My first Wizard, opinions please.

[Parlan]

Here's my opinions.

1) Keep the leather armor. The people who recommended that you ditch it seriously do not know what they are talking about. ... If the combats are so close that those spells mean the difference between life and death anyway, then you are already dead due to sheer bad luck day.

combat's don't need to be close for a fizzled spell to ruin your day. you run up to two orcs and cast color spray (pretty common situation right?) you fail your ASF roll.

they end you.


to settle the armor question you gotta ask yourself one question:

Do you feel lucky? Well do ya, punk?

 

[irdeggman]

irdeggman, you seem to be really focused on the rest of the party always protecting the Wizard.

Yes, since it is a team game in 3.5. I'm also focused on protecting the cleric too, as well as any injured PCs. I just think that way - that is how to best take advantage of the entire group's skills and abilities instead of relying on any single character.

Were you not aware that some monsters can run faster than a running Wizard?

See my note on taking Expeditious Retreat instead (+30 ft to movement rate - pretty much covers this one I think). Well at least it follows my logic and set up.

Or that some creatures and NPCs have ranged attacks?

Yes and so do all PCs, even wizards take some sort of ranged weapon with them in every game I've played in, usually light crossbows. Hence the recommendation for Improved Intitiative for wizards (and it is a must have for rogues by the way).

Or that sometimes, other PCs will be busy in a fight?

See running away option.

Or that the PCs might be outnumbered?

Really see the running away option it is important.

And some opponents will focus on a Wizard precisely because the Wizard is not wearing armor (i.e. an easy unarmored target that taking out will help the odds of the opposing group).

True enough. But by the same token paying attention to the character in light armor is also essential. Or don't you worry about geting flanked by a rogue?

Or, do you play in a safe and cheerful world where the DM would never dream of attacking the PC Wizard at first level?

Nope - I usually play in a game where the PCs work as a team, each accentuating the strengths of the others and minimize the weaknesses of their compatriots. Oh wait that is the entire basis of 3.5 instead of the way things were in 2nd ed where everyone was was rewarded for individual actions insteaad of working together. All exp in (well except for role-playing awards) are based on team work and split amongst all players.

The times my wizards died were when they behaved more like fighters instead of wizards. IMO relying on armor for protection will likely give a player a false sense of security on how frail a wizard truely is when it comes down to melee combat. "Hey I've got a 17 AC, thats even better than the fighter so I'm safe." One natural 20 and a confirmed crit later. . . . Heck most times the confirmed critical isn't even necessary.

Btw, thanks for reminding me that a Wizard in Leather Armor should often be considered a semi-combatant type for enemies and hence, should not be auto-targeted immediately because he does not look like a Wizard (i.e. no robes, etc.). I know most intelligent opponents in our games target spell casters as soon as they find out about them precisely because they can be the greatest threat.

Yet another very good reason to wear Leather Armor as a first level Wizard. Camouflage.

See above comment about paying attention to those pesky rogues in light armor and their nasty sneak attack. At 1st level a rogue's sneak attack is usually more deadly than a wizard is with his most powerful spell.

Gosh, you guys are so stereotype minded.

I guess when dealing with "typical" situation questions then we generally answer in the "typical" fasion instead of (notice I used instead of as opposed to vice thoroughout this post )

My comment about your focus on spellcaster in combat was also based on the other thread discussions where you bring up examples of psions and sorcerers in melee very frequently using them as a means to determine advantages/disadvantages of certain classes.

 

[KarinsDad]

True enough. But by the same token paying attention to the character in light armor is also essential. Or don't you worry about geting flanked by a rogue?

Or flanked by the Druid in leather, or the Fighter in leather who spent his money on a crossbow instead of a armor, etc.

Assuming that a character in Leather = Rogue is metagaming, something the NPCs shouldn't do.

Besides, you are arguing that the Wizard shouldn't fight. So if he shouldn't fight, why exactly would he attempt to get into a flank position?

The times my wizards died were when they behaved more like fighters instead of wizards. IMO relying on armor for protection will likely give a player a false sense of security on how frail a wizard truely is when it comes down to melee combat. "Hey I've got a 17 AC, thats even better than the fighter so I'm safe." One natural 20 and a confirmed crit later. . . . Heck most times the confirmed critical isn't even necessary.

So, now you are claiming that other people play stupid (that is what false sense of security means for someone who cannot figure it out, isn't it?), just because they put the Wizard in armor?

Hmmm.

Or, is it that they are stupid if they do not play like you do?

