Or maybe - just maybe - there's not really anything wrong with the class at all. Maybe you just have to be a good DM and slow things down a bit. A good DM + a good player = a good game. Any class works within that formula. Mr. Jacobs' complaints above are not about the class itself. Rather, I think it would be more accurate to say that they're about the class's viability in the sort of adventures he has to design and market. Within that context, he's right: they suck. Outside of that context, he's wrong.One word: wow. You said everything I was thinking, far more clearly and eloquently than I could have hoped to. 100% dead spot on.
Agreed. Even in the sense of the APs and the RoHD Sebastian enquired about, I don't think it's that hard to find a way to slow things down if there's a wizard. Don't have one? Great, press on for super fast paced action! But if there is a wizard, just put in some boat travel, a stalemate in whatever battle is raging, or whatever. You don't necessarily have to dispel (all) the tension and excitement to weave in some downtime for the wizard.
To answer Sebastian more directly, yes, I think a wizard is still perfectly viable in a fast-paced game. Not at the peak of his game, it's true, but remember that wizards can also take metamagic feats and never touch item creation. I presume in such a game there is still enough time to buy some scrolls, if not craft them. Provided such is the case, then the wizard will do fine. Could be better, but should do fine.
More thoughts. Give wizards "unlimited" cantrips per day at 5th level. Either they "prepare" an allotment, but the spell slot never actually gets used and the wizard can just keep casting them, or they can spontaneously cast all cantrips at will (I highly doubt it would be game breaking).
Open up their 1st level bonus feat. Instead of mandating Scribe Scroll, just make it as open as any other wizard bonus feat (thus they could take metamagic, too).
Give the option to forgo the familiar for another feat, or perhaps a bonus on spellcasting in some fashion.
Actually, merging Archmage into the wizard base class doesn't sound so bad. I mean, isn't it kind of wierd to think there could be a 15th level mage running around, but he's not really an archmage?
At any rate, giving them at least arcane fire as a class feature would go a long ways to alleviating the apparent lack of useful actions in any given combat.
Bonus/free reserve feats seems appropriate, too, except for the free caster level boost it gives. That might be a bit much. But it doesn't really take away from the warlock, because with blast shape and eldritch essence invocations, it still beats what can be done with every reserve feat I know about (even the range on a basic eldritch blast makes it a better option). Also, as soon as you blow the Big Spell you were holding in reserve, said power vanishes.
I'm running into a similar situation with my campaign's tank. He took Anscestral weapon, which allows you to trade treasure and prayer to improve your weapon, but it takes time, days really. And we rarely have stood still long enough. So maybe I need to allow more time, but I wan them to feel pressured. Oi, its a crap shoot.
I chose the Arch mage prestige class, merging the two would be tasty!
|
Yay, I had an idea people liked...
And to paraphrase star trek, if we went strictly by the book, days would seem like hours.
Let wizards scribe scrolls at a rate of 125gp/hour instead of 1000gp/8 hour day. Let them put spells in their book in hours instead of days as well.
Anyone care for the Arcane Assistance idea I had? Basically being able to burn cantrips for circumstance bonus, effectively using them as nameless spells appropriate to the situation. It requires spontaneous cantrips to make sense, and more than 4 cantrips per day, but not unlimited.
Speaking of which, why doesn't rediculously high Int grant bonus 0th level spells?
As for gandalf, if you Say he is human, then he took martial weapon proficiency with his bonus feat, if you know he isn't maybe it is a racial proficiency thing...
|
|
As for gandalf, if you Say he is human, then he took martial weapon proficiency with his bonus feat, if you know he isn't maybe it is a racial proficiency thing...
Gandalf & Saruman aren't human. They're closer to archons or other powerful outsiders sent to guide the races of the world that took human form. Except "Alignment: Always *" wasn't part of Saruman's stat block.
Great thread people.
And this all touches tangentially on something else that's been bugging me about the 3.0/3.5 game --
I absolutely loathe the idea of magic shops. One shot items are one thing, since they get used up, but I look at the vast majority of other items and wonder what item crafter in their right minds would ever part with these items for any amount of money.
Come on. A tome? Nobody would ever sell a tome, for any amount of money. Once somebody reads it, it's useless. A wand of anything? No way. Let's say you invented a device that produced 50 individual tanks of gas for your car, and it was small enough that you could carry it on your person. Now let's say each time you made one, it put you in the hospital for a month and cost you three month's salary. Would you ever sell this item? And even if you did, just how astronomical would that price be?
And while we're at it, the amount of gold handed out is ridiculous. by fifth level, players have typically had enough gold pass through their hands (unless all the coins are very tiny) that if they'd saved it instead of spending it on anything, they could afford to retire from adventuring, become nobles, and get into the game with the real action -- politics.
Heck, by the time they're at 15th to 20th level, we don't even have to talk about accumulated or aggregate wealth. My AoW players who are about to start the final confrontation all agreed that between Brazzemal's hoard, the wormdrake's hoard and Dragotha's hoard, they now have enough money to buy the world.
Anyway, I'm starting to topic drift, but the idea of magic shops have always bothered me quite a great deal. I have a very hard time buying that they exist.
Actually, I once (for 2E) created a campaign world where there was a massive wealth divide between the classes. So much so that it was almost as if the wealthy who owned everything and the poor who provided all the sweat and blood to make it happen lived on completely different worlds that just happened to occupy the same point in spacetime. The cities (and other areas where the rich went) were like SuperEberronPlus on Steroids. The rich lived in opulence in comfort, and their lives consited mostly of Machiavellian machinations to increase their own personal wealth and power (even the rich have to keep up with the Jonses), and working to preserve their way of life.
Elsewhere in the world, farmers in the fields lived almost subsitence living and their rarely seen liegelords came and took what they needed (though they'd practically need to invent factory farming at a certain point). Or, in the cities, the poor worked as manual laborers in hard, often lethal jobs, at the darkest, grimiest, lowermost levels of the city, making everything work. They might have also lived in fear of the occasional moster or dragon attack, but I have a hard time envisioning a world like this that hasn't also tamed all the wilds within any kind of threatening distance of their world of comfort.
Okay, now I'm really topic drifitng, so I'll just shut up and hit "Post."
|
|
As for gandalf, if you Say he is human, then he took martial weapon proficiency with his bonus feat, if you know he isn't maybe it is a racial proficiency thing...Gandalf & Saruman aren't human. They're closer to archons or other powerful outsiders sent to guide the races of the world that took human form. Except "Alignment: Always *" wasn't part of Saruman's stat block.
