Nobody will play a wizard or sorcerer!
- Thread starter Bystander
- Start date
CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
Uller said:
...and bards and experts and assassins and various other prestige classes with high Use Magic Devide skills.
I can't understand this thread. Most of the time people are ranting about how strong the wizard is (I for one was embroiled in a big battle with Mal Malenkirk over mid-level killer wizards) and they clearly dominate at high-level. And no-one wants to play them?
Granted, they are weaker at the low-levels. But then if you're an Enchanter (say) with Spellcasting Prodigy, maxed out Int and Spell Focus, you can throw 4 spells a day at first level, and seeing as how Sleep can end an encounter there and then (DC18save) I don't see how wizards are weak.
In my current campaign, the party is around 10th-14th level, and no less than 3 of 6 are wizards (specialists to be precise- one necromancer, one enchanter and one transmuter). Whilst the level may be a factor, the ONLY player to be on his original character is the one with the enchanter. Curious, no?
And last time I was a PC, I played a wizard. I was de facto party leader, had the highest experience, was probably the party's greatest asset in damage-dealing capacity and was the only one to not get killed/captured by a misjudged uberboss encounter.
If your PCs are refusing to play wizards/sorcerers, then they don't know how to play them properly. If they're worried about few HPs, take a Toughness or two (definitely be human). I wouldn't personally, but then I'm usually careful. Improved Initiative can go a long way toward mage survival, and of course they should stand right at the back. In terms of assault power, this shouldn't be a problem. Colour Spray and Sleep are FAR more effective than a single first level fighter, and Scribe Scroll enables you to extend your utility even further.
Granted, they are weaker at the low-levels. But then if you're an Enchanter (say) with Spellcasting Prodigy, maxed out Int and Spell Focus, you can throw 4 spells a day at first level, and seeing as how Sleep can end an encounter there and then (DC18save) I don't see how wizards are weak.
In my current campaign, the party is around 10th-14th level, and no less than 3 of 6 are wizards (specialists to be precise- one necromancer, one enchanter and one transmuter). Whilst the level may be a factor, the ONLY player to be on his original character is the one with the enchanter. Curious, no?
And last time I was a PC, I played a wizard. I was de facto party leader, had the highest experience, was probably the party's greatest asset in damage-dealing capacity and was the only one to not get killed/captured by a misjudged uberboss encounter.
If your PCs are refusing to play wizards/sorcerers, then they don't know how to play them properly. If they're worried about few HPs, take a Toughness or two (definitely be human). I wouldn't personally, but then I'm usually careful. Improved Initiative can go a long way toward mage survival, and of course they should stand right at the back. In terms of assault power, this shouldn't be a problem. Colour Spray and Sleep are FAR more effective than a single first level fighter, and Scribe Scroll enables you to extend your utility even further.
Arcane Runes Press
First Post
My Two Cents;
Never let your players believe that Sorcerers and, especially, Wizards are "dead weight" simply because their spells are gone for the day.
Sorcerer- In a party without a Bard (and to a lesser degree the Paladin) the Sorcerer is likely to have the highest Charisma in the party, making him the default party spokesman. Even without the class skills, a +4 Charisma modifier can make all the difference when trying to convince the guards to let you pass, or when trying to intimidate the gang leader or charm the mayor's wife. Many conflicts can be avoided by simple application of the Sorcerer's strength of will.
Wizard- Don't forget that the average Wizard is a GENIUS level intellect. He's got the knowledge skills and the logical facility to reason out the toughest puzzles. Brainpower is just as good as arcane power.
As a DM, the best way to keep low level arcanists alive is to remember that not every adventure revolves around blowing monsters to pieces. Give them challenges that involve non-violent interaction- they'll gain a couple levels with reduced physical risk, giving them the cushion of higher level spells and more hit points. THEN throw the ogres at them.
Never let your players believe that Sorcerers and, especially, Wizards are "dead weight" simply because their spells are gone for the day.
Sorcerer- In a party without a Bard (and to a lesser degree the Paladin) the Sorcerer is likely to have the highest Charisma in the party, making him the default party spokesman. Even without the class skills, a +4 Charisma modifier can make all the difference when trying to convince the guards to let you pass, or when trying to intimidate the gang leader or charm the mayor's wife. Many conflicts can be avoided by simple application of the Sorcerer's strength of will.
Wizard- Don't forget that the average Wizard is a GENIUS level intellect. He's got the knowledge skills and the logical facility to reason out the toughest puzzles. Brainpower is just as good as arcane power.
As a DM, the best way to keep low level arcanists alive is to remember that not every adventure revolves around blowing monsters to pieces. Give them challenges that involve non-violent interaction- they'll gain a couple levels with reduced physical risk, giving them the cushion of higher level spells and more hit points. THEN throw the ogres at them.
Marius Delphus
Adventurer
"Bipolar" Reaction to Playing Spellcasters
Well, the "bipolar" thing pretty much summarizes my point actually. Most players I run into have one of two reactions to playing a spellcaster (of either stripe): "heck yeah!" or "heck no!" Nothing in between. I tend toward "heck yeah!" myself. In fact, I tend to feel a bit frustrated in a game if I don't have any spells to cast. Thankfully, in most groups I've gamed with I've been able to exploit this craving of mine.
