The Role of the Wizard, or "How Come Billy Gets to Create a Demiplane?"

[Ariosto]

formerly barely playable character concepts (The Grey Mouser springs to mind)

Huh? It's perfectly doable to have that type in old TSR-D&D. I don't see why it shouldn't be at least as much so in 3e.

Do the same thing Mouse did: start as an m-u, then switch to thieving.

How is that "barely playable"?

Even without the m-u background, a thief gets to use scrolls (e.g., what Mouser and Fafhrd had in Quarmall) come 10th level.

Heck, the thief can even screw it up and get a reverse effect -- as in "The Lords of Quarmall"!

 

[DandD]

Mordenkainen was also Gary's personal little Mary Sue. Assuming the player of a wizard in a typical D&D campaign will not be playing the " I wrote this game so I can do whatever I want" card everything should work out just fine.

Oh, and I think you were referring to Rob Kuntz.

Which is tied to the very problem that ProfessorCirno is lamenting about. Gary Gygax wrote the rules. He made magic-users more powerful and capable of doing things than any fighting man and other non-magic-using class could ever do, because he himself favored playing that class. Robilar, the famous fighter only became famous because Rob Kuntz cheated by having solo-sessions with Gary Gygax, so that his character would level up faster and gain political favors and stuff... while of course being assisted by the ever-present Mordenkainen, who would solve every problem on his own when Gary Gygax was in a good mood.

It's all about the very first D&D-Mary Sue... or in this case, Gary Stu... Support characters like Robilar are there to serve Mordenkainen, the arch-wizard supreme, who oversees the balance of the world.

 

[Imaro]

Huh? It's perfectly doable to have that type in old TSR-D&D. I don't see why it shouldn't be at least as much so in 3e.

Do the same thing Mouse did: start as an m-u, then switch to thieving.

How is that "barely playable"?

Even without the m-u background, a thief gets to use scrolls (e.g., what Mouser and Fafhrd had in Quarmall) come 10th level.

Heck, the thief can even screw it up and get a reverse effect -- as in "The Lords of Quarmall"!

There's also the incantation rules from UA... people tend to disregard the multitude of options out there for 3.5, when it's one of the greatest strengths of the game... just saying.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

Which is tied to the very problem that ProfessorCirno is lamenting about. Gary Gygax wrote the rules. He made magic-users more powerful and capable of doing things than any fighting man and other non-magic-using class could ever do, because he himself favored playing that class. Robilar, the famous fighter only became famous because Rob Kuntz cheated by having solo-sessions with Gary Gygax, so that his character would level up faster and gain political favors and stuff... while of course being assisted by the ever-present Mordenkainen, who would solve every problem on his own when Gary Gygax was in a good mood.

It's all about the very first D&D-Mary Sue... or in this case, Gary Stu... Support characters like Robilar are there to serve Mordenkainen, the arch-wizard supreme, who oversees the balance of the world.

WHAT is the Spirit of The Game?

"It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. NEVER hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, IF it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters give in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Volumes, YOU are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a WHOLE first, your CAMPAIGN next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons as it was meant to be. May you find as much pleasure in so doing as the rest of us do."

-1E DMG, page 230; As someone said, Houseruling has always been apart of the game. (As has been bending the rules on the DMs part, call it 'cheating', call it 'fiat'.)



Heh, Mordenkainen - The Original "Wizard That Did It".

And if thats how it played back then, and thats how it plays now (though lesser in 4E) could that just be the nature of the game? Or is it just a flaw in the whole? ALBEIT-yes, he was a DMPC. Does that mean then that all Wizards were meant to be DMPC's or NPCs? Save an all-caster party?

Man, I wish The Master was with us now, so we could ask his opinion. Quietly as its kept, I'd be surprised if it didnt show up at least once in the Ask Gary Archives/Threads but theres like 11 of those and they're filled to capacity.

Another note, again, at Name Level the classes took on new responsibilities. Fighters became Lords and had Freeholds, Wizards got towers, Monks and Clerics got Temples and Monaestaeries. Many PCs became rulers or important defenders on the borderlands of civilization. So yeah, even a fighter could feel important. Now fighters and other classes dont get that any more, but wizards can still make demiplanes.

Name Level-most important part is the 2nd half after all the tables.
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4alum/20090206

OH!

And original discussion.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboard...thfinderRPG/general/isPathfinderCasterEdition

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I was just casually glancing through the players handbook and a lot of spells have saving throws and a fair amount have to hit. At higher levels wizards cast one spell around fighters get to try an hit several times.

It depends on the edition really. Third edition implemented the (IMO) horrible design of requiring a full attack by a fighter to be a full round action. So the fighter couldnt move and get multiple attacks without something like the pounce ability. Those later attacks have a low chance of hitting anyways... compare it to scorching rays, which lets the wizard lob multiple as well.

