Contributor
|
About down time in adventures:
1) I don't think it is neccessarily the DMs job to adjust the adventure to the party in all cases, nor is it always a reasonable expectation. I do think it is fair to forwarn players if they are leaning towards a character who will face extra difficulty because of the campaign style. And there are neumerous situation where this can come up.
2) Down time for crafting items and scribing spellbooks is not usually an issue for me. I am perfectly prepared to offer extra downtime between events/ adventures for that kind of thing. I don't have a derios problem with the item-creation rules, other than that the economics are whacky, just like all of the economics in D&D. But that's a different discussion
3) The down-time I have a problem is mid-event downtime. Like when the party goes back to town because there's nowhere to rest safely in the dungeon and the wizard is out of spells. This just wastes time, both real time and game time. This is the problem I have with the wizard.
Wands do help with this, but limit your options. Scrolls are more versatile, but require more readying actions. Both are items that get used up which I find players are always less happy to buy or use. You can do build that give wizards other combat options, but then they aren't just wizards, and in spite of Gandalf and the sword, I find most players who want to play wizards want to cast spells. Players who want to hit things with swords usually play characters that are good at hitting things with swords.
I have one 3-4 hour session every week. In that session, I want each player to feel that they have done something useful. If the players make progress in a dungeon, and are ready to push forward next session, they've done something. If they gather information, solve mysteries and find clues, they have done something. If they finish an objective in a dungeon and go back to town, they have done something.
If they fought some stuff but the wizard couldn't do anything because he was saving his spells or out of spells, he ahsn't done anything. If they have one fight, and then have to withdraw to prepare spells, meaning that the dungeon is going to be reset, then they haven't really done anything. Plus I have to either slow down the game while I reset on the fly, or reset with something lame (it's a duplicate set of the same guards!) or ignore reality (they don't bother to assign new guards to the entrance) If they make some progress and the wizard uses up his spells and the party presses on, well he's done a bit, but then he's got nothing for the rest of the session, and has next week to look forward to when he knows he will be tapped out.
I remember when I had no one to justify my game time to but me. and I could play 15-20 hours a week. If we had to take things slow sometimes, it was no big deal. I certainly won't criticize anyone's game style if they feel that way about their game, but I resent every wasted minute of my game, because everyone in my group is a busy person with other things to do. Sometimes I swear we get more accomplished in 3 hours now than I did in 10 hours back then. Sometimes it seems like we cover more ground in 2 months than I did in an entire 2 year campaign.
Sorry if this seems like a rant. I'm just trying to express why it drives me crazy when the wizard runs out of spells, and the game suddenly grinds to a halt.
On a semi unrelated note- do the various AP's being published seem to demand casters (of all classes) have constant access to thier top shelf spells? When running NPC casters, I generally use up my second highest level spells first, alternating with even lower level ones when possible, so I can have my highest ones for the "dun dun DUNNNNN" moments. Do you run PC casters like this?
I can't speak for everyone, but my pc is not the type of wizard to just start blasting all her big guns at the sight of the first monster. I try very hard to plan everything so I have the buffs for the players, as well as enough lower level spells to be useful in the earlier battles. I have been through an entire evening where I've found that at the end of our gaming session, I still have all my higher level spells avaliable to me, it's always good to be prepared for that "dun dun dunnn" moment. Of course, I find that for the lower level spells I cast frequently, scrolls help ;)
On a semi unrelated note- do the various AP's being published seem to demand casters (of all classes) have constant access to thier top shelf spells? When running NPC casters, I generally use up my second highest level spells first, alternating with even lower level ones when possible, so I can have my highest ones for the "dun dun DUNNNNN" moments. Do you run PC casters like this?
I try to. I think it's a pretty good tactic. If you save up the "fun" stuff, then you can continue to contribute throughout the adventure, even if at a reduced rate, but you won't run out of spells so quick (or rather, your party will realize they can operate without them until the Big Fight), and then you have the Tac Nukes to pull out in the Big Fight and unleash the "true power of wizardry" and feel Super Special.
People who do want to just wantonly blast should play a sorcerer. Yes, to answer an above question, wizards are the most complicated class to play, requiring the most player skill. Sorry, that's the way the game works. As far as how is a person below the 95 percentile supposed to play someone above that? Well, you've both got more time out of game to think about the situation, and a whole table of other people to talk it over with.