Yeah, I know, hence my choice of phraseology.
I still haven't figured out how to bold or italicize stuff here yet myself.
Just below your post box, where you compose your post, should be the words: "BBCode tags you can use:" and a button labelled "Show."
If you click that button, it will give you a list with examples of all the tags usable on the board, including bold and italics.
1. Magic item "shops" are a completely different topic, and one that has been fought bitterly over many, many times before here on Paizo. While I'm all for voicing my opinions on the matter, it would be better to drag up some old thread about it than bring it up here, because it will almost certainly lead to a threadjacking. Please, it anyone wants to talk about this further, do a search with the words "magic item shop(s)" and post in one of the many threads that will pop up, not here.
2. Gandalf was actually an angel. Whoop-de-doo for him. Not to be irreverant to Tolkien or anyone who is deeply versed in his lore, that is completely irrelevant to my point. The fact that Gandalf wasn't actually human hasn't stopped him from influencing the entire archetype of human wizards. I may not be playing a celestial, but I can still model my wizard off Gandalf.
Now, then, Gandalf had a sword. It was a big magical glowy sword. He hit things with it, and it was effective. Quite a bit more effective than just some human mage who blew a feat on martial weapon proficiency, which is a terrible and dumb idea.
I know a great many people would also like their wizard characters to have big magical glowy swords and be at least noticeable in combat with them. As the RAW stands, that ain't gonna happen.
But, perhaps if you came up with a mechanic to allow people playing wizards to be decent with a big magical glowy sword, that would give them something to do outside of casting spells, which so many people seem to think is problematic for the class for some reason.
|
|
Thanks for the heads-up Sean :)
As for my comment about Gandalf & Saruman, I apologize if I irked anyone. It was not my intent to criticize or "correct" anyone's view of an iconic wizard. Just gave in to one of my "instructional" urges. One of the downsides of having parents and a sister who are teachers.
: \
|
|
But, perhaps if you came up with a mechanic to allow people playing wizards to be decent with a big magical glowy sword, that would give them something to do outside of casting spells, which so many people seem to think is problematic for the class for some reason.
I had an Eldritch Knight in one of Wissel's campaigns that was pretty effective. I don't have the sheet handy but I remembered that I'd made use of Craft Wondrous Item and Craft Armor and Weapons to improve his melee capabilities. I was almost a level behind the rest of the group xp wise but for melee combat I was as effective as the Paladin in group. Only thing I was behind on was that I didn't have quite as high a base attack bonus so I didn't have an iterative attack and I didn't have as many hit points. I was a bit better defensively than him though cause of my gear and spells if I used them. I still used most of my spell slots though for more traditional wizard spells. I also usually left one slot open at each spell level for quickfixes if needed.
1. Magic item "shops" are a completely different topic, and one that has been fought bitterly over many, many times before here on Paizo. While I'm all for voicing my opinions on the matter, it would be better to drag up some old thread about it than bring it up here, because it will almost certainly lead to a threadjacking. Please, it anyone wants to talk about this further, do a search with the words "magic item shop(s)" and post in one of the many threads that will pop up, not here.
Sorry, Saern. I did sort of come up naturally, with the talk of crafting magic items, but I'll take this up elsewhere....
I apologize if I seemed a bit snippy in that last post. I really like this thread, and when I saw the magic item shop comment I just thought, "Oh no..." and could see the original discussion fading away as the even more controversial topic of magic item availability and methods of acquisition took over.
And, I really do like Tolkien and the lore of his works; didn't mean to come off offensive to those.
Would you like a hug Saern?
Yes, this is a great post, I love my wizard, and with the few exceptions ie, hp and penalties in feats, I really wouldn't change a thing. Sure at lower level they're a little sucky, but so are other classes. A wizard is a thinking class, you have to be prepared, think ahead, figure out how to use spells to your advantage, even if out of the norm of the spells usual function, it's fun to be on your toes and try to help the party with wild ideas, some of which actually work :)
Now, then, Gandalf had a sword. It was a big magical glowy sword. He hit things with it, and it was effective. Quite a bit more effective than just some human mage who blew a feat on martial weapon proficiency, which is a terrible and dumb idea.
I know a great many people would also like their wizard characters to have big magical glowy swords and be at least noticeable in combat with them. As the RAW stands, that ain't gonna happen.
But, perhaps if you came up with a mechanic to allow people playing wizards to be decent with a big magical glowy sword, that would give them something to do outside of casting spells, which so many people seem to think is problematic for the class for some reason.
Wizard 6/Fighter 1/Spellsword 1/Eldritch Knight 8/Archmage 4. You're not going to be the party tank, but with a +15 BAB and a 10% reduction to the arcane failure chance from armor (mithral chain shirt, anyone?), you're not completely useless in melee, either. You're best off taking Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot (which work with all those ranged touch attacks, too) and supplementing your spells primarily with ranged weapon attacks, plus you lose two levels of spellcasting. It's still a good build for someone who wants to be able to do more than cast spells.
Straight arcane spellcasters are the equivalent of naval battleships: "eggshells armed with hammers." They are powerful attackers but fragile if you can survive long enough to hit them. The wizard shines in the hands of a skilled player, if he does his research and tailors his prepared spells to the expected activities for the day. Wizards should have at least three different "load-outs" for their daily spells: dungeon, town, and wilderness. They should also have variations by foe/terrain and specialized lists for non-standard scenarios (investigation, performance, spell-duel, etc.). Is that a lot of player preparation? Yes, but you're a freaking wizard! You're playing someone who is probably smarter than 95+% of the populace. Someone who's spent years studying arcane formulas and spelcasting techniques. You should know exactly what your spells can and can't do and make your choices appropriately.
Arcane spells are deliberately the most combat effective and versatile spells in the game. Wizards end up being the party's troubleshooter because their spells are so combat effective and versatile. Clerics and druids can prepare more spells, but their selection is less powerful and many of them will be buffs/heals. A sorcerer can do some of the things a wizard can do very well, but their limited number of spells known keeps them from being as good a troubleshooter or as adaptable as a wizard.
BTW, I like playing arcane casters (wizards more than sorcerers) for the reasons above. That said, characters need to be tailored to the campaign and the DM's/party's playing style. A wizard will not work well in all campaigns/parties.
