The Mysterious Mage vs. Pew Pew

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's 2011. The secret is out, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Edition Wizards use Vancian Magic. If you play a wizard knowing you dislike Vancian Magic and the playstyle of the class, it is your fault. The strengths and weaknesses of the class are well known today.

This thread is about the history of the game and when and why wizards changed from their earlier incarnations to the modern one.

Unless someone is wasting a time machine on better RPG experiences in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the games available in 2011 aren't really relevant.

 

[FireLance]

You can certainly do that, but then you don't have any real difference between magic-users and fighters. I like different classes being different.

There are other ways to emphasize the difference between magic-users and fighters, beyond the frequency and power of their attacks:

- relative fragility
- propensity for ranged or melee attacks
- non-combat skills (intellectual vs. physical)
- damage type (weapon vs. energy)
- non-damage effects (e.g. 4E conditions)
- flavor

Of course, nothing stops a game system from allowing individual characters to blur even more of those lines.

 

[S'mon]

And "hey, if you're not having fun, it's your fault" is a pretty lame attitude, and one that smart game designers don't indulge in. Given the amount of playtesting 3E went through, I suspect they heard from a lot of people that announcing "I cower again" sucked and changed 3E wizards as a result.

3e wizards cower for 2 levels, are moderately useful for 2 levels, then dominate the non-casters from levels 5+. Basically the same as 1e. The big difference from 1e is that in 3e they have strong competition from CoDzilla.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

When was the fictional/mythical/folkloric archetype of the wizard one where he casts one spell a day and then hides behind the no-neck former bouncer he hired to protect him?

Every Warcraft novel and comic I've ever read :/ Actually, it's a common complaint of mine that noone writes fantasy wizards "properly". They all have three spells per day. Sometimes they're weak, sometimes they're powerful, depending on setting or level, but none have any endurance. The writers go out of their way to enforce this: for instance, if it's a D&D novel, they never get to rest, and a 400 page novel takes place over maybe three days, and of course each wizard only preps three spells a day. Even smart, powerful spell-point-using sorcerers would rather waste several minutes conjuring lightning out of a cloudless sky than use a bunch of weaker spells.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

When was the fictional/mythical/folkloric archetype of the wizard one where he casts one spell a day and then hides behind the no-neck former bouncer he hired to protect him? As was stated up-thread, every time Gandalf runs into trouble, he's busting out the magic. (And he also swings a mean sword, something that the Dungeon! board game allowed, but AD&D did not.)


For one thing, the dart will miss, almost every time.

Doubtful, considering the mu rolls on the exact same table as the fighter until level 3.

 

[innerdude]

I'd argue that PC D&D mages never had any mystery to begin with. A mage memorizes spell x and when he casts it y is the known result - every time. Sure there are a few spells with some randomness (teleport, polymorph in early edditions) but they are outliers. Further, other than losing the spell, there are no consequences - there is generaly 0 mystery when the spell is cast as to what will happen or how it will affect the mage.

Which is one of my biggest criticisms of D&D, even now. Even as a kid, Vancian casting never totally sat right with me.

On the whole I find it more compelling when magic is more......not esoteric, but unpredictable, maybe even a little bit exclusive, where not just anyone can sit down and learn a cantrip or level 1 spell. In fact, I'd be all in favor of all caster classes in D&D to require actually taking a feat for it at first level, and if you want to multiclass into another caster class, you have to spend another feat to do it.

The total lack of danger and mystery in magic use, especially in 3.x, is one of the system's biggest drawbacks for me, in spite of its flavor and ease in creating a semi-"balance" due to the way it limits daily casting resources.

 

[prosfilaes]

On the whole I find it more compelling when magic is more......not esoteric, but unpredictable, maybe even a little bit exclusive, where not just anyone can sit down and learn a cantrip or level 1 spell. In fact, I'd be all in favor of all caster classes in D&D to require actually taking a feat for it at first level, and if you want to multiclass into another caster class, you have to spend another feat to do it.

I don't see that as changing anything, though. Taking a class level and a feat is no different than just taking a class level. Without changing anything at all, you make it in-world exclusive by saying that anyone who takes a level in a caster class must have had the ability to start with. (I believe that's RAW for the sorcerer anyway.)

The total lack of danger and mystery in magic use, especially in 3.x, is one of the system's biggest drawbacks for me, in spite of its flavor and ease in creating a semi-"balance" due to the way it limits daily casting resources.

It's fixable. At the lowest level, make more things variable by dice (like area) and remove stuff Maximize Spell. At a larger level, it's easy to add a table that does little things or even big things. Like

Roll 1d100

0: Spell is centered on caster and is double strength
...
32: Rain of flowers accompanies casting (in area of effect), and smell lasts on spell for duration.
...
43: Energy spells get changed to half force, half negative plane. No effect otherwise.
...
100: Spell is explosive (as per MM feat) and does a point of damage to everyone in area; if not area effect, now 10 ft. radius centered on target.

Cross them off after you use them, and they can't even hope for the effect they just came across.

 

[Spatula]

Doubtful, considering the mu rolls on the exact same table as the fighter until level 3.

Depends on edition. In 2e, the fighter has a better chance to hit starting at level 2.

But aside from that, the fighter is (depending on stat generation) more likely to have a STR bonus to hit, specialization bonuses to hit, and (depending on loot) magic bonuses to hit. So using the same hit table isn't the whole story.

And of course, the dart can miss. MM can't, which is why throwing darts is not the same thing as casting a spell. MM also has a hell of a lot more range, ignores cover/concealment, etc. Beyond that, I don't think that many folks choose to be a mage in order to spend most of their time in a fight throwing darts or shooting crossbows. It's just not very wizardly.

 

[LostSoul]

In a recent campaign the PCs had an artefact - a mirror from Open Grave. It had a personality and was pretty insane. Its powers were clear, more or less - it had a lot of knowledge, it could steal the memories of people who looked into it, it could read the minds of people reflected on its surface, and a bunch of other powers (short-range teleportation for one; limited flight for another).

I think it seemed mysterious - partially because it had a personality, partially because its history was unknown (it was tied into setting elements which the players had yet to uncover).

You could probably do that pretty easily with D&D's standard spell casting system. Give the spells different effects based on their "personalities" and how the PCs interact with them, and give them ties to the setting.

Not the only way to make magic mysterious, but it seemed to work in this one case.

 

[pemerton]

Doubtful, considering the mu rolls on the exact same table as the fighter until level 3.

This isn't true in AD&D - at 1st level a MU needs 11 to hit AC 10, whereas a fighter needs 10.

That is somewhat compensated for by the 3 per round rate of fire for darts, however. This makes MUs with dart suprisingly effective, if (in my view at least) rather boring to play.