As a side note, I really freaking hate it when I play a wizard and ask the party what spell they want me to prepare that day, and only get blank stares, accompanied by comments revealing that they have no clue what my character is capable of, or even doing most of the time, and that it should just be my choice because I'm the wizard and that's my job. Okay, then, I think I'll fill every spell slot with unseen servant, you uncooperative, ungracious twits!
Re: The Scroll Game, as Sebastian calls it.
I see the argument as something other than a semi-economical analysis of the wizard's marginal benefits of the feat over other casters. The point is that they can play the scroll game more easily than any other caster.
Other casters are feat starved. None of the core casters get bonus feats. So, taking Scribe Scroll is a much bigger choice for them, as Sexi Golem stated.
Wizards get the feat for free. What's the benefit? By spending an extremely reasonable amount of XP, they can have double the scrolls of anyone else for the same cost. It doesn't require any more examination than that.
This also seems to indicate to me that it's a pretty big part of what they do.
Also, while it is only "one feat's worth" of extra power, consider once more the monk example. Yes, a fighter can take stunning fist. However, the monk will always be better with it. It doesn't completely translate over to wizards scribing vs. other classes scribing, but the true point is that the same feat often has a differing amount of "power" depending on what class uses it.
To put it back into those economical terms, clerics and druids do have a higher opportunity cost with various feats. Sorcerers don't really have thast much higher of an opportunity cost (depending on character concept), but they can't do it as well as a wizard because of fewer spells known and because of spontaneous casting mixed with their expanded number of spell slots means that a sorcerer scribing scrolls will not get as much use from them as a wizard.
To reiterate and conclude: wizards are the best at playing the Scroll Game: they have the lowest opportunity cost (nothing), and of other casters (in the core rules, meaning mainly sorcerers) who have comparitive (i.e., very small) opportunity costs, wizards get the most value from being able to scribe scrolls.
As a side note, I really freaking hate it when I play a wizard and ask the party what spell they want me to prepare that day, and only get blank stares, accompanied by comments revealing that they have no clue what my character is capable of, or even doing most of the time, and that it should just be my choice because I'm the wizard and that's my job. Okay, then, I think I'll fill every spell slot with unseen servant, you uncooperative, ungracious twits!
Perhaps, as my fellow players, they just trust you to make the right choices and know you will pick things beneficial to the party. I don't ask my companions what spells I should memorize, and if it comes up
"Why the heck didn't you prepare such and such!"I generally come back with
"yeah, and if you had used your +X such and such instead of your other such and such, he's be dead by now and we wouldn't be here! Nyaaa"
To Rambling Scribe Re: Down time.
I agree that the DM shouldn't be forced to build in down time all the time; however, if there is a wizard in the party, he must do it sometimes, and more often than not on the whole.
To the general discussion: I remember reading in the DMG that a fully loaded spell book is worth 5,000gp. How many fully loaded spellbooks does a wizard end up having? My experience has been maybe 3 over a long career. So, 15,000gp. Lets say you have to double that for the scrolls to put in it (no idea how accurate that is, seems high to me as a gut reaction). 30,000gp, on one's "primary piece of equipment." Ever.
Now, compare to a fighter's "primary piece of equipment," his sword. At +4 enhancement bonus or the equivalent in special abilities, he's already overshot the wizard in cost. That's not including armor. They both desire prime ability boosters. Wizards have more little "toys" on the side they tend to want (wands, scrolls, and various wondrous items), but I'm still failing to see how they are any worse off than the fighter.
I now open my post up to be riddled with holes by those who have better numbers than me. :)
About down time in adventures:
1) I don't think it is neccessarily the DMs job to adjust the adventure to the party in all cases, nor is it always a reasonable expectation...