My comment about your focus on spellcaster in combat was also based on the other thread discussions where you bring up examples of psions and sorcerers in melee very frequently using them as a means to determine advantages/disadvantages of certain classes.

The point is that if you do not consider melee and ranged weapons attacks (the most common forms of attacks at lower levels) for the arcane (and psionic) classes, then you are setting yourself up for a fall.

What I don't understand is why you do not see that even if you do not want to use Leather Armor while the Wizard still has his two whopping spells in a given day, why it isn't a very good move to do so once those spells are gone? It's not as if the zeroth level spells are critical at that point.

 

[Angerland]

"fales sense of security" does not mean stupid, let's be careful with our words here. In any case. Until this character gets at least a few exp so he can start making a scroll or two for some protection spells I will stick with the armor. I have faith in my dice rolling, maybe I shouldn't but I feel confident. If I do fail a roll in a critical situation well then we get a good opportunity for some role playing as oppsed to roll playing then right? He is still, after all, a new wizard...things can happen.

I have no illusions that wearing any kind of armor is going to make him any kind of melee combatant. The club & dagger are for emergencies only. I plan to make good use of the crossbow as much as possible, therefore I will do my best to stay in cover and out of melee range.

Again, I appreciate the discussin here but lets be careful.

 

[KarinsDad]

"fales sense of security" does not mean stupid, let's be careful with our words here.

irdeggman directly stated that the player of a Wizard wearing armor might get a false sense of security and have the Wizard go fight. That implies that the people who would choose to armor a Wizard also have the potential to be disillusioned about the security of their Wizard. Implying that someone is disillusioned is pretty darn close to implying that they are inexperienced, stupid, or some other mentally inpaired state. Taking leather armor is not a bad strategy, it is a good strategy and implying that someone who does this strategy might make other tactical errors in the game is demeaning.

Personally, the fact that you picked Leather Armor for your PC before anyone even suggested it implies to me that you would not be a player who gets "a false sense of security".

In any case. Until this character gets at least a few exp so he can start making a scroll or two for some protection spells I will stick with the armor. I have faith in my dice rolling, maybe I shouldn't but I feel confident. If I do fail a roll in a critical situation well then we get a good opportunity for some role playing as oppsed to roll playing then right? He is still, after all, a new wizard...things can happen.

Good for you. Stick to your guns.

And, it is not a matter of just rolling well. Both good and bad rolls can and will happen in a game.

It's a matter of playing the odds. Wearing leather armor 24 hours a day and preparing two offensive spells per day gives you better odds of surviving than either casting Mage Armor for one hour per day and preparing one offensive spell (unless you only ever get into one combat per day), or than preparing two offensive spells per day and having no leather armor.

It's debatable as to whether the strategy of wearing leather armor all of the time and preparing 2 offensive spells is better than preparing 2 offensive spells and only wearing the armor once those spells are cast, but in either case here, you still are wearing the leather armor the majority of the time.

 

[irdeggman]

Or flanked by the Druid in leather, or the Fighter in leather who spent his money on a crossbow instead of a armor, etc.

And since you went to great lengths to point out the advantage of wearing armor why would a fighter not get the best armor he could afford? Especially since he is the character most likely to take the most damage in any given encounter.

Assuming that a character in Leather = Rogue is metagaming, something the NPCs shouldn't do.

So is assuming that the person not in armor is a spellcaster isn't it? Could he just be a nobleman with his itinerant guards? In that case you wouldn't want to attack him first now would you? Since ransoming him is a standard way of getting income for bandits and such.

Besides, you are arguing that the Wizard shouldn't fight. So if he shouldn't fight, why exactly would he attempt to get into a flank position?

I don't see your point here. I never said that the wizard would be attempting to flank. I said that the opponents would keep an eye on the person in light armor with the assumption he would/might be flanking. Hence the attack them early before you lose track of them. Now he could also be a ranger or druid or other nature oriented character. But since the weapon selections for wizards and rogues are more similar than those of rangers and rogues or rogues and druids well there is some sort of logic here.

So, now you are claiming that other people play stupid (that is what false sense of security means for someone who cannot figure it out, isn't it?), just because they put the Wizard in armor?

Hmmm.

Or, is it that they are stupid if they do not play like you do?

]

Now I guess I am being insulted here.

The point is that if you do not consider melee and ranged weapons attacks (the most common forms of attacks at lower levels) for the arcane (and psionic) classes, then you are setting yourself up for a fall.