Now, then, Gandalf had a sword. It was a big magical glowy sword. He hit things with it, and it was effective. Quite a bit more effective than just some human mage who blew a feat on martial weapon proficiency, which is a terrible and dumb idea.
I know a great many people would also like their wizard characters to have big magical glowy swords and be at least noticeable in combat with them. As the RAW stands, that ain't gonna happen.
But, perhaps if you came up with a mechanic to allow people playing wizards to be decent with a big magical glowy sword, that would give them something to do outside of casting spells, which so many people seem to think is problematic for the class for some reason.
Wizard 6/Fighter 1/Spellsword 1/Eldritch Knight 8/Archmage 4. You're not going to be the party tank, but with a +15 BAB and a 10% reduction to the arcane failure chance from armor (mithral chain shirt, anyone?), you're not completely useless in melee, either. You're best off taking Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot (which work with all those ranged touch attacks, too) and supplementing your spells with ranged weapon attacks, plus you lose two levels of spellcasting. It's still a good build for someone who wants to be able to do more than cast spells.
Straight arcane spellcasters are the equivalent of naval battleships: "eggshells armed with hammers." They are powerful attackers but fragile if you can survive long enough to hit them. The wizard shines in the hands of a skilled player, if he does his research and tailors his prepared spells to the expected activities for the day. Wizards should have at least three different "load-outs" for their daily spells: dungeon, town, and wilderness. They should also have variations by foe/terrain and specialized lists for non-standard scenarios (investigation, performance, spell-duel, etc.). Is that a lot of player preparation? Yes, but you're a freaking wizard! You're playing someone who is probably smarter than 95+% of the...
Good build. I have a sorcerer that I'm playing and am not sure if he'll survive (already lost one character in that game). Should the unfortunate happen, I'll look into that build. Not sure if the DM will allow the Spellsword level (he's in a "Core rules only" mode), but even without it, you get 9th level spells and a decent BAB.
More importantly to the thread at hand, your second paragraph is quite vital. Someone asked earlier if wizard really are just the most complex and advanced class in the game. Other than arguably shadowcasters (Want an anurism? Try and figure them out at 2 am), the answer is "yes."
A wizard must have foreknowledge and planning to be at his maximum potential. If you're not interested in doing that, play a sorcerer. The wizard takes the most player prep and involvement of any class, but the rewards are quite awesome.
Again, I'd like to point out the power of that free Scribe Scroll feat. You can then keep a huge portion of your spells in scroll form, ready at any time. Spells like summon monster, knock, and greater invisibility are all awesome spells to put in scrolls.
Greater invisibility demonstrates the point well. Scrolls are inferior to prepared spells due to lower caster levels and save DCs. Spells like greater invisibility are used on allies, however, and thus lack saves (or, if they have them, it never comes up because they are "harmless"). Additionally, the only thing caster level determines about greater invisibility is its duration. However, the spell has a 1 round/level time limit, so even with a large CL, it's not likely to last through two fights. Thus, the typically reduced CL of the scroll form isn't much of a drawback at all (and the spell lasts a minimum of 7 rounds anyway, which is plenty given that most combats take 3-5 rounds).
Thus, you are better off not preparing greater invisibility, but putting it in a scroll and using that spell slot for phantasmal killer or Evard's black tentacles. This allows the wizard to capitalize on that massive list of spells known that he can have.
Yes, you have to spend time, gp, and xp to do this. However, scrolls are perhaps the least expensive item in the game, and if all you're spending money on is scrolls (and at half price, mind you), that's a pretty good deal. Further, the xp is also minimal. Finally, time is just something that the DM has to realize he or she needs to dole out to the players. Sorry, but it's the DM's job to know the party and tailor the adventure appropriately, at least to some extent.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Again, I'd like to point out the power of that free Scribe Scroll feat. You can then keep a huge portion of your spells in scroll form, ready at any time. Spells like summon monster, knock, and greater invisibility are all awesome spells to put in scrolls.
Neh. All casters can play the scroll game; the only value that wizards add is the half price thing. This is not to say that the half price thing is not somewhat valuable, but the argument that wizards are good because they can cast from scrolls is not saying much. A sorcerer could just as easily purchase a scroll of improved invisibility and be as effective.
Not sure if the DM will allow the Spellsword level (he's in a "Core rules only" mode)
Then I guess a +x twilight feycraft mithral breastplate (0% arcane failure chance) is right out.
Some people have said that the wizard's biggest problem is that magic items cost a lot to make and drain XP. Of course 'fixing' this little problem would inadvertently make magic item shops a lot more viable prospect, so in some ways the topics are linked. It's why magic shops are prevelant in Eberron. Artificers with their craft pools make minor magic items easier to manufacture. Give this ability to wizards and the same thing happens.
It should also be mentioned that clerics, druids, and sorcerers all share the woes of item creation. The most important magic items my players want to acquire on a constant basis are wands, scrolls, and potions of conjuration (healing) spells. Wizards can't make those, so it's left up to druids and clerics with the appropriate Item Creation feats. At least I have seen a wizard PC with Item creation feats. When was the last time you saw or played a cleric or druid who had any?
Wizards and sorcerers should get d6 hit points. They should at least be on par with the weakest monster hit dice (fey) and have more hit points than commoners. Of course if wizards and sorcerers get d6's shouldn't rogues then get d8's?
I use the splat books a lot for my wizards and sorcerers. Aside from d6 hit points sorcerers get Eschew Materials for free (a common addition) and get one of the Heritage feats for free since all sorcerers in my campaign are tied to a particular creature type. Wizards get d6 hit points, can choose the Reserve feats from CM as bonus feats and get signature spells (I won't go into the mechanics unless someone asks). They can also use items (such as staves) as familars instead of animals.
Monte's post was excellent, and was one of the factors which spurred me on to change wizards and sorcerers. Of course, with the addition of all the WotC splat books and all the OGL splat books fighters and rogues start to look weak as well. I mean after playing a warblade or sword sage who'd want to be a simple fighter anymore?
Again, I'd like to point out the power of that free Scribe Scroll feat. You can then keep a huge portion of your spells in scroll form, ready at any time. Spells like summon monster, knock, and greater invisibility are all awesome spells to put in scrolls.Neh. All casters can play the scroll game; the only value that wizards add is the half price thing. This is not to say that the half price thing is not somewhat valuable, but the argument that wizards are good because they can cast from scrolls is not saying much. A sorcerer could just as easily purchase a scroll of improved invisibility and be as effective.
