Wizard: Essential Class or Scared Cow

[Dr Simon]

"Wizard" essentially means "Wise Man", hence the image of an old geezer dispensing advice. Gandalf was definitely a 'wizard' in this respect and you can be sure that Tolkien was very specific in using this term - Gandalf's main power was not in magic but in giving counsel, his powers of fire (which are possibly via his ring anyway) are as much about 'firing up the hearts and courage of men (sorry Men)' as they are about fireballs. The term Wizard has probably stuck to Merlin for the same reason.

On a game-related note, it's interesting to consider the changes to the magic system in Arcana Evolved when thinking about D&D 'sacred cows'. From Monte Cook's design diaries, it's apparent that some elements of the Wizard class are holdovers from D&D, kept for the sake of familiarity.

d4 Hit dice, for example, make for a very tricky disparity in hit points when you get to higher levels.
The other interesting element of AE is to do away with the arcane/divine division. All spellcasters can potentially access the same list of spells, but this can be varied through feats that unlock spells with certain descriptors.
The requirements for the spells varies with the caster, not the spell. Whereas D&D spells are discerned with V,S and M components (and DF,XP), in AE it depends what your spellcasting class is as to what components you need. Only Witches, for example, use material components. They can cast without them but it takes longer. Magisters have a staff as a focus, again casting takes longer without it. Magisters always use somatic components andt thus face spell failure checks from armour. Greenbonds, on the other hand, only have a verbal component (a call to the spirits) and thus don't suffer armour penalties.
Whether you are a healer, a flash-bang caster or a mix is down to how you choose your spells (and some feats).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

How scared is this cow, exactly?

 

[Tonguez]

Thanks Dr Simon I haven't looked at AE but your description of the magic system has piqued my interest somewhat and I think that what you have described might be a good solution for the 'Wizard' as a role

it would be Mr Dustyboots to pick up on the deliberate typo
yes with all these threads around, the cows should be terrified

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Next, you're going to say that the Z at the end of your handle isn't a typo, either!

 

[hong]

Tonguez-vous Francois?

 

[phindar]

I'll throw another vote in for AE. Its a very versatile magic system that doesn't get into the arcane/divine terminology. On the whole the spells are a little less powerful than their D&D counterparts, but casters have a lot more freedom in how they cast them. Its definitely worth a look.

 

[Dr Simon]

A quick tutorial of AE magic:

There are three levels of difficulty of magic: Simple spells, Complex spells and Exotic spells.

All spellcasters can cast Simple spells. Only the Magister class can cast Complex spells (they are the wizardy ones who can do little else - crap BAB, proficient in one (! ) weapon and 2 skill points (although as Int-based casters this usually isn't the case). Other spellcasting classes can gain access to Complex spells via a feat for each level of spell that they wish to cast (thus Complex Spell Level 3, for example). Exotic spells usually require a feat *each* to learn.

Other feats alter this access. If you take Fire Mage, for example, you can access all spells with the fire descriptor at one band higher. If you are a simple spelllcaster, you get complex fire spells. If you can cast complex spells of that level, you get exotic fire spells. And so on.

So: From a baseline, you can shape the type of spells that your character can cast.

All spellcasters prep spells like a cleric or druid; that is, they have access to *all* spells on their list and may choose daily. They then cast them like a sorcerer - all spellcasting classes have a number of spells that they can prepare per day, then a different number of slots that they can use to power those spells.

Then: You can combine three slots of one level to form one of a higher level, or 'unweave' a slot to give two lower level slots. You can weave up as much as you like, down only once.

And: All spells can be cast as if one level higher (heightened) or one lower (diminished). For each spell this laters it somehow. Sometimes it changes duration or damage, in some cases it adds or removes a particular effect. For example, a spell that normally only affects creatures of your own type may affect other types when heightened, and give a saveing throw bonus when diminished.

These two effects give great flexibility to how a spellcaster uses his resources, and you really can play down to the last spell slot in a tough combat.

But there's more!

You can apply templates to spells. Most of the metamagic feats are subsumed under one feat: Modify Spell. To cast a modified spell uses two spell slots of the appropriate level. Recall above I mentioned Fire Mage? Well that, and other feats like it, also offer the use of a Fire Template. In this case, you sacrifice a 20gp ruby and add 1d6 fire damage to a spell. Other templates have different costs and different effects. Peaceful Mage, for example, gives the Subdual template which costs nothing and turns lethal damage to subdual damage.

It's a nice collection of simple innovations that adds together to a very flexible system.

 

[Dr Simon]

I've put this in a seperate post, as it answers the original question rather than gives a tutorial on AE magic!

Dropping the wizard would put more emphasis on the fighter as damage-dealer at higher levels. Spells like flight and invisibility would be harder to come by (in the hands of only some clerics, I think), making the role of the rogue more important. It would probably play more like RuneQuest (at least the 2nd/3rd Ed. that I'm used to) where most of the magic is in the form of buffs and the like - you'd get a more physical game.

 

[Delta]

Yes the source material does call these various characters wizards but my point is that although they are called such they do not in fact match the DnD concept of Wizard... Of course the OP also points out how ridiculous discussion of Essentiality vs Sacred Cowness is, since any character could be concieved with reference to any one or more 'class combinations'.

I disagree. Characters like these are precisely what the D&D Wizard class is meant to simulate. That's why D&D uses the term and not some other. As I said above, the critique can't be that these characters aren't wizards.

Also, I disagree that arbitrary class combinations should be expected in building characters. My attitude is that the in-game language and roles should be exactly the same as the rules-based language we use. Usually, people in favor of disconnecting the two are people who'd prefer to dismiss the whole class-based system in its entirety (and are engaged in a project to break down the whole system).

 

[Hussar]

I disagree. Characters like these are precisely what the D&D Wizard class is meant to simulate. That's why D&D uses the term and not some other. As I said above, the critique can't be that these characters aren't wizards.

Also, I disagree that arbitrary class combinations should be expected in building characters. My attitude is that the in-game language and roles should be exactly the same as the rules-based language we use. Usually, people in favor of disconnecting the two are people who'd prefer to dismiss the whole class-based system in its entirety (and are engaged in a project to break down the whole system).

I disagree with this to some degree since most fictional characters do not follow class paradigms. Most fictional heroes borrow from a range of skills and whatnot because the writer decides that he can. We don't have this level of control over our PC's obviously. So, if I want to play a Grey Mouser character, I add in a couple levels of wizard. Gandalf could easily have a few levels of fighter. So on and so forth.

Unless we start creating a new class to emulate every character out there, there needs to be some flexibility. That comes from multiclassing. Class does not have to be seen as defining all aspects of the character. The character can come first with class simply filling in the holes.