deganawida
Legend
Yep, and, like every other warrior class but the Fighter, gets +1 to attack every level starting at level 2.
D&D General Why Do You Think Wizards Are Boring?
- Thread starter Sparky McDibben
- Start date
Zardnaar
Legend
Yeah some of them get +19 over 20 levels while fighter gets +20 iirc.
Might have to break out C&C want to run non 5E soon (ACKs, C&C or 2E one of those 3).
deganawida
Legend
Yeah, I’ve been considering the same. Only thing that I don’t really like about C&C is the saves. Is that petty? Not sure
One way to make wizards less boring is to revert to some version of the old (unpopular and frequently ditched) rule where spells got added to their lists in a randomized fashion. It’s hard to play cookie cutter Mages when it’s highly improbable that they’d get the same spells. I always liked it for that reason. You almost always wound up with spells you’d need to THINK about uses for.
I am often challenged when I say that I liked that randomness, but it’s true. To me:
1) it modeled a mage who might be researching all kinds of arcane theories and practices, and just happened to have a breakthrough in an unexpected area. Or who found a spell hidden where none expected it to be secreted away.
2) it also encouraged casters to share knowledge. If you’re in a party and your latest new spell is Aunty’s Bath, but your teammate learned Mirror Image, you might want to give access to your spellbook in order to gain access to hers.
3) and that leads to a general broadening of spellcasting options within a party, as well as having what is essentially a backup agains spellbook loss/confiscation.
Re: #2
The last Diviner (multiclassed into Spellsword) I played was in a party with the guy with the decades-long history of “photocopied” wizard spell lists. It was in yet another campaign where the randomized spell-learning rule had been ditched. He bitched about my PC’s spell selection- especially his lack of attack spells- but simultaneously refused to have his PC teach mine anything, nor learn any spells mine knew.
I had no problems playing my PC, and contributed every session. Nonetheless, I retired the character mid-campaign when- over a period of a few months- we lost the only player with a divine caster over 2nd level, and replaced him with another…who also left. Both moved out of town. I replaced my Diviner with a Geomancer in order to keep the party healthy.
I am often challenged when I say that I liked that randomness, but it’s true. To me:
1) it modeled a mage who might be researching all kinds of arcane theories and practices, and just happened to have a breakthrough in an unexpected area. Or who found a spell hidden where none expected it to be secreted away.
2) it also encouraged casters to share knowledge. If you’re in a party and your latest new spell is Aunty’s Bath, but your teammate learned Mirror Image, you might want to give access to your spellbook in order to gain access to hers.
3) and that leads to a general broadening of spellcasting options within a party, as well as having what is essentially a backup agains spellbook loss/confiscation.
Re: #2
The last Diviner (multiclassed into Spellsword) I played was in a party with the guy with the decades-long history of “photocopied” wizard spell lists. It was in yet another campaign where the randomized spell-learning rule had been ditched. He bitched about my PC’s spell selection- especially his lack of attack spells- but simultaneously refused to have his PC teach mine anything, nor learn any spells mine knew.
I had no problems playing my PC, and contributed every session. Nonetheless, I retired the character mid-campaign when- over a period of a few months- we lost the only player with a divine caster over 2nd level, and replaced him with another…who also left. Both moved out of town. I replaced my Diviner with a Geomancer in order to keep the party healthy.
G
Guest 7042500
Guest
It doesn't help that many people think a wizard out of spells is boring. A long discussion elsewhere revealed that the reason for this is many referees severely punish wizards who try anything other than throwing spells.
For all I slag him for a lack of creativity, the guy running the xeroxed arcanists was wickedly talented at playing them like a professional race car driver nursing his gas tank for every precious mile and second.
His husbanding of spells was truly something to learn from. He’d cast spells as economically as possible, which usually meant NOT slinging spells every turn. Hell, he might not even use a magic item either. Typically, only the party rogues would carry more daggers than his mages.
Result: he was rarely the one demanding the party rest, and he usually held 1-2 decent combat spells until the party camped for the night.
Zardnaar
Legend
I played in a game once as a warlock. Proficient in persuasion.
The wizard wanted to do the diplomacy. Wasn't even proficient in the skill 10 charisma.
Blows the diplo roll. Made very little effort to role-playing so no advantage either.
That game fell apart for other reasons.
Last edited:
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
Persuasion checks I find tend to come up somewhat organically in play anyway rather than the party face always being the one doing the social interactions. I was playing a fighter that had a 10 charisma and would often have to make Persuasion checks with that +0 bonus. Intimidation I was a little better with since I was proficient. Still had some great rolls with Deception and Persuasion in that game (also some not so good ones).
I have learned that both PCs and players have limitations.
Why’d the party let someone unsuited to the task make the attempt?
Similar Threads