Yes, but the wizard is already set up and prepared to play this game more efficiently than anyone else, thus encouraging it much more and making it that much more feasible. I think you understate the value of the strategy.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Some people have said that the wizard's biggest problem is that magic items cost a lot to make and drain XP. Of course 'fixing' this little problem would inadvertently make magic item shops a lot more viable prospect, so in some ways the topics are linked. It's why magic shops are prevelant in Eberron. Artificers with their craft pools make minor magic items easier to manufacture. Give this ability to wizards and the same thing happens.
That's really a non-sequitor argument. Magic item shops exist in the core rules regardless of the feasability of crafting them. It's not as if these two sets of rules interact. It could just as well be that magic item shops only sell items that were created by some long lost civilization that left troves of the things behind. Yeah, someone has to create the magic items that are sold, but there's no interaction between the creation rules and equipment purchasing rules.
Another example of rules that don't interact are trap crafting versus trap existence. A simple pit trap costs a fortune and takes over a year to craft. If there was a relationship between the creation of traps and the existence of traps in the game, kobolds would have more wealth than dragons.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yes, but the wizard is already set up and prepared to play this game more efficiently than anyone else, thus encouraging it much more and making it that much more feasible. I think you understate the value of the strategy.
My issue is not the value of the strategy, it is the availability of the strategy: any caster can play it. Heck, any other spellcasting class could take scribe scroll as their first level feat and, except for the sorcerer, play the same scroll trick. That's what we're talking about here: a single bonus feat. Assuming the scribe scroll strategy has a lot of value, there's nothing stopping any other caster (except the sorcerer) from using the strategy, and even the sorcerer can employ the scroll strategy through the expenditure of cash.
It's a cute trick, just like improved grappling is a cute trick for the monk, but neither strategy is unique to a particular class.
Some people have said that the wizard's biggest problem is that magic items cost a lot to make and drain XP. Of course 'fixing' this little problem would inadvertently make magic item shops a lot more viable prospect, so in some ways the topics are linked. It's why magic shops are prevelant in Eberron. Artificers with their craft pools make minor magic items easier to manufacture. Give this ability to wizards and the same thing happens.
That's really a non-sequitor argument. Magic item shops exist in the core rules regardless of the feasability of crafting them. It's not as if these two sets of rules interact. It could just as well be that magic item shops only sell items that were created by some long lost civilization that left troves of the things behind. Yeah, someone has to create the magic items that are sold, but there's no interaction between the creation rules and equipment purchasing rules.
Another example of rules that don't interact are trap crafting versus trap existence. A simple pit trap costs a fortune and takes over a year to craft. If there was a relationship between the creation of traps and the existence of traps in the game, kobolds would have more wealth than dragons.
It's only a non-sequitor argument if magic item shops are part of the core rules. Where is it actually written that these shops exist? They sure don't in my Ice Age campaign world for the simple reason that magic items creation is not a easy thing for spellcasters. When I ran Eberron the reverse was true and when my players asked me why I explained that magewrights and artificers were the ones largely responsible for the difference.
Of course, I would never argue with you about the trap creation costs vs. the number of traps in D&D. Everyone knows it makes no sense.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It's only a non-sequitor argument if magic item shops are part of the core rules. Where is it actually written that these shops exist? They sure don't in my Ice Age campaign world for the simple reason that magic items creation is not a easy thing for spellcasters. When I ran Eberron the reverse was true and when my players asked me why I explained that magewrights and artificers were the ones largely responsible for the difference.
The rules for purchasing equipment in the DMG (town wealth, etc) do not carve out magic items, magic items have prices (see the definition of "market price" for example), etc. It's fine if you want to take the magic item market out, the whole magic item subsystem is in desparate need of tinkering, but your argument implied that the creation rules are limited as a method of balancing the magic item marketplace, and I find nothing in the core rules to support that argument. The two systems exist independent of each other and neither serves as a check on the other, their balance and relationship are determined entirely by the individual DM.
Of course, I would never argue with you about the trap creation costs vs. the number of traps in D&D. Everyone knows it makes no sense.
Economics in D&D generally makes no sense, including the magic item market. The rules that are designed to balance the players' ability to grind out gear are in direct conflict with a functioning economy.
It occurs to me that perhaps the biggest part of the problem lies in philosophy rather than in mechanics. Thirty years ago there were no APs, no "adventure series", nothing like that. Read some of the stories the old-timers (Gygax, Arneson, et al) tell and you'll find that their players routinely would leave a dungeon, go do something else for a while, take a short vacation, then maybe come back to the dungeon a month or two later. Obviously, with the contemporary gaming scene being what it is, that's no longer possible unless you deliberately try to run one of those old-school campaigns.
I disagree with the idea that players routinely left the dungeon to go do something else for a while. Most of the time in old school D&D the dungeon was the only point of focus in the game. If you left it was to rest. Dungeons where massive behemoths that could be 30 levels deep. Each level full of more powerful monsters and traps then the last. You could spend your entire career exploring just one Dungeon. More often you went from one Dungeon to the next but it would not be until somewhat later that role playing heavy adventuring came into vogue.
The original game was more about using the abilities of your characters to overcome monsters traps and puzzles. Its significant that Robert Kuntz still writes his material in 1st edition as Castle Maure is classic style D&D. A massive dungeon complex that the DM keeps adding levels too full of dangerous challenges that the players overcome through brains and brawn.
Yes, but the wizard is already set up and prepared to play this game more efficiently than anyone else, thus encouraging it much more and making it that much more feasible. I think you understate the value of the strategy.
My issue is not the value of the strategy, it is the availability of the strategy: any caster can play it. Heck, any other spellcasting class could take scribe scroll as their first level feat and, except for the sorcerer, play the same scroll trick. That's what we're talking about here: a single bonus feat. Assuming the scribe scroll strategy has a lot of value, there's nothing stopping any other caster (except the sorcerer) from using the strategy, and even the sorcerer can employ the scroll strategy through the expenditure of cash.
It's a cute trick, just like improved grappling is a cute trick for the monk, but neither strategy is unique to a particular class.
However, as I previously stated, wizards can do it more easily than anyone else because they get the feat for free. And, to compare with your monk example, the monk has to choose Improved Grapple or Stunning Fist. If they choose one, they have to take the other feat independently, like any other character.