This is a legitimate point, but it is not the only point. Wizards have a clear role in any party and that role includes staying out of harms way so they can aid the rest of the party.

What I don't understand is why you do not see that even if you do not want to use Leather Armor while the Wizard still has his two whopping spells in a given day, why it isn't a very good move to do so once those spells are gone? It's not as if the zeroth level spells are critical at that point.

That would be the crossbow for offense.

The 16 Int wizard gets 3 - 0 and 2 1st level spells.

At first (and low levels) the use of 0-level spells should not discounted (assuming the enconter is against appropriate level foes, i.e., no higher than 4 HD). Daze works real well and buying time. Disrupt Undead is good for those what should be relatively few undead encounters at low levels (or at least few undead per encounter).

As far as armor goes, as someone else pointed out get a heavy shield instead (same AC bonus and it can be dropped or equipped with a move action and it stacks with mage armor.

 

[Infiniti2000]

So, now you are claiming that other people play stupid (that is what false sense of security means for someone who cannot figure it out, isn't it?), just because they put the Wizard in armor?

Hmmm.

Or, is it that they are stupid if they do not play like you do?

Goodness, but you took things way out of proportion. Are you trying to start a flame war with irdeggman? That's what it seems like from the outside. I see absolutely nothing constructive coming from this discussion after the above comments. IMO, irdeggman in no way, shape, or shape form insinuated that anyone was being stupid by the "false sense of security" comment.

Edit: irdeggman: "Now I guess I am being insulted here."

Yes, you are, and you are not the only one reading it that way and it's a one-way flame. I applaud you for your lack of flaming retort.

 

[irdeggman]

Infiniti2000 and Angerland thanks for the support in me not calling anyone stupid, which wasn't the intent.

Angerland, it is your character so you need to do what you think is best and most definitely play him by whatever theme you choose for him.

Personnally I find that dwarven wizards tend to mesh well with artificer types and thus more combat oriented, which was why I suggested the level of fighter. Other than the sheer amount of starting feats you'd get - there is a built in theme that follows that progression. Spells that augment battle and fighting.

There was a series of articles in Dragon when 3.0 came out on the various races. They had a good write up on dwarves, their language, slang and how they viewed different clases. One of the concepts was for a dwarven artificer whcih was a class combo, a concept that has gone by the wayside in the years since then. But the idea was that the character took levels of fighter and wizard and focused on item creation feats that augmented battle.

 

[Zephyrus]

One of my favorite feats for wizards is Colligate Wizard (at least thats the name I remember it, I'm not sure if it got changed. I think it originally appeared in a Dragon Magazine). But it basically gives additional automatic spells every level. So instead of 2 automatic's a level you'd get 4. Expecially usefull depending on the campaign and frequency of encountering spellbooks and research time.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A few notes:

Point Blank Shot (and later Precise Shot) is not a bad choice for a spellcaster, especially wizards and sorcerors who have alot of ranged (touch) attack spells.
At first levels, they are very interesting since the few spells a 1st level caster can cast won't bring him through the day, and melee combat is not a good option. Especially a caster with such a high Dex will be very effective in ranged combat, and not fall behind the groups fghter in attack bonus (until the enemy is engaged in melee)

There are a lot of other feats that are good, too, and in the end it comes down to what you prefer.
I think only very few feats are actually essential for a spellcaster - Spell Penetration definitely is a must for anyone with a lot of offensive spells, and Extend Spell probably for defensive caster. Both won't help much in the first few levels, since SR creatures and spell slots are rare.
Item Creation feats are nice, but unfortunately, you often don't have the time to use them.

Wearing Leather Armor is not the worst choice. The 10 % spell failure will probably hinder as much as the +2 to armor will help (probably both will not come up often)

I understand why several people suggest switching the base Strength and Charisma scores, but the truth is that Charisma matters as much for a Wizard as it does for a Fighter. A high Strength at least allows the Dwarf to carry his equipment without falling to medium load or heavy load, and at early levels, the character can still be effective in a melee situation (even if that's not where he should be)

The riskiest choice I think is actually the choice of playing a unspecialized wizard.
Sure, losing 2 spell schools is hard (I prefer Diviners for that reason), but the extra spell per day is nice (though for Diviners, it is more "nice to have" than actually powerful, I admit).
A Generalist is probably a suboptimal choice, but this might be compensated by the good stats. And Generalist at least allows the Wizard to have a incredibly wide spell reportoire with no lacks. Certainly a nice choice to "train" playing a caster, since there will be no spell you haven't looked at to know if you should copy/learn or memorize it...