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

[ProfessorCirno]

Hey ProfessorCrino! What if I played a level 15 wizard and wanted to build my own super cool keep? How would I go about doing so? Could I do it faster then my buddy the level 15 fighter? Could I use magic to do it faster and better then the Fighter could? If so, could you list all the spells I could use?

Sticking to core:

Well, you could just cast Magnificent Mansion if you don't mind it being impermanent.

Failing that you can Planar Bind an outsider and have them create it. Move Earth sets up the terrain perfectly to fit how you desire. Wall of Iron or Wall of Stone gives you...well, walls. Fabricate is, naturally, a big one - memorize a bunch of Fabricates and add some metamagics to make it wider and bigger, and you'll be doing the work of a lot of workers by yourself.

Or, if you really want, take the Craft Wonderous Item feat and make yourself a Lyre of Building. Or heck, have extra fun - make a Lyre of Building, then bind an outsider and make it play it nonstop! That's probably the easiest way to go about things.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Are you... sure about that?

Just sayin'.

I think you make an interesting argument, by the way. I even agree with *some* parts of it. I just couldn't resist.

Fair enough

I stand steadfast that the thread isn't edition warring, though. I was more inspired by recent threads to go with this thread.

If 4e flaws come up later, I'll be more then happy to launch into a discussion of it's flaws and how I've thought about houseruling it, too

I don't think any game is perfect. That's not neccisarily saying much, admittingly, but it's in examining the imperfections that we can make houserules and, hopefully, a better game.

 

[Ariosto]

APPENDIX TAU: INSPIRATIONAL READING
Carter, W. Alton. THE ABASHED NARRATIVIST OF MUSKRATIA; MANKINI IN THE CITY OF THE NARRATIVE MONGERS; MANKINI AGAINST THE GODS

 

[Aus_Snow]

it's in examining the imperfections that we can make houserules and, hopefully, a better game.

Agreed.

The very first thing I house ruled (or even looked at house ruling) once I got over the excitement of "new edition of D&D, that actually looks promising!" - this was 3e, a game that I was initially extremely sceptical about - was, yep, magic. Most especially, full casters.

And then, well, I went a little crazy with applying house rules.

But anyway. I'll have to give all this some more thought before launching into making and/or refuting, or possibly just discussing(!), any points.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

The wizard has mechanics to support their narrative control, the fighter doesn't; the best the fighter can do is roleplay their narrative control, which the wizard can also do. The wizard just has mechanics backing them up.

My question is: How do you have *Magic* without giving one class/archetype more narrative control than another? (Game design wise; your DM can probably handle this)

 

[fuzzlewump]

The wizard has mechanics to support their narrative control, the fighter doesn't; the best the fighter can do is roleplay their narrative control, which the wizard can also do. The wizard just has mechanics backing them up.

My question is: How do you have *Magic* without giving one class/archetype more narrative control than another? (Game design wise; your DM can probably handle this)

Well, for example, you'd just make magic much less powerful. There is no invisibility spell, or if there is one it's a very short duration and very limited; but there's a spell that gives you and your group a bonus to move silently and hide, and let's you turn completely invisible for a minute or two if you stand completely still.

Something like that.

A rogue's hide check could probably accomplish the same thing, but the wizard pulls ahead just slightly for that short period of time. The rest of the time the rogue is the supreme hider.

Basically, having more short bursts of goodness, though not quite as short as 4E (1 round!) versus non-magic users doing what they do constantly.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I think a number of people here are missing the forest for the trees.

Cirno's argument is players of casters, and especially Wizards, hold a degree of control over the story by way of magic that players of non-casters can never match.

To use a "story" example; consider a murder mystery. With magic, the player of a caster simply uses some form of divination to figure out the answer. Hell, a divine caster can even just raise the victim from the dead! That's a degree of narrative control that the player of a non-caster just doesn't have, and never will, save for DM fiat. That is Cirno's point.

Yes, there are ways to equalize the playing field, most of which generally end up (IMO) unsatisfying. Anti-magic is the big one, but more often than not anti-magic feels like a narrative cheat. That's because it is; it's basically a way of railroading by removing narrative tools. Why shouldn't players be able to use the tools they've been given?

Cirno stated that 4E was an example of a system that actually had a solution for that problem. That solution, of course, is that all those spells that were narrative tools were separated from class (and even archetype). Everyone has (almost) equal access to rituals. If the player of a Fighter wanted to cast rituals, there's nothing stopping that player. Is that an edition war thing? No. It's simply a method by which a perceived problem was solved.

 

[rounser]

Cirno stated that 4E was an example of a system that actually had a solution for that problem. That solution, of course, is that all those spells that were narrative tools were separated from class (and even archetype). Everyone has (almost) equal access to rituals. If the player of a Fighter wanted to cast rituals, there's nothing stopping that player. Is that an edition war thing? No. It's simply a method by which a perceived problem was solved.