The wizard bonus feat is locked in, no choosing involved. The rules come right out and say (at least in my mind), "You can make scrolls more easily than anyone else." The implication I draw obviously being that they can play the "scroll game" more proficiently and efficiently than anyone else. The presence of the spellbook and its mechanics also have an effect on this. (sorry to end there, running out of time to post)
Economics in D&D generally makes no sense, including the magic item market. The rules that are designed to balance the players' ability to grind out gear are in direct conflict with a functioning economy.
Ultimately, I was talking about the prospect of making magic item shops more palatable for certain players who tend to question such things. Changing the rules of item creation might bring about a more realistic view of the magic item market. Of course, it might also have a negative impact depending on the nature of a person's campaign.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The wizard bonus feat is locked in, no choosing involved. The rules come right out and say (at least in my mind), "You can make scrolls more easily than anyone else." The implication I draw obviously being that they can play the "scroll game" more proficiently and efficiently than anyone else. The presence of the spellbook and its mechanics also have an effect on this. (sorry to end there, running out of time to post)
Yes, but it is still just one feat's worth of power. Taking the monk as an example, stunning fist is the better choice over improved grapple. There is a lot of synergy between stunning fist and the monk's improved unarmed attack; not only does the monk do more damage unarmed, they can use a special ability. Cool. There's less synergy between the monk and improved grapple. The monk's mobility allows him to close faster and thereby get into range to use the grapple, but his BAB is a little lower than a straight fighter. Thus, even though the monk can take improved grapple as a class feature, in doing so there's no guarantee that he will be any better with that tactic than a fighter who spends a bonus feat on improved grapple. The same cannot be said with regards to stunning fist because the fighter lacks the monk's proficiency with unarmed combat and must give up an additional feat to gain the ability.
Which brings us to the wizard. The wizard's feat merely enables the exchange of xp for gold; it doesn't actually grant the ability to use scrolls. So, in the case of the sorcerer, the question is not, how effective is the wizard with scrolls, but rather, how much more effective is the wizard with scrolls given that he can produce them at a lower cost. You would need to show that not only does the wizard benefit from having scrolls, but he benefits more than the sorcerer because he can purchase more scrolls or more other equipment than the sorcerer.
As for the cleric and druid with the feat, the argument is that (i) there is greater synergy between the wizard spell list and the ability to create scrolls and (ii) there is an opportunity cost associated with the loss of the feat. You would need to show that the wizard benefits more from using scrolls than do the cleric or druid.
These are not the arguments you made. The argument you made was "using scrolls is an effective strategy for a wizard." My response remains "that argument is insufficient because it is not tailored specifically to wizards and can be made with regards to any class capable of using scrolls."
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Ultimately, I was talking about the prospect of making magic item shops more palatable for certain players who tend to question such things. Changing the rules of item creation might bring about a more realistic view of the magic item market. Of course, it might also have a negative impact depending on the nature of a person's campaign.
Okay, sounds like I misunderstood your initial post then. I do agree with the sentiment expressed (i.e., that the existence of the artificer/magewright make the commonality of magic more acceptable in Eberron because they lower the cost of magic).
Okay, sounds like I misunderstood your initial post then. I do agree with the sentiment expressed (i.e., that the existence of the artificer/magewright make the commonality of magic more acceptable in Eberron because they lower the cost of magic).
Ultimately, I was talking about the prospect of making magic item shops more palatable for certain players who tend to question such things. Changing the rules of item creation might bring about a more realistic view of the magic item market. Of course, it might also have a negative impact depending on the nature of a person's campaign.
Yeah, after reading your second reply I realized that I should have probably been clearer in my initial post. I was talking about viability from a players perspective. That's one of the problems with writing anything online.
|
|
Wizard 6/Fighter 1/Spellsword 1/Eldritch Knight 8/Archmage 4. You're not going to be the party tank, but with a +15 BAB and a 10% reduction to the arcane failure chance from armor (mithral chain shirt, anyone?), you're not completely useless in melee, either. You're best off taking Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot (which work with all those ranged touch attacks, too) and supplementing your spells primarily with ranged weapon attacks, plus you lose two levels of spellcasting. It's still a good build for someone who wants to be able to do more than cast spells.
Thank you for another example that pure wizards aren't as good as wizards with prestige classes.
|
|
When was the last time you saw or played a cleric or druid who had any?
The last time I played, actually. 1 XP per 25 GP of market price is a pretty minimal cost for crafting. The feat is more important, but not unreasonably so. Among other things, it simplifies relations with DMs who consider magic shops unreasonable.
8-)
I disagree with the idea that players routinely left the dungeon to go do something else for a while.
Clearly, your experience is different from mine. We were building armies and keeps, and in fact entire economies to support them, in 1977.
Yes, but you're a freaking wizard! You're playing someone who is probably smarter than 95+% of the populace.
So, how does someone who isn't in the top 5% of the population in intelligence play a wizard? Mostly that's a joke, but there's a core of a real problem there, of course. A player doesn't have to be strong to play a fighter, or wise to play a cleric, or charismatic to play a bard. But the player of a wizard had better be pretty bright, or his play experience isn't going to be much fun.
I don't actually have much problem with that, but then I'm probably elitist scum. Fortunately, I have the prerequisites for that prestige class. 8-)
I think this point lies at the heart of Monty Cook's view on wizards (as linked on page one of this thread): at first, wizards are extremely cramped by their inability to contribute (i.e. low spells per day, low HPs, becomming a "commoner" when out of spells) to a group and then they become so powerful and thus so essential later on that the entire party revolves around their spell use.Sadly, this is too big of an issue for me to take on, for it involves rethinking the wizard and its role in the party. This aspect of their nature may be unavoidable until a 4th edition is created. If you learn anything from your playtesting Valegrim, I would certainly like to see it.
I still say this is nothing a wand or two would not essentially take care of. Sure the Wizard is not going to be an awesome force with a wand of magic missles but (s)he won't be a commoner either. The problem with bonus feats etc. is that they remain at the wizards disposal after the wizard transistions from the weakest member of the party to the most powerful member.
Ok, so if the new completes books helped the wizzy more than the droods or clerics, is that because the wizzy is still the centerpiece of the game, or the designers realized they had given the farm away in designing the alternate base classes and divine power ups. Look at the 3.0 drood v 3.5- It got a major power up to make it a more popular class. Cleric got a huge bump in powere betwen 2nd ed and 3rd, and its still not as popular a class as its power level would indicate. When starting a new game, the players usualy call Meatshield->Rogue->Sorceror-> secondary meatshield or rogue-> Cleric, but usually drood->Cleric->Wizzy. Since 2002, almost every game has run like that. Is it just that Wizzy is THE advanced PLAYER class? Or that slogging throuhg the low levesl for the eventualy payoff is not a realistic goal of most gamers in an immediate gratification centric world?
