Wizards in my hypothetical campaign

[FireLance]

Well, since you asked for my opinion... I don't like them because I like the idea of generalist wizards. In fact, I would be more inclined do the exact opposite in my campaigns: only allow generalist wizards at 1st level, and write up eight prestige classes for each of the eight schools to represent wizards who have chosen to specialize in one school of magic. Characters who want to "specialize" from 1st-level can choose one of the "specialist" base classes like warmage, dread necromancer or beguiler.

 

[joela]

Your Reaction
You sat through my prep talk and find yourself thinking, "Distracted as I was by Felix's stunning good looks, his wizardly house rules evoked quite a reaction; were I to articulate them, they would read something like _____________."

"I already play specialists. Now, are your spell-casting monsters and major NPCs specialized as well? If not, I feel PCs are unduly restricted."

 

[Felix]

Think of a liberal arts degree candidate as a generalist and an engineer or business school candidate as a specialist.

I see the bard as the liberal arts guy; he minors in magic, plays intramural sports to up his HD and BAB, and goes to enough parties to be able to talk his way into anyone's bedroom but still have the skill to survive a 2-storey jump-and-tumble through a window when the boyfriend comes back.

Meanwhile, at 10pm Friday night, the wizards are shut away in their rooms toiling over thaumaturgic readings. Or playing DnD.

I could see room in the campaign for a bard that was a spellbook-caster to represent dabblers, or simply allow multiclassing into Wizard as a generalist only after 1st level and only allow 5 levels in the class. This would keep dabblers to low-level spells and present a pay-off to those who decided to study hard and focus.

I don't like them because I like the idea of generalist wizards.

May I ask why?

One of the descriptions of magic I loved in Mongoose's Conan RPG was the rules of sorcerery, the Rule of Obsession in particular. It means that sorcerers obsess over their magic and anything that gets in the way, a love affair or acting as vassal to a lord, impedes their casting effectiveness. They may remove this penalty by somehow bringing the distraction around to further their own power: they ritually sacrifice their lover or slay the lord and become master over his kingdom, that sort of thing. These actions serve to increase the sorcerer's magical ability beyond even what it was originally.

Not that I would put this into my game, but I love the idea that magic warps the practitioner; they are attracted by the power it offers; they are fascinated by their potential advancement; they are drawn inexorably into their chosen school like moths to a flame, and are unable to stay emotionally unattached to their school. What can I say? I like my wizards eccentric.

I already play specialists. Now, are your spell-casting monsters and major NPCs specialized as well? If not, I feel PCs are unduly restricted.

The restriction against generalist mages is part of the nature of magic, and as such NPCs are subject to it as much as any PC would be. Most likely NPC wizards will be more focused in their repitoire than will PCs; they don't get out too much, and in a school full of enchanters, you'll have a time finding a diverse selection of Transmutation spells. Of course, that will mean that the wizards the PCs run into are focused in what they do, and so will be very good at what they do.

 

[FireLance]

May I ask why?

On a personal level, I like generalists because my preferred learning style is to acquire basic knowledge in a wide variety of areas, as opposed to specialized knowledge in a narrow field.

With respect to the game, my fundamental problem is that of barred schools. I feel that it unnecessarily limits the wizard's main strength of being potentially able to acquire and use any spell. In my view, barred schools as a concept is more applicable to sorcerers, who already face strict limits on the number of spells they can know. I find it ironic that a sorcerer can use almost any arcane scroll, and any wand or staff that contains a spell on his spell list, while a specialized wizard cannot if the spell comes from one of his barred schools.

I suppose if wizard specialization did not bar other schools, I'd be happier with a specialist-only game. Something like the approach taken by psions, so that specialists could still learn spells from other schools, but had access to better spells from their own specialized school, for example. Alternatively, a restriction that spells from other schools are learned and cast at caster level -1 (or -2 or more at higher levels), so that a 1st-level specialist can only learn cantrips from other than his specialized school, and must know more spells in his specialty than any other school.

 

[Wik]

Why not just ban generalist wizards? This "cardinal" stuff confuses me.

 

[green slime]

I find it too restrictive. I doubt I'd ever play a wizard in this campaign.

On the whole I find specialisation too restrictive, in a similar vein to Firelance.

 

[Felix]

On a personal level, I like generalists because my preferred learning style is to acquire basic knowledge in a wide variety of areas, as opposed to specialized knowledge in a narrow field.

On the whole I find specialisation too restrictive, in a similar vein to Firelance.

Ah, that would be the sticky wicket then. For what it's worth I like the idea that magic has something of a life of its own. If you've ever read Pratchett's Discworld novels the wizards there "don't use magic so much as they don't use it, but in a dynamic way, like the atomic bomb". The idea being that you might think you know what you're doing, but magic has its way of twisting what you've done to its own ends.

Not that I would go that far, but I like that magic is a vibrant force in and of itself. And so when an apprentice is studying his first cantrips, Illusion finds that his head is quite comfy and invites itself in to stay; the magic pairs itself with the wizard as much as the wizard chooses the school of magic. Similarly, some schools find wizards' souls (or personalties, or whatever) anaethma; the wizard doesn't choose to eschew schools of magic, he simply is unable to use the spell energies of that school.

"Why can't you cast Daze?" one apprentice asks another; "I don't know, but nor can you cast Flare, right?"

Why not just ban generalist wizards? This "cardinal" stuff confuses me.

Mechanically, all I have done is ban generalists and enforce limitations on the chosen barred schools. The "cardinal" business is flavor; it is the application of human definitions on observed phenomena. But I don think that some schools enjoy an advantage in terms of power over other schools, and this does go some way to limit that power.

As it stands in 3.5e, a Conjurer with Evocation and Transmutation barred will be considered equal in power mechanically speaking as a Enchanter with Illusion and Necromancy barred, and this arrangement is possible in my game as well. What won't be possible is a Conjurer with Illusion and Necromancy barred who would be widely considered (and in my campaign setting, unanimously considered ) to be more powerful than an Enchanter with the same schools unavailable, and that is just fine with me.

What I would like the most would be a balanced system of magical schools wherin the schools have an opposite they practicioner may not use. As if Enchaters could never use Conjuration and vice-versa. I very much like that flavor. Magic: the Gathering, for all its faults, is elegant in that White is opposed by Black and Red, Blue by Red and Green, et cetera. Unfortunately, I don't feel the 8 schools of magic work well like that, nor do I want to apply the D.U.S.K.'s changes to the magic system to my own.