Vancian? Why can't we let it go?

[Hassassin]

I'm not sure if skill caps are the problem. In literary precedents, wizards were essentially scholars who occasionally used magic. You could basically strip down a rogue (d6 HD, 8 skill points, Med BAB) and then replace their rogue abilities with arcane magic, and you would get the archetypical wizard. Of course, this basically turns them into a bard, but is that entirely surprising? Obviously this precedent has obviously changed in recent fiction (e.g. Harry Potter, Malazan, etc.).

The Name of the Wind!

Ok, you can't really try to emulate that in D&D unless you play a one player campaign.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Tenser's Transformation is a problimatic spell to begin with, because its part of the general problem of "A wizard is not only a better wizard than a fighter, he's also if he wants to be a better fighter than a fighter."

I'd support something similar to the reserve spell feats to allow low level magical attacks at will before I'd support generalizing the wizard's self-buffing powers further.

I'm not in disagreement with the nature of the problem, but in the reality of what people will do. I think there are going to be self-buffing spells for wizards either way. So I'd like them to be explicitly included with the bar set at, "you can use this magic to be for a short time like a henchman follower of the fighter." In part, this would be to forestall the nuttier stuff.

That's usually the way it plays out in the stories I read, anyway. The wizard is sure he can go toe-to-toe with his magically enhanced weapon ability. And he can for a short time. But then it starts to show holes, and Conan rips his head off.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Your 2nd level wizard can be as good at hitting with a weapon as a typical soldier (War 1). That's competent.

If you don't make the choices when creating and advancing the character to do that, then you won't be. That's the price for a narrow focus on magic.

That would be a stronger argument in a skill based system, where a character's power is entirely based on player choice, but D&D is class based, and in the past, the class hasn't provided the wizard the ability to defend himself effectively in combat. Third Edition allowed you to augment that through multi-classing and feats, sure, but that has nothing to do with the default assumption of what a wizard is like.

We're discussing what the class should look like in a new edition by figuring out the default assumption. There tends to be agreement that the wizard, being an adventuring class, should be reasonably well equipped for adventuring, which means having some method of defending himself over a long period of time.

 

[mmadsen]

That would be a stronger argument in a skill based system, where a character's power is entirely based on player choice, but D&D is class based, and in the past, the class hasn't provided the wizard the ability to defend himself effectively in combat. Third Edition allowed you to augment that through multi-classing and feats, sure, but that has nothing to do with the default assumption of what a wizard is like.

We're discussing what the class should look like in a new edition by figuring out the default assumption. There tends to be agreement that the wizard, being an adventuring class, should be reasonably well equipped for adventuring, which means having some method of defending himself over a long period of time.

The Wizard's attack bonus and hit points go up with level, so a high-level Wizard is a better fighter than a low-level Fighter.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

The Wizard's attack bonus and hit points go up with level, so a high-level Wizard is a better fighter than a low-level Fighter.

True.

With less of a focus on level appropriate encounters, that is sufficient. Though the wizard would still need a feat to effectively use a sword.

As my earlier post stated, though, I'd still prefer a design where a wizard fights with magic most of the time.

 

[Hassassin]

That would be a stronger argument in a skill based system, where a character's power is entirely based on player choice, but D&D is class based, and in the past, the class hasn't provided the wizard the ability to defend himself effectively in combat. Third Edition allowed you to augment that through multi-classing and feats, sure, but that has nothing to do with the default assumption of what a wizard is like.

We're discussing what the class should look like in a new edition by figuring out the default assumption. There tends to be agreement that the wizard, being an adventuring class, should be reasonably well equipped for adventuring, which means having some method of defending himself over a long period of time.

I referred to having the same base attack, because you wrote "using weapons" and that they weren't competent. Defense is a bigger problem for the wizard, but 4e Int to AC is one option. In 3e you could wear some armor (gasp), which in my opinion is the most logical way of avoiding hits.