Geez Ender. I know you can write. I can barely understand what you are saying here and this is the third time I've read it.
I think your talking about two different phenomena here. Part one of your post notes that the the wizard has increased in power compared to the druid and the cleric and the druid in the Splat Books. This is my contention - some one would have to actually go through the splat books and count spells or something to see if it was objectively true.
I think that the increase in power for the wizard compared to the druid or the cleric is not particularly intentional. Part of it is due to the fact that when one makes a splat book they don't make the 'Complete Divine Guy in the Woods'. No book directly looks at the Druid while at least one is specifically for Arcane Casters. Second aspect of this is there is more side material to talk about for the divine casters. Essentially a nice chunk of the page count is devoted to talking about religion and Gods. That said I think the biggest reason the wizard gains in power is that they are not specialists in their magic. If its unclear who should get access to a spell that some designer just invented the default is that its a wizard spell. The only kinds of spells that are clearly for the Druid are ones around nature and the only ones clearly for the cleric deal with Gods and Healing. Spells that don't touch on these sorts of aspects are mage spells by default.
The second part of your post deals with why your players don't take wizards. I'm guessing that your players don't like the fact that the wizard is probably the weakest at low levels.
Yes, but it is still just one feat's worth of power.
One feat, yes, but it is a feat that is uniqely benificial to only three classes asside from the wizard Druid, Cleric and Sorcerer. These classes only gain 7 feats in a career from 1st to 20th level. So a feat expendature for them is a relatively big deal.
Sorcerers have limited use of this feat. They can only make scrolls of spells they know, which they can cast more frequently than any other caster and are not likely to run out. Sorcerers get more use out of buying scrolls of spells not on their list for diversity.
Druids and clerics have special abilities and increased offensive and defensive capeabilities they can rely on aside from just their spells. They both also have a spontaneous casting ability that allows them to always cast spells that otherwise would be great scroll selections (summoning and healing respectively) Scribe Scroll can certainly be useful to these classes but their is a large difference between a druid with no spells to cast and a wizard with no spells to cast.
Scribe scroll allows wizards to expand their spell options and longevity without going bankrupt. Something that is more important to a wizard than other casters. (Plus if they didn't have the feat it would be annoying to me personally if all wizards could scribe spell from scrolls into tomes but not be able to scribe scrolls themselves)
One option to aid wizards specifically I just though of is not destroying a scroll when a wizard scribes a spell into his book. After all you can scribe spells from other spellbooks without destroying them.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
One feat, yes, but it is a feat that is uniqely benificial to only three classes asside from the wizard Druid, Cleric and Sorcerer. These classes only gain 7 feats in a career from 1st to 20th level. So a feat expendature for them is a relatively big deal.
Except that the effect of the feat is being overstated. It does not allow you to use scrolls, it allows you to make scrolls more cheaply. There is a significant difference between these two abilities.
And don't forget paladins and rangers. Somewhere, somehow, some really dumb NPC is taking scribe scroll and making those random items for the treasure tables. ;-)
Sorcerers have limited use of this feat. They can only make scrolls of spells they know, which they can cast more frequently than any other caster and are not likely to run out. Sorcerers get more use out of buying scrolls of spells not on their list for diversity.
Yes, that's why I compared sorcerers buying a scroll vs. wizards scribing a scroll. That's the proper comparison, how much does the wizard gain over the sorcerer by being able to make scrolls at a "cheaper" price than sorcerers can buy them.
Druids and clerics have special abilities and increased offensive and defensive capeabilities they can rely on aside from just their spells. They both also have a spontaneous casting ability that allows them to always cast spells that otherwise would be great scroll selections (summoning and healing respectively) Scribe Scroll can certainly be useful to these classes but their is a large difference between a druid with no spells to cast and a wizard with no spells to cast.
Your points are well taken, and do address the reason why scrolls generally are more effective for arcane casters than divine casters. I would go one further by offering up the fact that the wizard/sorcerer spell list contains more poweful spells than the cleric/druid spell list.
Note, however, that everything you've said remains true whether or not the wizard has the scribe scroll feat. Part of the argument made is about the general utility of cleric/druid spells vis a vis wizard spells; scribe scroll is not really bringing anything to the table.
Scribe scroll allows wizards to expand their spell options and longevity without going bankrupt. Something that is more important to a wizard than other casters. (Plus if they didn't have the feat it would be annoying to me personally if all wizards could scribe spell from scrolls into tomes but not be able to scribe scrolls themselves)
But now you're back into "so what" territory. All the casting classes can expand their spell options and longevity with scrolls. The fact that it is more important to the wizard is partly a function of the greater power in the wizard spells, but it is also partly a function of the fact that wizards don't have very many spell slots. The same argument can be made for the sorcerer in this regard.
I'm not so much arguing with the conclusion that scribe scroll is more useful to wizards than to other casters (though I do think the argument is much harder to make with regards to the sorcerer because both classes use scrolls in substantially the same way with the only difference being price), I'm saying that prior arguments were not framed to address the issue.
To be fair, Jeremy did address this issue earlier in this thread. I'm chiming in because the arguments regarding the usefulness of scrolls is still confusing the ability to use scrolls with the ability to create scrolls cheaply. These are two different things and must be analyzed as such.
One option to aid wizards specifically I just though of is not destroying a scroll when a wizard scribes a spell into his book. After all you can scribe spells from other spellbooks without destroying them.
What a lovely thought, I really like that idea, I'll be speaking to my DM about house ruling that one.
Okay, I'm done, I'll be going back to the kiddie pool now, carry on gentlemen. I'm enjoying this post.
In my playing experience, I found that all my extra gold went to buying and scribing spells (to take advantage of my vaunted diversity) instead of to stat boosters, wands and nifty wonderous items. However, when I actually tried to put my diverse spellbook into action, I found that I did not have enough spell slots to make this work. I would leave spell slots open at each level, which helped some, but since I had so few spells at each level, this meant I had fewer combat spells (of any power level) available when we were attacked.