But combat is one thing, and while not balanced, the discrepency is less noticable than out of combat. As the OP indicates... look at the stuff you can do with relatively low level spells. Illusions, mind reading, mind bending, invisibility, passing through walls, speaking with the dead, tracking, etc. Casters have the equivalent of a vast array of superpowers they can change each day.

In the games I play in we don't get to rest when the spell casters are out of spells. I know some people play that way I never had a DM that would let you get away with that. We usually had time sensitive missions and if we tried it things got tougher because the bad guys had time to regroup.

How do you not die then? In 3rd edition the damage output of monsters is obscene. And while everyone can poke each other with cheap, disposable 750gp heal sticks afterwards, you will need to expend solid resources to keep people alive. If the fighters arent being pressed for in combat healing, I would argue the battles are too easy. in earlier editions, potions didnt rain from the sky, so again, your fighter will last as long as your cleric. The casters again limit the adventuring day in some form or another.

Throwing in a -2 is a house rule there is nothing stopping you from house ruling limits on spellcasters.

It was a joke.

If you don't like high magic then 3.5 is not the right system for you. It is my game of choice and as a player and DM I have never had an issue with dealing with magic in game. I have never seen the issues brought up here crop up in my games.

Its quite a common issue brought up in other games. just because its not in your game, doesnt mean its not an issue with the system (or other systems) as a whole.

You are right, 3.5 isnt the right system for me, at least to DM. I'd certainly play it though. Part of the issue is, as the OP indicates, you have such a wide power disparity between the various classes it feels like they are from different games entirely. Or like a DC superheroes game where you can play members of the Justice League, and there are rules for playing Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and Z Teamers like Aqualad and Gleek. There are your street level heroes (fighters, rogues, rangers, incarnates etc), mid levels (bard, TOB classes), the guys you call when Darkseid shows up (cleric, druid, wizard). Unless the DM is constantly trotting out kryptonite/ant magic field, Superman/Wizard McAwesomepants is going to have to be conscientous of the Monk/Gleek whose main ability is to summon a bucket. It might be worthwhile for the rules to note the power bracket, and suggest that its more balanced from a narrative (and combat) perspective if parties stay within the same power bracket.

While I find this topic interesting I have to bow out for now. I am recovering from a broken back and I just reached maxim sitting up time. Time for pain pills and maybe a nap.

Feel better!

 

[Wednesday Boy]

This happens in pretty much anything though. The sequels always have to be bigger, badder, bolder. It's just the nature of the beast.

That's true, Ep. 1-3 are definitely badder.

 

[Corathon]

There is the wise old sage, however, and there's deus ex machina. Merlin was a wise old sage. What he does for Arthur is provide information, learning, advice. He doesn't jump around with the knights and throw fireballs. His biggest, most impressive power is to change shape - not to mention one of the only powers he uses. Oh, and he's the antichrist.

Huh? I don't think that I've encountered that trope before.

What about Gandalf? Again, we don't actually see a lot of magic from the old guy. He makes fireworks and creates choo choo train noises and casts Light a lot. Oh, and he's the archangel Gabriel.

Well, more likely just an ordinarry angel. The Valar would be like archangels, I suppose. But I take your point; he wasn't just a man.

However, if you go back and read Hobbit & LotR again, I think you'll see that he does do more magic things that you may have noticed at first. E.g., when Gandalf is opposing a Ringwaith outside of Minas Tirith, and the sun seems to shine more brightly , and people's morale improves - I suppose that to be Gandalf doing magic.

There's been a few attempts from the start to patch up the discrepency. Magic items were a big one. The assumption goes: "Magic is everything in the game that is strong, including the strongest baddies. We have classes that do not have magic. Therefor, they should have magic items."

This was the birth of the Christmas Tree problem.

See, I don't buy that it's a 3e-ism. It's always been there. I'm literally playing a 2e game as I type this (thus the slowness, sorry ), and I deny the idea that characters didn't need magic item. Our fighter needs magical weapons to even harm many baddies, for starters. In fact, if you look through the books, as others have mentioned, most magic items are either intended for fighters or, in fact, are only usable by fighters. The intent is somewhat clear - wizards have magic, fighters have magic items.

I can't really speak to the 3E version of this, but I can to the 1E version. I have to disagree that magic items are a neccesity for the 1E fighter. Its true that a lot of creatures in 1E needed some degree of magic weapons to hit, but most (not all) could also be hit by some nonmagical material. All demons (including princes) could be hit by cold iron. All devils (on down to Asmodeus) could be hit with silver, as could all lycanthropes. Most undead could also be hit with silver. So a magic weapon isn't necessarily essential to a fighter in 1E.

