Instant Wizard?

[The_Ditto]

I have something of a problem with one becoming an instant wizard at 2nd level while on the campaign trail and keeping up with the other players.

You're not the only one ..

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html

Other option exists if they want a rogue/wizard style character .. there are a couple other base classes that fit the bill ... spell thief comes to mind ... I'm sure there are others ..
*shrug*

 

[Jdvn1]

It applies to starting any new class. I want them to at least get some training when they begin.

I'll look at the apprentice level rules.

S

Why can't they teach themselves?

 

[Sigurd]

To every one who replied, thank you.

I appreciate all the ways people mentioned to rework the game world to make this fit with role play. The device and the instant mentor had crossed my mind.

Maybe I'm too demanding but I still think there should be a Tradition involved with Wizards a Clergy involved with Clerics and training guilds with the other classes. I don't think it is unreasonable to tell a player that they need the groundings in a new base class before they can progress in it. Telling characters before they dip (I have no idea if this is the players actual intention) seems like the fair thing to do.

I don't mind the ideas for the training crutches presented but there is only so much I will tweak the adventure path we are in. Using this as a general rule would fill the world with teaching books and roaming mentors - opening up the question of how much are the items worth and what would the mentor do if the party was attacked.


If the character gets inventive I'll try and enable. If the character simply assumes they might have to take another level of rogue or wait till after training is available and received.

A lot of teachers who are very good at their skills would teach because they simply dont want to adventure. They are a useful cause for cities, sages, and markets. I think I will side with verisimilitude on this one and stick to my guns.

sigurd

 

[phindar]

I could almost argue it from the other side; a wizard goes out on the trail and quickly picks up a bunch of skills, learning how to attack vitals and find all manner of complicated traps. As opposed to the rogue who goes wizard and learns how to cast maybe two first level spells a day.

Story-wise, Wizards are supposed to spend years learning how to cast that first 0-level spell. Rogues are supposed to spend years learning how to find a trap. Fighters are supposed to spend years learning how to, well, fight. But mechanically, a wizard can adventure for a few days (depending on how you spread out the encounters, but first level doesn't last long) and pick up a level of fighter as easily as anything else.

Personally, I find that there are areas of the rules that are best served by not thinking too hard about (and there are areas of the rules I obsess over), but I sympathize with your dilemna here. On the whole, when it comes down to these issues I'd rather the game make sense than be balanced (if you'll forgive those highly subjective to the point of being meaningless terms).

Side Note: If the character levels and decides to pick up a level of Sorcerer instead of Wizard, would you be cool with that? Other than being a thoroughly pointless deception, having a Sorcerer/Rogue pretend to be a Wizard is kind of a neat idea (but then in 2e I had a F/M/T go three levels pretending to be mute, so what do I know?)

 

[Sigurd]

If the character levels and decides to pick up a level of Sorcerer instead of Wizard, would you be cool with that?

Sorcerers are supposed to be innate so who's to say they ever need any training.


My question about sorcerers is what triggers the change? Are players responsible for finding a trigger? Should there be an element of chance involved?

Its probably beyond the scope of the game but I could see a game rule where if you didn't start as a sorcerer you'd need some sort of transcendent experience or ritual to become one later.

It would probably sit poorly with most players though.


Sigurd

So, functionally, no I'd have no problem with an instant sorcerer.

 

[IceFractal]

If he was always planning to be a Wizard, then there's no problem - he did do the years of training, and was 90% of the way to becoming a Wizard, he just couldn't quite make the final leap to actual spellcasting. Then after some time adventuring, he finally understood things and was able to start casting spells.

 

[Sigurd]

If he was always planning to be a Wizard, then there's no problem - he did do the years of training, and was 90% of the way to becoming a Wizard, he just couldn't quite make the final leap to actual spellcasting. Then after some time adventuring, he finally understood things and was able to start casting spells.

I would respect a character that wanted to take 3 levels of wizard skill points and then start as a rogue only to go back later.

The cheese is in taking one level or rogue for the 4 times bonus at first level and then becoming a spellcaster. 6 extra skill points times 4 with instant payback.


Sigurd

 

[Nifft]

I would respect a character that wanted to take 3 levels of wizard skill points and then start as a rogue only to go back later.

The cheese is in taking one level or rogue for the 4 times bonus at first level and then becoming a spellcaster. 6 extra skill points times 4 with instant payback.

I just don't see this as cheese, though. IMHO Cheese is getting something for nothing through a rules loophole -- for example, the "Lesser Planetouched" in some FR supplement who get +2 to a mental ability score and can lawyer their way into getting all Martial weapon proficiencies (since their type is Outsider) without wasting a level taking a non-Wizard class.

