What spells do you get tired of seeing wizard players take? Cliche's, etc.

[Machiavelli]

Okay, so let's be creative here. Anyone who thinks it's not important enough to take magic missile, invisibility, fly, and fireball... please feel free to explain what useful and effective spells a wizard can take instead.

Personally, I can't think of any. The rest of the spells in the PHB are too situation-specific to be considered for consistent, daily preparation. Analogy: Bringing a spark plug wrench and a micrometer to a marathon when (as is the norm for you, an athlete) all you really need is good footwear.

 

[jdrakeh]

When you pretty literally live and die by your spell selection, I'd say a little min-maxing is the order of the day.

Agreed. And this beautifully illustrates one of the pitfalls of list-based magic. You have a finite number of spells to choose from and, as you note, not choosing combat (i.e., offensive or defensive) spells or spells with the potential to be used in an efffort to avoid conflict is a recipe for character death.

This initially limited choice of spells combined with the increased likelyhood of character death when choosing non-combat spells virtually ensures that things such as Magic Missile and Fireball get chosen frequently (because dying early and often really takes a lot of fun out of the game for many peoiple).

Choosing such spells is less a reflection on the creativity (or lack thereof) inherent in a given player than it is a reflection on the game's design. You'd be a fool to not take those cliche spells in the typical D&D campaign.

 

[Crothian]

None of them.

 

[Emirikol]

Choosing such spells is less a reflection on the creativity (or lack thereof) inherent in a given player than it is a reflection on the game's design. You'd be a fool to not take those cliche spells in the typical D&D campaign.

You guys are telling me that if those spells didn't exist wizards would be dropping like flies in the every D&D game?

I don't buy much of that argument. There's too much material out there (Complete D&D books for example) for me to believe it.

jh

 

[Crysmalon]

Detect <alignment>
Locate <this or that>
Commune, speak w/dead
Resurrection spells (where common)

Essentially what I call the 'cheating' spells. I don't remove these from my game, but do impose XP costs.

 

[Emirikol]

Detect <alignment>
Locate <this or that>
Commune, speak w/dead
Resurrection spells (where common)

Essentially what I call the 'cheating' spells. I don't remove these from my game, but do impose XP costs.

You could do what I do..just bump them up a level..although I like the x.p. cost

Welcome to the Rat Bastard DM's club!

jh

 

[Joker]

There may be equivalents but that doesn't mean they're as good/useful as the spells that are "cliche."

And about essential: While no spell is essential, per se, some are damn useful.

That said, in our campaign, 2 out of 4 are wizards, necromancer and an everythingalist. Their have a wide variety of spells that they nearly always prepare and usually cast because they are such effective spells. Invisibility, Shade Storm, Firebrand, Mind Blank, Maximized Firebrand, Lightning Bolt, Fly (they're always flying) and Teleport especially is used about 28 times a day.

I find these spells to be overused though I can't say that I mind or pay much attention to it.
When we look at the battlemap and we see a bunch of opponents all within 30 feet of each other I can see the smile that creeps upon the Firebrand happy mage's face because I know what he's gonna do. Someone makes a comment about, we all laugh, the DM sighs and we continue, because ultimately the game for me at least is more about a few over-used spells.

Hope that makes any sense, if not, send questions/comments/complaints to fakemail@fake.fake.

 

[jdrakeh]

You guys are telling me that if those spells didn't exist wizards would be dropping like flies in the every D&D game?

Wait for it. . .

There's too much material out there (Complete D&D books for example) for me to believe it.

This assumes that everybody runs a "and the kitchen sink" D&D campaign when it comes to supplements. In my experience, most groups tend to stick to the three core books with one or two supplements tops (and even then DMs tend to restrict class/feat/spell selection to stuff that makes sense for a given setting).

Even so. . . if you're using a stack of spell supplements one foot tall, you might not run into this problem as quickly. That said, even if you have a buttload of spell books, you will eventually run into 'cliche' spell selection, as said selection is still limited to the number of spells present in the supplements that you're using.

Unless you're perpetually adding new spells and spell lists to your game, certain selections becoming cliche is enevitable. With more spell supplementation it takes longer to hit this wall, but due to why players select spells (i.e., for usefulness), one will eventually come up against it.

Again, this is simply a pifall of picking things from finite lists (which, incidentally, is why certain feats/skills/class/etc have also become cliche).

 

[VirgilCaine]

You could do what I do..just bump them up a level..although I like the x.p. cost

Welcome to the Rat Bastard DM's club!

You mean the Jackass DM's club.

Sounds like you two don't like spells that make it harder to run a plot.
Even though there are ways around and limits to these spells, no, let's not embrace the challenge, and try and be creative...you just weasel out.

[Where's the rolling-eyes smiley, for frack's sake?!?]

 

[rgard]

No offense, but isnt that just min-maxing then? If they were 'essential' shouldn't they be "class skills?"

jh

No offense taken, but I don't see the min-maxing. These are spells, not skills.

Thanks,
Rich