetic ones then don't use classes.

 

[Bluenose]

How many NPC spellcasters do your PCs kill over the course of a typical campaign?

How much narrative authority did they have?

Exactly as much as the GM chose to give them.