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

VirgilCaine said:
You mean the Jackass DM's club.

<snip>

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

Frack! Sorry to change the topic, but isn't BSG great to watch?!!!!

Thanks,
Rich
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Wizard.. players?

My group almost never seems to see full out arcane casters for some reason. Plenty of divine casters, occasionally a hybrid arcane caster (bard, duskblade, etc), but straight wizards or sorcerers are a rare sight.
 

Emirikol said:
BTW, here's my list of "cliche'" spells that I get tired of seeing players choose (and actively work to disencourage through particular aspects of DMing). Afterall, each of these spells have other equivalents that any player who takes more than 5 seconds can find..

Create water
Command
Detect (alignment)
Entangle
Magic missile
Hold person
Invisiiblity
Create Food & Water
Fireball
Fly
Lightning bolt
Raise Dead
Polymorph
Teleport

jh

I don't have my D&D Men & Magic available right now but that list does seem to cover a good portion of the spelllist from that august tome. Where others might see cliche, I see classic.

Now, I have played a wizard that chose evocation as a forbidden school. I have heard of some DMs who remove the Evocation school to change the way magic is percieved. Doing this does require a careful look at encounters, since CRs were set up with the idea that 'death dealt quickly' would be the norm in most parties.

How many NPCs have you designed with the idea to avoid these spells? If you haven't give it a try! My preference would be to use only the Core spelllist to avoid the M:tG style of reusing a game mechanic with different art/spell name.
 

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

Thanks,
Rich
Exactly. And essential ones. The question is akin to the question "Why do your fighter use martial weapons? Simple weapons are far more creative."

These spells are essential, because... without them, the Wizard would die faster and do less.
And they're the only ones that are *really* good on the core list, and make Counterspelling a bit more worthwhile (because the typical selection makes it a bit more predictable).

Spells I'm really annoyed of, are... umh, the save-and-die-spells... but Arcana Evolved has a far more sane idea of it, and it's snatched, even for the standard D&D games! :)
 


Emirikol said:
each of these spells have other equivalents that any player who takes more than 5 seconds can find..

Create water
Command
Detect (alignment)
Entangle
Magic missile
Hold person
Invisiiblity
Create Food & Water
Fireball
Fly
Lightning bolt
Raise Dead
Polymorph
Teleport

jh

You're kidding right?
 

They usually pick the ones that are the best for keeping them alive. So I can't get tired of them picking fireball, web, lighting bolt, teleport, Disintegrate, etc.... Since the way I run my games makes such selection optimal for survival.

If I want them to pick different spells then I better change the foes they face to get them to do so.
 

I don't get bored of seeing players choose particular spells for their utility any more than I get tired of seeing fighters use swords or axes. Spells are their weapons and their tools. I wouldn't expect to see a carpenter, for example, refuse to use a hammer or a saw just because every other carpenter uses them. If you think you're going to be fighting skeletons or a lich, you bring along blunt weapons, right? Sometimes a fireball or a fly spell is the right tool for the job. It's one of the things that sucks about D&D, but if you're a spellcaster, your spells are going to gravitate towards certain choices.

I try to vary my spellcasters in their design more than their spell selection. Specialist diviners are fun, since you only have to give up one school and there are alot of great divinations out there. When I make a combat-focused wizard, I actually go for conjurers in an attempt to break the fireball machine stereotype. Conjurers can be just as bad-assed with acid arrow, sleet storm, and summoned critters. Again, it kinda sucks for the purposes of diversifying spellcasters, but a staff of fire is one of the best buys for the cash. That's what I usually do, I get a staff of fire for slogging through dungeons and use other neat spells to fill out my lists.

I do think alot of people freak out when they get 3rd level spells. I rarely see anyone adventure without dispel magic memorized, although it usually doesn't come up that often. I don't see why you can't just buy a scroll or two and memorize another spell.
 

Dykstrav said:
I try to vary my spellcasters in their design more than their spell selection. Specialist diviners are fun, since you only have to give up one school and there are alot of great divinations out there. When I make a combat-focused wizard, I actually go for conjurers in an attempt to break the fireball machine stereotype. Conjurers can be just as bad-assed with acid arrow, sleet storm, and summoned critters.

Add a supplement with Orb spells, and suddenly the conjurer is a better evoker than the evoker.
 


Remove ads

Top