So many ways to make it work that I'm not sure what the default assumption should be.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I referred to having the same base attack, because you wrote "using weapons" and that they weren't competent. Defense is a bigger problem for the wizard, but 4e Int to AC is one option. In 3e you could wear some armor (gasp), which in my opinion is the most logical way of avoiding hits.

So many ways to make it work that I'm not sure what the default assumption should be.

Yeah. I should have written, "They're not competent enough to defend themselves using weapon in a level equivalent fight at mid to higher levels." There are a lot of assumptions in that statement that I hadn't thought through.

Of course, that's kind of what we've been talking about. The possibility of a wizard that fights with weapons and occasionally uses a big one-off spell. This isn't my preference, but it could be fun.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"They're not competent enough to defend themselves using weapon in a level equivalent fight at mid to higher levels."

I personally don't see a reason for a wizard to be that good a melee combatant.

I DO see a reason to have options for mixing melee skill with arcane prowess (it is my most common kind of build) either via multiclassing or by dedicated base classes...but in either case, should not be equal to dedicated specialists in those fields.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I personally don't see a reason for a wizard to be that good a melee combatant.

I DO see a reason to have options for mixing melee skill with arcane prowess (it is my most common kind of build) either via multiclassing or by dedicated base classes...but in either case, should not be equal to dedicated specialists in those fields.

The argument isn't that he has to be. It's that he should, in some form, be functional in such a fight beyond his ability to drop his very limited selection of level equivalent spells.

Previous editions, third being the most familiar to me, didn't handle this very well. By level 10, a wizard had a lot of spell slots, but mostly for lower level spells that the target would easily save against. When the wizard's effective spells ran out, he was no longer functional.

Charged magic items helped this, but their existence allows for staves and wands that were, effectively, more potent than a wizard, which doesn't seem right.

Now, a reduced focus on level dependent fights deals with a lot of this problem.

So too would increasing a wizard's martial prowess, not to that of a Fighter, but enough to be effective. There are some story reasons why this might be a good choice, which is all I've been trying to argue. It's certainly not my preferred solution.

Instead, I'd much rather make adjustments to the Vancian mechanics to keep the Wizard flinging magic effectively even when resources are low.

 

[pemerton]

I also think my dislike is with the actual image of a wizard with a crossbow in particular, as opposed to using non-magical resources in general. It's like fingernails on a blackboard to me.

A slightly tangential question from someone who shares your distaste - where does this image come from? Is it a 3E thing? In AD&D wizards could use daggers, darts and staves, and UA added slings. I can't remember the 2nd ed AD&D weapon list for wizards, but did it really include crossbows?

But as smart and dedicated as a mage has to be, why wouldn't they be experts at dart or dagger throwing? And why shouldn't that be reflected in the class build? Eg: Wizards can throw 2 darts/round from the outset with a +1 to hit.

In AD&D, any dart-thrower could throw 3 per round. With 1d3 damage per dart, this could actually be quite effective at low levels! (Although still not very wizardly.)

While mages are known for their magic, I'm a bit surprised that their knowledge of arcane lore - which was more often then not what their primary utility in legends and stories - is not emphasized more in the class, even if it came at a cut to their magical überness.

From the literary antecedents of the wizard, and the root of the name itself, you'd think that. I can only guess that trying to portray that in a game has run into the same kind of problems that "Mr. McFace" with the +37 diplomacy caused in 3E, and other similar such skill issues. Keep that nipped in the bud, and it is easy for the skills to fade too far in importance. It's a tight rope to walk.

Adding to what Crazy Jerome said, there is also the difficulty of framing engaging challenges in which a PC's contribution is primarily an intellectual one, but not an intellectual one that the player him-/herself is able to make (give that, in the typical game, the GM is the custodian/crafter of this sort of lore). This issue tends not to come up as strongly with Mr McFace, whose player - even if not all that charming - can still at least talk with the GM, and explain what sort of social/emotional responses his/her PC is trying to generate.

The wizard PC in my 4e game has been built by his player primarily to be a loremaster-type character, and while I'm not saying that the challenge I've described is impossible to overcome, GMing for that PC is certainly making me aware of it.