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

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I think its also worth noting that 3.5 had several books of "magic guys" that actually did play well with others. The binder, incarnates, and shadowmage all use magic without completely drowning out the non-casters narrative power.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Cirno, it seems to me that all you're saying is "I don't like D&D".

That may be correct . . . for certain values of D&D.

The game has not remained the same, pace WotC's 4E announcement. It started with sword & sorcery simulation of mercenaries, thieves and ne'er-do-wells, took a detour into high fantasy and broader realms of fantasy literature (without really adjusting the mechanics to compensate), and then, once WotC took over, looped back into a self-referential feedback cycle of trying to emulate itself and its pastiches and knockoffs, to the point of becoming "the game where you fight monsters with magic" (to quote either a WotC design statement and/or D&D for Dummies). 4E seemed to be breaking out of that for a while, but Essentials may be sinking back into it.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It is (or at least used to be) a free market. If you want to field an m-u, then there's no rule against it!

Usually, in my experience, one gets to take just one full-fledged player character (as opposed to henchmen) per expedition. The guy who puts all his eggs in one basket, so to speak, may see it rise faster than the one who spreads out the experience points among several characters. On the other hand, he may end up with no Plan B except to start over if his one and only perishes.

Magic-users tend to kick the bucket a lot. That's what those tiny hit dice, poor AC, etc., are supposed to do. What m-us are best at doing, above all else, is potting their fellows. The most attractive targets of all are m-us a level (or several) higher, because those tend to have nice magical goodies to covet.

That's how it is in old D&D, anyhow.

This is largely how it stopped being once you got past OD&D, where you were just leveling up your minature skirmish team and getting gold to field more units. (and people say 4th edition is just a minis game!)

I've rarely seen anyone run a stable of characters in nearly 30 years of playing D&D. And this includes Dark Sun, where such a thing was actually encouraged. Most people played one character, because they wanted him to have an important role in the game. And its not a lot of fun to get sidelined as a fighter. Sure, the casters will say they sucked at low levels, but come on.. no you didnt. Even at 1st level, when you're just a sleep spell on legs, you're still auto killing 2d4 hit dice once per day. You have the same THACO as the fighter. Cleric? same AC, faster exp table, and bonus spells?! My 10+ con doesnt seem as impressive compared to his 8+con + 3 cure light wounds.

And if you're more willing to put your "fodder" characters(thief/fighter) in dangerous dungeons over your "elite" magic users, it just highlights the problem.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It is (or at least used to be) a free market. If you want to field an m-u, then there's no rule against it!

Usually, in my experience, one gets to take just one full-fledged player character (as opposed to henchmen) per expedition. The guy who puts all his eggs in one basket, so to speak, may see it rise faster than the one who spreads out the experience points among several characters. On the other hand, he may end up with no Plan B except to start over if his one and only perishes.

Magic-users tend to kick the bucket a lot. That's what those tiny hit dice, poor AC, etc., are supposed to do. What m-us are best at doing, above all else, is potting their fellows. The most attractive targets of all are m-us a level (or several) higher, because those tend to have nice magical goodies to covet.

That's how it is in old D&D, anyhow.

This is largely how it stopped being once you got past OD&D, where you were just leveling up your minature skirmish team and getting gold to field more units. (and people say 4th edition is just a minis game!)

I've rarely seen anyone run a stable of characters in nearly 30 years of playing D&D. And this includes Dark Sun, where such a thing was actually encouraged. Most people played one character, because they wanted him to have an important role in the campaign as a whole. And its not a lot of fun to get sidelined as a fighter. Sure, the casters will say they sucked at low levels, but come on.. no you didnt. Even at 1st level, when you're just a sleep spell on legs, you're still auto killing 2d4 hit dice once per day. You have the same THACO as the fighter. Cleric? same AC, faster exp table, and bonus spells?! My 10+ con doesnt seem as impressive compared to his 8+con + 3 cure light wounds.

And if you're more willing to put your "fodder" characters(thief/fighter) in dangerous dungeons over your "elite" magic users, it just highlights the problem.

 

[Diamond Cross]

The role of any mage is Long Range Artillery.

That's what they excel at.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think its also worth noting that 3.5 had several books of "magic guys" that actually did play well with others. The binder, incarnates, and shadowmage all use magic without completely drowning out the non-casters narrative power.

I dunno about Binders, they can be pretty obscene. On the other hand, binder is also probably the most complicated class in all of 3.x (and one I cannot run because trying to figure out and combine all the abilities is such a headache to me), so I suppose they sorta earn it . If you're good with a Binder, then...well, hats off to you. It's something I can't do.

I agree with the others though. It's kinda funny - certainly there were artificers and archivists, but for the most part, the most super powerful narrative wrecking balls...were in the PHB. People talk about power glut and "munchkins" using books outside of core, but in my experience, it's the opposite.

Nothing's scarier as a DM then a core druid and a core wizard in the party. Good luck challenging them

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The role of any mage is Long Range Artillery.

That's what they excel at.

That would be true (and acceptable) if they did not have so many plot shaping out of combat spells at their disposal. Its one thing to be a glass cannon, its another thing to be a glass cannon with deus ex machina abilities that you can resculpt after an 8 hour rest.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Cirno, it seems to me that all you're saying is "I don't like D&D".

Casters are more powerful and more complex at high level. Hitting things with a sword is fun and gives you more time to joke around or hit the munchies since you don't need to study the books so much. There is some supension of disbelief because magic is required to do things people otherwise can't do. I am OK with it.

I disagree with this.

The fact is, wizards can change their spells every day. Fighters can't. If anything, fighters are the most new player unfriendly. If you pick bad feats, your done. You're screwed. You can't contribute. If you pick bad spells, then the next day, you just change your spells. Easy as that. And it's a lot harder to really crunch all the math involved in trying to trip or grapple monsters and be good at it then to just read Color Spray and go "Wow it knocks people unconscious, I'm trying that."

Even beyond that, it comes back to narrative power. Saying "Ok I cast fly" or "Ok I cast knock" or any number of "Spell Solutions" isn't complicated. it's the non-caster who has to rely on his skills or, more likely, his wits and out of game smarts to jury rig solutions, that plays a more complicated game.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The role of any mage is Long Range Artillery.

That's what they excel at.

There are two editions where this is true, and they are perhaps ironically both the oldest edition and the newest edition.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I dunno about Binders, they can be pretty obscene. On the other hand, binder is also probably the most complicated class in all of 3.x (and one I cannot run because trying to figure out and combine all the abilities is such a headache to me), so I suppose they sorta earn it . If you're good with a Binder, then...well, hats off to you. It's something I can't do.

There are a few pacts that probably grant too much, but usually its due to them granting spells, which brings us back to the core issue (high level spells). Being able to breath fire or make a 30' teleport every 4 rounds isnt game breaking (particularly when you're forced to resort to whacking someone with a stick with cleric BAB for the other 3). Binders still one of the most flavorful classes of any edition I think.

I found truenamers to be much more of a headache (and potentially more broken due to how easy it was to get skill boosts).