IMHO, the guy your player has in his head is a skillful guy. He wants to play a wizard who's less magical but more skillful. He's paying a caster level to get a skill benefit. Why can't he get the biggest benefit for his sacrifice?

If there were two feats, one which gave a +2 and one which gave a +4 (but you had to take the +4 feat at 1st level), would you call him cheesy for taking the +4 feat at 1st level?

- - -

However, discussing what's cheese vs. what's just trying to make the best PC which resembles the guy in someone's head may not be the best use of our time. How about instead, we modify the Wizard class to make it palatable for this PC:

+ 6 skill points / level with full Rogue + Wizard skill lists. He's still inferior to a Rogue in the skill department, mainly because spellcasters are practically required to invest heavily in Spellcraft and Concentration.

Now, what should he pay for this?
- No Familiar
- No free Scribe Scroll feat, and no bonus feats every 5 levels

IMHO, this is a reasonable trade off. Remove some of the big front-loaded stuff (2.5 free feats) from a Wizard, in trade for some other big front-loaded stuff (+16 skill points at 1st level, +4 every other level, better class skills). The thing is, free skills don't really power up a Wizard like free item creation feats do... but it may be a trade-off you're both willing to live with.

Cheers, -- N

 

[rgard]

I'm wondering how to work with this situation in a game.

Char seems to want to be the ultimate skill monkey.
We are playing with a point buy system and he has pillaged his other stats to make his intelligence 20+.
He is beginning as a rogue pretending to be a wizard. I think he is going to be a wizard by 2nd level but he wants the extra 24 skill points he gets from rogue at first level.


I don't have a problem with the rogue level but I am trying to reflect this strategy in the real life game.

I have something of a problem with one becoming an instant wizard at 2nd level while on the campaign trail and keeping up with the other players.


Do you think it unfair that I insist he find a suitable mage tutor to make learning to be a wizard believable?

What have you done with similar situations?



Sigurd

To be clear, I don't have a problem with the basic strategy - I think it underscores a basic skill weakness in the wizard. I'd just like to have a reasonable way to achieve it in the game world.

The worst I'd make the player do is write up his character's backstory including something about being interested in magic previously, reflected by skill points assigned to Knowledge Arcane. The easiest I would let him off is to require nothing.

Multi-classing is part of the rules. I don't see any reason to hinder him from doing this.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[DogBackward]

Flip-flops are cool... sometimes.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with the basic strategy - I think it underscores a basic skill weakness in the wizard. I'd just like to have a reasonable way to achieve it in the game world.

The cheese is in taking one level or rogue for the 4 times bonus at first level and then becoming a spellcaster. 6 extra skill points times 4 with instant payback.

Change your mind all of a sudden?

As was mentioned... this is in no way cheesy. First of all, multiclassing is, in fact, part of the system. If you don't want multiclassing... well, deal with it, because its there. And yeah, there will be plenty of people marching in saying you can RUle 0 it out. Good luck keeping your players after that.

Second, it's not even really that big a deal. Oh, sure, your wizard can sneak really well... for now. As he gains his wizard levels, he'll have to place cross-class ranks in them, which will slow that acquisition pretty well. And it'll also take ranks away from Spellcraft, Knowledge (Arcana) and Concentration, which every wizard needs. And he's losing a caster level, which is a big deal for a spellcaster. That means slower acquisition of higher level spells, less spells per day, and less powerful spells.

And sure, you could argue that he's also got Sneak Attack +1d6 to help. But I'd love to see a wizard with SA 1d6 try and use it effectively. And yeah, he could use it with his precious ray spells. The extra 1d6 damage might even make up for the die of damage he's losing from his caster level hit. And even then, it's only effective if the foe's in a bad position already.

Bottom line, something I've been trying to tell DM's like you for the longest time. The most important one is this; If you limit your players for no reason, if you arbitrarily decide to do things that detract from the fun of the game, then you will soon find yourself without any players. Unless you're in one of those situations where you're the only DM around, in which case... I hope they castrate you for putting them in the postiion of playing a bad game or not playing at all.

DnD is about having fun, and creating a good, interesting story. None of what this character is doing will detract from either. he'll have fun with a semi-rogue-ish wizard, and the other players won't lose any fun, because it's not an overpowering build. And a rogue who finally achieves his lifelong dream of casting magic makes for a good story.

You, on the other hand, are trying to take the fun away, just because you don't have a good grasp of the balance of the game, and have decided that someone training their whole life, but failing until just now, isn't realistic.

Bottom line: If it's fun, do it. That's what the game's all about.