It is also, IMO, absolutely abyssmal design in terms of suspension of disbelief and maintenance of archetypes. Anybody can cast spells, for balance reasons?No thank you, that's not part of the fantasy worlds I want, nor part of D&D's universe as I accept it as legimately being. And if 4E cannot create the worlds I want, nor offer believable archetypes, then there's little point to the game as a fantasy construction kit, because it's turned itself into an anachronism.

 

[Orius]

The problem with the D&D is this:

Imagine you are making a game based somewhat loosely on the Trojan War and the Odyssey. You tell your character that they'll be fighting on the side of thee Greeks, and should take inspirations from the likes of Odysseus and Agamemnon, proud and daring warriors and men of battle.

Then one guy shouts "I call dibs on Poseidon!"

So wizards are basically gods?

No wonder I like playing them!

In short, wizards appear in fiction quite often, but they fall under one of two catagories.

1) Wise old sage who really doesn't do a whole lot of magic
2) Deus ex machina

The D&D wizard falls under the second. Which is bad.

The real problem is that as you said, the wizard isn't really based on any classical archtype. The origin of the D&D wizard is Chainmail, there they were basically human equivalents of catapults and ballistae with their fireballs and lightning bolts. This is what the wizard was based on in the orginal rules, with a spell list filling out other levels. When that spell list got developed, that's when they got all the deus ex machina powers, and the open-ended nature of magic in the compounded the problem as new spells got added into the game. Not that it was seen or intended as imbalanced in the first place:

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.

That's the balancing feature. You roll for those hp at first level, and the old M-U has a better chance of rolling crappy with that 1d4. And your Con bonus caps at +2, only the warriors are allowed more. AC caps at -10 too, but good luck getting that far down as a mage. While everyone else can buy some armor, even leather for the thief, the mage has to rely on bracers of defense, and the DM isn't likely to stick a pair with a nice low AC in, unless he's inexperienced or has a good reason for it.

Sure, your spells are incredibly powerful but you don't have a hell of a lot, and pre-3e isn't assuming 13 encounters/level. You might get a lot of encounters, and few DMs in the old day would have condoned the 15-minute workday. Using your spells is resource management, and the fighter is there to kill stuff that isn't worth wasting valuable magic on.

It really is in many ways 3e that threw some of these balances out of whack. That is if you considered the system balanced the way it was with mages growing more and more powerful while everyone else except maybe divine casters fall behind.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

Using your spells is resource management, and the fighter is there to kill stuff that isn't worth wasting valuable magic on.

@rounser

This state is probably as good as any game will ever get combining gritty swordsman with high fantasy magcian. Its honestly the best that anyone could hope for if they were of Cirno's mind-ALBEIT he was not talking about combat. But rather all the things they can do out of combat. Nonetheless, I dont know that 4E's "ritual solution" is necessarily the best. ALTHOUGH I do disagree with rounser who said rituals-at least in concept- kill the archetype by giving everyone magic.

It is also, IMO, absolutely abyssmal design in terms of suspension of disbelief and maintenance of archetypes. Anybody can cast spells, for balance reasons?No thank you, that's not part of the fantasy worlds I want, nor part of D&D's universe as I accept it as legimately being.

In a highly magical world I could support some sort ceremonies or rituals that a mundane priest might perform, a kind of pseudo magic rite/prayer that requires many people and some knowledge of religion. A cleric wields more divine power than any mortal, but common worshippers should still be able to see the power of the divine other than in the cleric.

This is contrasted with arcane power which is secret knowledge in which you must be trained and invest immense time to study. Thats very different from the power of faith which anyone and indeed many thousands of worshippers have.

To use a "story" example; consider a murder mystery. With magic, the player of a caster simply uses some form of divination to figure out the answer. Hell, a divine caster can even just raise the victim from the dead!

The Dungeon Master ultimately has more control than anybody. The caster ONLY has more narrative control than any other player IF and only if the Dungeon Master allows them to have it. The Dungeon Master is in control over the results of divinations what they reveal or dont, in fact truthfully, whether they succeed or fail for many of them have a % chance-and though Cirno calls cheating/fiat/fudge as evidence of the rules being flawed, I believe it has always been an acceptable part of the game.

Complete Champion IIRC talks about how Dungeon Masters should use players divinations, there's a chapter on it. Furthermore you can only raise someone from the dead IF they want to return. IMC most of the time raising a random person (basically any non NPC) is fruitless, because overwhelmingly, most people are more content with the afterlife than the material world so it fails except in the case of willing PCs. PCs/Adventurers are abberant, they not "usual" people. A Cleric no matter how powerful CANNOT just go around bringing back any dead NPC they feel like with True Ressurection-if an NPC comes back, its because the Dungeon Master has allowed this to happen. And if the Dungeon Master did not want it to happen, then it would not, by no means are they/should they be expected to just say "yes" or "it works" in all cases just because they PCs attempt something.

That's a degree of narrative control that the player of a non-caster just doesn't have, and never will, save for DM fiat. That is Cirno's point.

Rather thats a degree of potential narrative control, or AKA "Making-Things-Potentially-Happeness" that casters have IF they are allowed it, yes. And IMO there is nothing wrong with that. Obviously of course, you may or may not have a serious problem with this.