Wizards, Armour and the Collective Consciousness

[NerfedWizard]

Wow. This went in a different direction. ... NerfedWizard ... set it up as as if Gray Beard was just being crazy and irrational. He wasn't. He's just using 3.5 rules. ...
Then again, are you guys really going to get along in game with something like this going on? You guys don't seem to get along. Is it worth sitting at the table together?

Actually, no, the debate did NOT arise in the context of an ongoing 3.5 game. It arose in the context of OGB wanting to make his own homebrew game with new variants of spellcasting classes. I suggested e.g. Witch as an unholy pure magic-user, and Warlock as an unholy warrior-wizard with the ability to wear all armour and use all weapons but less good spellcasting based on Bard spellcasting. As he was proposing to nerf clerics entirely, this seemed workable. But his response was that it's basically unimaginable for wizards to be wearing armour and "doesn't make sense" (for flavour reasons). I don't purport to quote exactly. But that's how the debate actually started - it's nothing to do with an ongoing 3.5 edition game, and he's NOT even the DM at the moment!

But we do get along, as we are both thick-skinned

 

[OldGreybeard]

If NerfedWizard would have some patience and not want everything now, this instance, he could try playing a creature from Savage Species, get it past its racial class then play wizard to get all its natural AC, special abilities etc.

He could select one of the classes from The Complete Wizard, play a Prestige class from any number of reference books. All these options are things he hasn`t done before, so should keep him interested, but no.

 

[NerfedWizard]

(And both love arguing as you can see.)

So basically, if it's pure D&D 3.5, I won't play wizards because clerics make them look like total losers, and I won't play armoured wizards because clerics make them look like total losers. I did try playing wizards and sorcerers for a very long time but in the end the power difference was too much to stomach in what was quite frankly a hack and slash game.

If it's a homebrew variant where clerics and druids are totally and utterly nerfed, I would happily play a wizard, or indeed an armoured wizard, as per current D&D 3.5 rules. They're not useless in a party of fighters, rangers and rogues - it's only when the cleric comes along, or a druid, that you suddenly realise that there is someone else in the party who can do absolutely everything that the wizard can do - better than the wizard can do it - and has tons of other stuff as well.

The only reason clerics do not totally break the game is that they are usually positive plane-aligned and are forced into acting as healers for the party. But that is BORING. BORING BORING BORING. So, that leaves negative plane-aligned clerics, and they're OK.

If I were to debate savage species, the complete wizard etc. we would be here all year but reach the same conclusion so let's not even start that discussion!

Anyone else got any literary references for armoured wizards???

 

[pawsplay]

True, but not really where I was going with this. Mostly, I was saying that (from a 4e-mindset) Elric would actually be better mechanically modelled as a Martial character with Ritual Casting; he never uses on the fly magical effects that I can recall, and spends quite a lot of time in armor whacking people with a sword! As such, he's not a really good argument for Wizards in armor, since he wouldn't be a wizard by this line of thinking.

If you come from a 3e mindset, he'd have to be casting spells from a variant list with long casting times, which would making him a Wizard in Armor example.

I disagree with ecluding him. He is a literary magician. From his example, we can talk about wizards in armor, what kinds of spells wizards use, and so forth.

If you start by defining a wizard as "A guy who does not primarily hit with a sword, who uses non-divine magic," you are beginning with the D&D definition and then see who would be a D&D wizard. But the arcane/divine divide is less distinct in mythology and literature and the idea of arcane energy seems to come from Robert Howard, who viewed magic as imposing order on primal, fluctuating chaos. 19th centurty high magicians invoked the names of angels and depended on magical will, which would make them multi-classed shaman/psions in D&D. Merlin is a druid or a 1st edition AD&D bard. Even the wizards in Dragonlance are effectively divine casters, as the magic practiced by the Towers is a divine gift and spellcasting is described as touching the "minds of the gods."

So in the context of this thread, Elric raises the issue, "Perhaps wizards should be armored, sword-wielding ritualists who draw their power from pacts with spirits," not "How would you create Elric in D&D 4e?" Similarly, the fact that Gandalf wields a sword suggests that barring wizards in D&D from using swords also has a weaker basis in literature. The fact that many magicians uses a divine source, such as Eddings' sorcerers, Krynn's wizards, Ars Magica's hermetics, and even Tolkien's Istari, suggests that that the divine/arcane divide specific to the D&D mythos, not a fairly universal trope.

In effect, disregarding Elric would be discounting him specifically because he is a perfect example of what was asked for. He would also be a good example of, "Can anyone think of literary wizards who don't hurl fireballs or other blasts of energy?" He also works for multiclassed fighter/wizards, wizards from an aristocratic background, wizardry that necessarily involves trekking with evil forces, and probably other things as well.

 

[NerfedWizard]

Well said, pawsplay!