In terms of items only usable by fighters - there aren't that many. Magic swords are an example, and a few oddities. There are probably more items only an MU can use (e.g. many of the wands). Since AC and hit bonuses aren't open-ended, a fighter doesn't need magic armor to survive a fight against tough opponents. A non-magical AC of 0(=3E AC 20) is possible with non-magical armor. If the fighter has a high Dexterity, thats AC -4 (AC 24). Even the highest line on the DMG attack matrix for monsters needs an 11 to hit that.

Likewise, the best AC possible is -10(AC 30). The most skilled fighter hits that with a 14. Add in weapon specialization and STR bonuses, and he could only need an 8.

All that said, a high level 1E fighter still wants magic items and likely will have them! He's just not helpless without them, except vs. a few opponents (e.g. a lich).

As for "changing the world" outside of combat, a 1E magic user is much less capable of that. For example, he can't create his own demiplane - ever. He will likely know very few spells at start, and will be lucky to know the sleep spell. Versitlity is limited by the spells that you know. Some spells will not be understandable, others will be unavailable.

And many classes can found a stronghold when they reach name level. The one that's best at it - the fighter. Isn't founding a barony - perhaps, eventually, a kingdom - "changing the wordl"?

 

[Ariosto]

You made the problem for yourselves, I suspect.

If you take a WW2 game, and you arbitrarily rule than one can have only infantry or armor or artillery or an air force or battleships or submarines or aircraft carriers ... then you deserve what you get.

That is simply not how the game was designed, so you simply cannot blame the designers.

Now, the 3e designers can take the blame for a lot of things, including a huge give-away to the magicians. Sure as shooting, they -- not Arneson and Gygax -- are responsible for what they wreaked upon a touchstone game.

Are they really responsible for this, though?

How about this seeming entitlement to a 20+-level character? I'm not seeing it in 3e, although according to 4e you should be able to keep up with the leader board without even playing.

For that matter, how bad is this, really? I have yet to hear of a game in which everybody plays wizards. Games in which darned near everybody has a spell-casting and magic-item-making class in the portfiolio, sure.

It's not much of a 3e campaign, it seems, if everybody doesn't have at least two classes, or there's no character with at least four (one more than allowed any multi-class demi-humans in AD&D).

So, if this ever really were a problem, then I reckon the players would solve it chop-chop.

 

[Ariosto]

Likewise, the best AC possible is -10(AC 30).

That's not 1E. That's a Second-Edition-ism, necessitated (?) by dropping repeating 20s from the combat matrices.

To determine a "to hit" number not on the charts...

The charts include AC -10.

 

[Odhanan]

Which is tied to the very problem that ProfessorCirno is lamenting about. Gary Gygax wrote the rules. He made magic-users more powerful and capable of doing things than any fighting man and other non-magic-using class could ever do, because he himself favored playing that class. Robilar, the famous fighter only became famous because Rob Kuntz cheated by having solo-sessions with Gary Gygax, so that his character would level up faster and gain political favors and stuff... while of course being assisted by the ever-present Mordenkainen, who would solve every problem on his own when Gary Gygax was in a good mood.

It's all about the very first D&D-Mary Sue... or in this case, Gary Stu... Support characters like Robilar are there to serve Mordenkainen, the arch-wizard supreme, who oversees the balance of the world.

This "account" is so factually untrue and biased it is kind of mind-boggling to read, honestly.

The fundamental difference between the fighter and the magic user is that one class has some abilities that are strictly scripted by the rules to limit their scope precisely, aka Spells, whereas the fighter has access to abilities that are not strictly scripted by the rules, aka acquiring retinues, retainers, servants, favors, titles, influence, managing mercenary forces thereof, and most important of all, the actual tactics employed in the game with all the resources you gather thereof, including of course your own character, equipment and abilities. The determining factor in the balance between two characters in the AD&D game is the brains of their players. Really it is. The rules are not the game; the game is not the rules.

You just cannot compare the fighter and magic users in the First Ed paradigm without touching on these topics. If you run AD&D with a complete disregard for these elements of the game, then you are, in effect, "unbalancing" the game by cheer ignorance, by behind a lame, ignorant, incompetent DM or player, and not a good, resourceful, imaginative, strategically thinking one. That's it. And these things are actually discussed in the First Ed DMG, so that's not like I'm pulling this stuff out of my arse, really.

And this is the type of contrast you can see in practice in the way you have Gary running a character like Mordenkainen versus Rob playing Robilar. And don't get me started on the different paradigm of the game and how players actually ran several characters at the same time and so on.

So this whole pseudo-theory is just based on a series of fundamental misunderstandings and misconceptions about what the actual game it refers to was actually about. And really it's fine to not know and wonder how all the pieces of the game fit together. It's what makes you ponder issues, dig deeper, and ultimately become a better DM. But please, don't assume you know when you obviously do not.

That's not how the game was played at all. Really. It wasn't.