I feel this is a money management issue. Your throwing all your gold at your spell book even at a low level and yet you don't have enough spell power to take advantage of what your doing. The wizard needs to make well thought out choices in this regards in a way that a fighter does not. The Sorcerer also has to choose very carefully at low levels though the choices are different.
If I'm the wizard I'm making do with my two spells per level in my spell book by and large for a couple of levels. I might be cherry picking a couple of key 1st level spells to pad out my list but I don't come close to having every 1st level spell. Just the ones I think I really need. Now, from about 5th level on, this behaviour begins to change. At 5th level I have enough gold to start really padding out my 1st level spell list since, by this level, 1st level spell scrolls are cheap compared to my wealth by level.
I'll keep this behaviour up as well so that by 7th I'm buying up 2nd level spells in groups while in town. It does mean that I've only got the two spells I get per level to use for my highest level spells but at these levels that can't be easily helped. Choose those spells with some care.
However even at a rate of only two spells per level the wizard does get a descent selection. Should be four spells at each level without spending a penny on the spell book. If you do something like this you'll manage to eventually really expand out your spell book and still have lots of gold to spend on wands and magic items. As you indicate in your post spending all your gold on your spell book adds diversity at a point in time when your not really able to take advantage of it. Note that this will essentially always be true. Your top tier spells need to be ones that your almost certain will be useful in the adventure. You can't afford to go off the beaten path with these spells, their too important for the parties success.
Bottom line – go off and buy that wand. Diversity will come later and right now the wand will help you and your party more then a few more spells in your spell book in anycase.
Monty Cook uses the word "fun" in his article (thanks DitheringFool, for the link) a number of times, and those that have read Dungeoncraft while he was at the helm know that he uses the word there as well. We DMs have to think like game designers at times; we need to concern ourselves with fun, for that is the reason players are coming to our tables. Sitting out of battles or other encounters or not using your core abilities to either "save yourself for later" or because all abilities have been expended is not fun for the player, and this may well be why warlocks and sorcerers are more prevelent than mages in some games, especially at lower levels.
Mmm...I only partially agree. Have you looked at the new Magic Item Compendium? I'll draw your attention to the fact that the items in that book are weighted heavily toward the idea that players generally prefer to do really impact things a few times a day then not particularly impressive things all of the time. I suspect that is part of the reason my issues with high AC is not something that is more prevalent in the game. The Fighter player wants that super stacked burst weapon more then he wants yet another boost to AC.
I think that the same applies to the wizard. Still if the wizard player wants to have more impact at the lowest levels by not running out of spells he should be able to mitigate this. Use that scribe scroll feat to scribe 10 scrolls of magic missile. Cost you 125 gp and 25 XP. That should mean that you always have a spell around. In fact after the very first adventure you should find that, at 12.5 gp and 2.5 XP, first level scrolls are so cheap that you can afford to scribe a number right there to help with the problem of running out of spells.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think that the same applies to the wizard. Still if the wizard player wants to have more impact at the lowest levels by not running out of spells he should be able to mitigate this. Use that scribe scroll feat to scribe 10 scrolls of magic missile. Cost you 125 gp and 25 XP. That should mean that you always have a spell around. In fact after the very first adventure you should find that, at 12.5 gp and 2.5 XP, first level scrolls are so cheap that you can afford to scribe a number right there to help with the problem of running out of spells.
By the RAW, can you aggregate spells on a scroll? I always let my players do so, but maybe that's just a throwback to 2e where you could get a multiple spell scroll. The bottleneck for the 10 1st level scrolls is usually the 10 days moreso than than the gp.
This thread really has me itching to play a wizard...
Yowza!
I missed Jeremy's post about players wanting unlimited fireballs at 6th level.
Just wanted to say, I don't want that as a player, nor do I want that as a DM. With my current spell point system, the PCs have unlimited cantrips/orisons
By itself that paragraph is somewhat out of context.
So, instead, I'll just toss a question out to the pro-status quo camp: do you think the wizard gets nerfed by an adventure like Redhand of Doom. Without giving away any significant spoilers, the adventure takes place over a very compressed timeframe and takes characters from 5th level to 14th level (I think). A wizard in this adventure is going to have a hard time keeping their spellbook up to date and crafting is going to be virtually impossible. The adventure paths all have similar points in them as well, where multiple adventures blend together with little downtime is available. Is the wizard not seriously hindered by these adventures? If so, is it a fault of the adventures or the class? Or, is item creation just a sideline ability, like turning undead is for a cleric? Is the wizard a viable class if they only ever get their fixed number of spells per level and are never able to scribe additional spells?
I think this sort of thing would hurt the wizard. That said, if you know your never going to get down time you can mitigate this a little by not taking crafting feats. Though if there is so little downtime that you can't actually find time to write new spells into your spell book your basically screwed. I think an excessive case of this that goes on level after level becomes the DMs fault. Usually you don't need a month to use your abilities until the really high levels but you do need some days here and there. In an adventure like this the DM should probably intervene with some 'one time' house rules or at least warn the players.
I disagree with the idea that players routinely left the dungeon to go do something else for a while.
Hmmm. No one I played with back then agrees with you. Maybe I forgot something.
But all that aside, let's consider these options.
1) Wizards get a bonus feat every 3 levels (or perhaps 4) rather than every 5 levels. These bonus feats should, of course, come from a specified list that ideally would include many of the feats from the various splatbooks. Also, at 1st level they get a feat that reduces the level cost of metamagic feats by 1. Maybe this could be a class ability that increases at 10th level or something.
2) Wizards have a reduced xp cost for making magic items - say, 1 or 2 xp/class level. Also, time to create magic items for wizards (only) can be reduced to only 1/4th the time. If you're really feeling generous, then the monetary cost could be reduced as well. Now they can make all the scrolls and wands they want.
3) Wizards use the druid's spells-per-level table. Additionally, it only takes 1/4th the time and money to add spells to their spellbooks. Not only that, but they can use other casters' spellbooks by merely using a spellcraft check for each spell (DC 10 + spell level or whatever). They can then consider that spellbook their own.
4) Wizards learn to use their time and resources more carefully. Therefore, when they do get a rare bit of time off they spend it piling on the scrolls and magic items.
5) Wizards use their own CL when using scrolls and wands. (Perhaps this should be a feat rather than a class ability.)
6) Wizards get 4 skill points/level. Since they probably have a high Int already, they don't need more since they're getting plenty of bonus skill points.
