Should Wizardry Require Player Intelligence?

[James Gasik]

There's always Deadlands magic, where you have to assemble a winning poker hand or else...

 

[PvtTommyAtkins]

I don't think a player of a wizard requires intelligence- however it should require involvement. Regardless of system magic tends to be something that gets (at least) a chapter dedicated just to its own special mechanics. So the player should be familiar with those and know all the fiddily bits of what their character CAN do. Especially when you can start modifying spells (adding power like Hackmaster, meta magic etc etc.)

But wait shouldn't that be fore all the other classes? Well, yes. But the fighter doesn't have to read the combat section AND the magic section- I expect the wizard to do that. There is also the factor of choice paralysis. Fighter- yup, I'm attacking again vs. wizard- which of these 12 spells is just right for the occasion.

There are lots of aids for wizards from writing some favorites on the character sheet to spells on 3x5 cards to manage spell slots, a list of poker hand values for the deadlands example above, etc. mostly it is just a matter of finding what works for the player to solve any issues.

 

[pemerton]

In Burning Wheel, the player of a Faithful PC has to speak their prayer, as part of the action declaration of praying. The dice are then rolled to see if the prayer is answered - the difficulty of the roll is determined from a list of effects, but the list of effects doesn't set out any prayers to be spoken. That's a matter for the player and the table.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm Brannich Blacksmoke.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

You can play a simple wizard by spamming cantrips, magic missile and fireball. And some people play that way. Is that the most helpful and optimal way to play a wizard? No. Is it feasible in a long term game? Yes.

Likewise, you can play a rogue who never uses opportunities to use sneak attack and never hides and never uses their abilities to their full potential.

As stated early in this thread, it would be nice to have options for non-spellcasters to have more complex and interesting abilities that will tax and challenge creative players.

Instead of making spellcasters ‘easier’ to play, it would be nice if all classes had a variety of complexity that was fun but not mandatory.

Edit: I think this less about player intelligence and more about system mastery.

 

[GMMichael]

You can play a simple wizard by spamming cantrips, magic missile and fireball. And some people play that way. Is that the most helpful and optimal way to play a wizard? No. Is it feasible in a long term game? Yes. . .

Edit: I think this less about player intelligence and more about system mastery.

What's the difference? Doesn't system mastery require some additional thought? I've seen a few posts mentioning that some wizard players already have more mental work to do than players of other characters.

Does the poll's overwhelming "no" suggest that wizard players think their jobs are currently too hard?

If you require a player whose character is casting a spell to have to solve a puzzle during a journaling game, that's one thing, but a group TTRPG, whether it's D&D or Mage: The Awakening or Ars Magica, at best it slows down play . . .

That's kind of pessimistic. I'd say that the best outcome is that the wizard player feels more challenge, more involved, in the spell-creation process, and the other players feel some vicarious excitement while hoping the wizard creates something that will help all allies. And maybe not risk blowing someone up. Unfortunately, I haven't played Ars Magica (yet), so I don't know what those players experience, watching spells get whipped up at the table.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You need at least a 1350 SAT score to get into wizard school.

SATs require intelligence?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

SATs require intelligence?

To the extent that we can measure intelligence (we can't), SATs are tightly correlated to IQ tests. (Divide your SAT score by 10 and it's damned close to your IQ test, in most cases.)

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

What's the difference? Doesn't system mastery require some additional thought? I've seen a few posts mentioning that some wizard players already have more mental work to do than players of other characters.

Does the poll's overwhelming "no" suggest that wizard players think their jobs are currently too hard?


That's kind of pessimistic. I'd say that the best outcome is that the wizard player feels more challenge, more involved, in the spell-creation process, and the other players feel some vicarious excitement while hoping the wizard creates something that will help all allies. And maybe not risk blowing someone up. Unfortunately, I haven't played Ars Magica (yet), so I don't know what those players experience, watching spells get whipped up at the table.

System mastery doesn’t require intelligence, it requires time. Intelligence might help you to master the system quicker, I suppose.

system mastery doesn’t help people with terrible tactics and, if you have terrible tactics, it doesn’t matter what class you’re playing. Just because you know every fighter maneuver doesn’t mean you’ll know when best to use them.

 

[Celebrim]

system mastery doesn’t help people with terrible tactics and, if you have terrible tactics, it doesn’t matter what class you’re playing. Just because you know every fighter maneuver doesn’t mean you’ll know when best to use them.

No, but for all of D&D's history with the possible exception of 4e it's been easy to make a fighter that is "Johnny One-Trick" where the trick is hitting everything with a sharpened stick as hard as you can until it stops moving. A Brute type fighter is both effective, satisfying to play, and straight forward most of the time in its tactics unless the GM is very creative. And if the "brute" has missile weapons or missile weapon focus, well that tends to negate almost all tactics - you can just be a turret and shoot everything.