In my game, Omnifray (Omnifray RPG - Home), wizards draw their power from spirits, whether pagan (the Elder Spirits, Elemental Spirits etc.) or unholy (demons, devils, possibly the undead). The difference for me between wizards and pagan or unholy priests is that wizards impose their will on (weak-ish) magical spirits, bending them to their power, whereas priests are gifted with (minor) powers in return for their devotion to the greater magical spirits (Warlocks get their powers from bargains they make with devils, and witches initially from cavorting with them, or later from being diabolically cursed crones, and both are considered priests.) Sorcerers, on the other hand, have inherent magical essence in their own spirits (just like mystics have inherent mystical power - which is non-magical because it is not sparkly and tingly, but is supernatural, and could be e.g. a bit like Chi/Ki (e.g. ninja powers), or mind-powers, or powers based on an omnipresent impersonal force, etc.). In Omnifray there are no holy wizards - or at least, if there are any, they are very much the exception, not the rule, and only exist as members of niche cults which are ultra-secretive. There are holy priests, of course, and angelkin are analogous to sorcerers. I am hoping this sounds cool.

But the point is, in my own RPG, which I wrote, I made wizards draw on the power of spirits - just like the wizard in Shakespeare's The Tempest, IIRC.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

NerfWizard(my player), doesn`t want to lose any spellslots, or read any supplements, he just wants WotC or D20 to change the rules with a big magic wand so all wizards can cast spells, wear heavy armour, use Greatswords and suffer no ill effects.

Telling him this destroys game balance does no good, he just quotes others games that have no bearing on the game we are playing.

Signed: An Exasperated DM.....

First off, as DM, in my opinion, its your game your rules.
In the context of 3.5 there are armoured spell casters, warmage and others and feats that reduce the spell failure.

On the topic of the thread, the fluff justifications in D&D for non armoured casters are weak. The best fluff I have come across was in a D20 supplement (Whose name I cannot now recall but I think EEG may have written it) that magic use genereated heat and that magic users overheated with magic use and so they normally wore light or little clothes and it took special training to tolerate the heat that occured when casting in armour.

 

[Dausuul]

BUT the reason I would NOT play an armoured wizard with reduced spell slots in D&D 3.5 is that clerics are already super-powered compared to wizards.

Huh. I never saw it that way. My view is that (at high levels, anyway) clerics dominate the conventional battlefield, whereas wizards bypass the battlefield entirely. What with teleportation, illusion magic, and a bewildering array of utility spells, a creative 3.X wizard can often arrange to get the job done without having to fight. And if they do get into a fight, they have a wide assortment of ways to mess up enemies without ever touching their hit points (mind control, death spells, enervation, et cetera). Meanwhile, AC is the least of their defenses.

Of course, I also would not be inclined to play a 3.5 wizard who traded any significant spell slots for armor... but that's mostly because a wizard who's depending on AC to protect him from enemies is probably dead already. What happened to your overland flight, stoneskin, displacement, mirror image, superior resistance, and protection from energy spells?

(Okay, that's a slightly extreme list. But really, most things that target your AC can be foiled by a simple mirror image, re-cast as necessary. Throw in displacement if you're seriously worried.)

 

[Aus_Snow]

So basically, if it's pure D&D 3.5, I won't play wizards because clerics make them look like total losers

Man what?

You are seriously opining that Wizards are overshadowed by any class in 3e?

Actually, that rhetorical question doesn't just apply to 3e. . .

Of course, 4e is a whole 'nother thing with regards to that, but wow. The [previously] undisputed masters of the frickin' multiverse are underpowered. Huh.

 

[OldGreybeard]

What NerfWizard doesn`t grasp is that Clerics have very few harming ranged attacks or area of effect spells, they are the forte of the wizard, these wizards therefore stand back away from harm and blast creatures to oblivion without getting near a monster, to keep them away they have spells like Improved Invisibility, Fly, not to mention their vast array of defensive spells.

But NerfWizard hasn`t mentioned how as a Wizard or Sorcerer he likes to be in the front with the fighters cos he doesn`t want to miss a thing, he wants to take part in everything the party does, and if his character gets hurt it becomes the DM`s fault, not his. I have suggested time and time again that if he wants to play this way he should take a multi-classed Wizard, all to no avail, he won`t even contemplate that, as his spellcasting level would therefore suffer.

So he opens a discussion to try and put pressure on me to allow Wizards to wear Plate and suffer no penalties. He will just never learn he has no chance Hahahahaha.

 

[Nellisir]

Wow, this went pretty juvenile pretty quickly. NerfWizard and OldGreybeard ought to put each other on ignore or something.

NerfWizard: if the DM doesn't want wizards in armor, then no wizards in armor. You've gone way past the point of useful debate. he clearly doesn't see this as a "design" discussion, but a DMing discussion. And deal with your power balance issues. Explore splat books, or find a new game. I've played a butt-kicking cleric, and I've played a butt-ckicking wizard, and while Amedi was the most powerful member of the party, Toad was probably more powerful than the rest of the party together. Quit trying to undermine the DM.

OldGreybeard: Your personal shots at Nerfwizard really aren't doing you any favors. None of us are going to game with him, and his writing is alot smoother on this board than yours is. And that's all we have to judge by. In the future, you're better off saying "I'm the DM and that's how it is in my campaign" than trying to come up with some kind of universal rule of magic, unless you really want him to try and undermine it every game night with a new example. Discussing other people's settings (novel, movie, or otherwise) is almost totally pointless.

Move on.

(Coming up next: the finer points of grappling)