Personally, I suspect part of the dilemma is that figuring out what all those spells do requires research on the part of the player, and some people just aren't going to put in that kind of time/effort on behalf of a fictional character. C'est la vie, of course: I can certainly understand why someone would prefer to spend time playing instead of trying to puzzle through spells. And I don't think it's limited to arcane spellcasters.
[ObExample1![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
In one particular (recent) group of four players, I got "stuck" with both spellcasters (there were five characters distributed for that game). As if that weren't enough, the player with the high-level paladin (several semi-useful to useful spells available) chose to cast no spells whatsoever.
[ObExample2 One new player I introduced to the game wanted more than anything to be a wizard, but when confronted with having to learn what her spells did, she became frustrated and disillusioned. I'm still in the middle of designing a "flex spell" system for her, stealing bits from Ars Magica 4E, FUDGE Gramarye, DL5A, and a few other things... but that's another story... the point is, this player wants to be a "heck yes" but she's headed toward "heck no"....
Well, the "bipolar" thing pretty much summarizes my point actually. Most players I run into have one of two reactions to playing a spellcaster (of either stripe): "heck yeah!" or "heck no!" Nothing in between. I tend toward "heck yeah!" myself. In fact, I tend to feel a bit frustrated in a game if I don't have any spells to cast. Thankfully, in most groups I've gamed with I've been able to exploit this craving of mine.
Personally, I suspect part of the dilemma is that figuring out what all those spells do requires research on the part of the player, and some people just aren't going to put in that kind of time/effort on behalf of a fictional character. C'est la vie, of course: I can certainly understand why someone would prefer to spend time playing instead of trying to puzzle through spells. And I don't think it's limited to arcane spellcasters.
[ObExample1
In one particular (recent) group of four players, I got "stuck" with both spellcasters (there were five characters distributed for that game). As if that weren't enough, the player with the high-level paladin (several semi-useful to useful spells available) chose to cast no spells whatsoever.[ObExample2
One new player I introduced to the game wanted more than anything to be a wizard, but when confronted with having to learn what her spells did, she became frustrated and disillusioned. I'm still in the middle of designing a "flex spell" system for her, stealing bits from Ars Magica 4E, FUDGE Gramarye, DL5A, and a few other things... but that's another story... the point is, this player wants to be a "heck yes" but she's headed toward "heck no"....Re: I don't agree
The issue isn't whether the 1st level wizard can survive. As I mentioned myself, there are ways to keep the character alive despite their weaknesses. The issue is how much a 1st level wizard (and to a lesser extent, a 1st level sorc) can contribute to the party.
All I'm saying is that at low levels, it's more likely that the party will be carrying the wizard as opposed to the other way round. There are undoubtedly good reasons to do this (you definitely want a wizard around when they finally get their boom spells, for example). However, that doesn't change the issue at hand, which is that wizards are weak at low levels.
This has been a feature of D&D since 1E and earlier; wizards were utter wimps at low levels, rising to demigods later on. 3E flattens out the power curve somewhat, but it's still more extreme than for most other classes.
Darklone said:
The issue isn't whether the 1st level wizard can survive. As I mentioned myself, there are ways to keep the character alive despite their weaknesses. The issue is how much a 1st level wizard (and to a lesser extent, a 1st level sorc) can contribute to the party.
All I'm saying is that at low levels, it's more likely that the party will be carrying the wizard as opposed to the other way round. There are undoubtedly good reasons to do this (you definitely want a wizard around when they finally get their boom spells, for example). However, that doesn't change the issue at hand, which is that wizards are weak at low levels.
This has been a feature of D&D since 1E and earlier; wizards were utter wimps at low levels, rising to demigods later on. 3E flattens out the power curve somewhat, but it's still more extreme than for most other classes.
My campaign; One guy enjoys elves and clerics (or both), one enjoys rogues and scoundrels, one enjoys druids and barbarians, another enjoys bards and pacificts (you know who you are..), and i enjoys unusual characters, and usually dont prefers spellcasters, unless as a second class.
Hmmmm. I wonder why. Usually we are missing a cleric/spellcaster or a rogue, if one of the mentioned players is absent.
Hmmmm. I wonder why. Usually we are missing a cleric/spellcaster or a rogue, if one of the mentioned players is absent.
Zerovoid
First Post
Even at low levels mages have a role to play. You won't need them as often as fighters, but you should need them. Magic Missle always hits, even against very high AC boss monsters that are making the fighters miss. Plus, sometimes you need magic to damage enemies. Shadows are a staple of low level adventures, and they can only be hit by magic weapons 50% of the time, or by spells. Now is the wizard's time to shine. He can use Magic Weapon and Magic Missile and save the party from these fiends. Also, sleep is ludicrously powerful on the first few adventures, when almost everything you meet is 4th level or less.
Cloudgatherer
First Post
Hell, I'll play a wizard. I'll play a wizard and a sorcerer! I can role play two different characters....