7) Wizards learn to buff themselves up before going into battle (perhaps durations for certain buffing spells could be increased to help out here). Also, they learn to stay in the frikkin' rear so they don't lose so many hit points. Or maybe they use a little of their magic knowledge to make a magic item that'll increase their Con score.
8) Wizards learn to cast a few divination spells before they go into the dungeon so they're better prepared for what's coming.
Okay, I just realized I was starting to sound snarky. I really didn't mean to, so I apologize (apologizing is easier than rewriting such an overly long post). I never thought about redesigning the wizard until this threat got started, and now I can't stop thinking about it. It's all your fault, Lich-Loved!
By the RAW, can you aggregate spells on a scroll? I always let my players do so, but maybe that's just a throwback to 2e where you could get a multiple spell scroll. The bottleneck for the 10 1st level scrolls is usually the 10 days moreso than than the gp.This thread really has me itching to play a wizard...
RAW is not really clear on the topic but I think the answer, if you want to be really hard assed about it, would be no. Essentially RAW never comes out and says that you can create two cheap items in a single day but it does say that it takes a day per 1000gp or fraction there of. Hence your going to have to spend a full day on each 12.5 gp scrolls.
I disagree with the idea that players routinely left the dungeon to go do something else for a while.Hmmm. No one I played with back then agrees with you. Maybe I forgot something.
If you did go off to make armies or have your characters get married or whatever you where pretty innovative. Not saying that no one did go off the beaten path or anything but none of the material you could buy for your game really supported your activities. The material you could purchase was pretty dungeon-centric. Red Arrow, Black Shield was not released until 1985 (this would be one the first diplomacy heavy adventure I can think of). As time went on the games focus expanded, I have no doubt that the industry was a reflection of what innovative DMs where doing in their home game but it was some significant time before the game really moved outside of the dungeon.
If we think of the adventures people cite as the classic 1st edition modules they tend to be either dungeons or combat heavy exploration style adventures. Sure the Players Handbook gives you a keep with followers after 10th level. But no adventures focus on your keep and there are almost no rules for doing anything with it until fairly late in the game. Roleplaying encounters are essentially Polders where players can stop and heal up with Svirfneblin before continuing to press on into the Underdark etc.
Finally I'll draw your attention to what these Alumni are making today because most of it remains focused on adventures designed to test a players brains and brawn (often in some very large dungeon - see Gygax's Castle Zagyg or Rob Kurtz Castle Maure). So if you where doing something different you where off in uncharted territory making the rules as you go.
|
I never thought about redesigning the wizard until this threat got started, and now I can't stop thinking about it. It's all your fault, Lich-Loved!
I am still not convinced it needs a redesign but I admit the thoughts have been plaguing me too. Now before I seem to be oscillating on the issue, I really came here with an open mind. I almost always DM and so my experience with playing as a wizard has been limited. I took a hiatus for a number of years and when I resumed the DM's spot recently is when it suddenly dawned on me that wizards were simply not played and sorcerers only rarely so. I couldn't understand why, and reflected on my recent attempt at one. Wizards did seem somehow weaker than the other classes, and since we do not play a high-power game full of splatbook characters, it made the problem more difficult for me to pin down. So naturally I came here for help, found James Jacobs' post, and posted it to my group's site. The feedback from my players was a pretty resounding "yeah he has it right", so I came back for insight from the community. When I read Monte Cook's article I was sure something had to be wrong with the class.
The odd thing is, when I read a post that shows why the wizard is underpowered, I find myself agreeing with the poster. There are a lot of folks here that feel the wizard needs something and many have already made changes that are working for them. Then I read a post from those with opposing views that are just as strong and convincing and I find myself agreeing with them as well. It may come down to the type of game each DM runs and the expectations of the players and the DM. Perhaps that is why the issue seems so polarized; there is no right answer for everyone's game because no games are the same. To some, the class clearly needs work and the reasons are buried in the details of their specific game. To others, the class is fine if played with a measure of forethought, restraint and caution (especially at lower levels) and again this works because, as you very rightly pointed out...
Or maybe - just maybe - there's not really anything wrong with the class at all. Maybe you just have to be a good DM and slow things down a bit. A good DM + a good player = a good game. Any class works within that formula.
*sigh* I wish there was an easy answer.
I will say this to the "RAW is fine" camp. As I mentioned previously, in my new campaign, the party of five did not have any arcane casters. One of the two clerics decided to pick up Wizard levels and go Mystic Theurge because they were finding it very difficult to accomplish things in the Dungeon adventures I was running without arcane spell support. The cleric/wizard/theurge carries a wand of magic missiles and uses it regularly when out of arcane spells as Jeremy Mac Donald advocates; this is indeed working very well and the character is always doing something in every encounter. I am running a FR/high magic/RAW-treasure-level campaign with the game's winter months as downtime, allowing the Wizard ample time and opportunity to purchase and create magic items. This game is atypical for our group though as we old-schoolers are used to low magic/low treasure games (Buying a wand!? Unheard of!) and have played them for years. Perhaps it is this issue which has driven players away from Wizards and now that I am running closer to RAW than the other DMs before me (and differently than I have run games in the past), the Wizard is a viable, fun (there is that word again) class to play. I think I will still do something for the class, perhaps grant craft points or unlimited cantrips, or a replacement feat for the familiar, just to encourage the class at the table. One thing I think we will all agree on is that D&D without Wizards lacks the spark of high fantasy we have come to love.
Contributor
|
By itself that paragraph is somewhat out of context.Yowza!
I missed Jeremy's post about players wanting unlimited fireballs at 6th level.
Just wanted to say, I don't want that as a player, nor do I want that as a DM. With my current spell point system, the PCs have unlimited cantrips/orisons
Okay, Sorry; I never found the original before posting, I just saw your quote in someone else's reply.
Just to throw the proverbial monkey wrench- Maybe wizards being rare in a world/ big picture way is by design? Any one with the "fire" can learn to cast a spell. Religion is always a huge part of human culture, and organized religions tend to have a lot of resources. Wizards, on the other hand, are literate, rational researchers who spend thier life and wealth trying to discover NEW things. ie, they are the davinci's, the gate's, the ford's of DnD. If you have so many they are tripping over them selves, it breaks any kind of verisimilitude, yeah? (ie, the Elminster issue) I know DnD players tend to be smarter than most, so we accept the idea that learned sages are common. But they are not, anywhere.
After this thread, I too am itching to give a wizzy a shot. Because I have done my research ;)