SNIP
Actually, this is EXACTLY the DMs job. If they are not writing their own adventures, in which they take into account their party composition and playing style, and are taking the route of pre-generated adventures, it is almost the DMs SOLE job to tailor it to their players. To say "hey, that's how its written!!" is a cop out. If you have so little time to prepare, and I understand this is a real concern for many, maybe you should take some time off as DM, and play when you have more time to devote to it? Just me mouthing off :)
To the general discussion: I remember reading in the DMG that a fully loaded spell book is worth 5,000gp. How many fully loaded spellbooks does a wizard end up having? My experience has been maybe 3 over a long career. So, 15,000gp. Lets say you have to double that for the scrolls to put in it (no idea how accurate that is, seems high to me as a gut reaction). 30,000gp, on one's "primary piece of equipment." Ever.
I now open my post up to be riddled with holes by those who have better numbers than me. :)
Heh heh, believe it or not, I have kept a running tally of everything my character has purchased over the last ten years (yeah, I'm weird like that) anyway, I sat and calculated up how much I had spent on just new scrolls to put into my spell books, $93,495. That is not counting the extra scroll I purchase because the new one explodes once transferred, nor is it counting the extras I buy for spells I use often. Wow, I had no idea it would be so much. But, then again, we are looking at an almost epic character, and ten years worth of records. And those 9th level spells are expensive!
As a side note, I really freaking hate it when I play a wizard and ask the party what spell they want me to prepare that day, and only get blank stares, accompanied by comments revealing that they have no clue what my character is capable of, or even doing most of the time, and that it should just be my choice because I'm the wizard and that's my job. Okay, then, I think I'll fill every spell slot with unseen servant, you uncooperative, ungracious twits!
Saern, as a person who has Dmed over nearly all of your wizards, this is the one thing I never understood. You got blank stares because no one could figure out why you were asking. Everyone knew you knew wizard spells way better than any of them. It's like catching the validictorian trying to cheat off his neighbors math test, there was no real reason why you needed to do it and it was of no real benifit to you. Wizards don't need to ask other players what spells they want any more than fighters need to ask what feats the party wants him to take. If you thought it was some common courtesy that would make sense why you felt irritated by their responses but it wasn't neccessary at all in the first place.
Now in the interest of actually contributing something to the discussion.
Does anyone else feel that these arguments are coming out of left field? I've seen the power and usefulness of many classes challenged but the wizard has always been held at the top of the totem pole. The wizard can be the most useful and powerful member of the party when he is on top of his game. The brighter the player the more that player will be able to ensure that the wizard can function at peak performance. If a player wants to play a caster with a larger role outside just their prepared spells then you are looking for a cleric or druid. Sorry that isn't the wizards game and it isn't right do give a wizard more stable abilities anymore than it is to give a barbarian more versatility. Their strengths simply lie in the far end of their respective spectrums, if you don't like that then you should be playing a different class.
An argument poping up often is that at least one arcane caster seems to be required for a campaigns navigation and completion. In what way? (I don't use or read many published adventures so it isn't rhetorical or sarcastic) You can get by without a healer or a rogue or a meatshield. It may make things difficult at times but at others the extra character should be able to come in handy and make something difficult easier. I always heard that PC's were notorious at finding loopholes through tough situations (I know mine are). I have difficulty believing that wizards are neccessary, no doubt that they're useful just not nesseccary.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Saern, as a person who has Dmed over nearly all of your wizards, this is the one thing I never understood. You got blank stares because no one could figure out why you were asking. Everyone knew you knew wizard spells way better than any of them...As a side note, I really freaking hate it when I play a wizard and ask the party what spell they want me to prepare that day, and only get blank stares, accompanied by comments revealing that they have no clue what my character is capable of, or even doing most of the time, and that it should just be my choice because I'm the wizard and that's my job...
I know this problem all too well. The problem is, though, is that my scenarios are often different in this respect:
"Okay, what spells should my sorcerer take as his spells known, Fate?"
or "I've got 1200 gp to spend. I want to buy some scrolls to add to my spellbook. Which ones should I buy, Fate?"
I know that I am the almighty wizard player who casts a shadow of superiority that transcends the boundary between planes, but seriously, why can't people play their own style of wizard? My suggestions will not necessarily make you a better wizard player if you don't know how and when to USE the spells you have.
*sigh*
|
Contributor
|
Actually, this is EXACTLY the DMs job. If they are not writing their own adventures, in which they take into account their party composition and playing style, and are taking the route of pre-generated adventures, it is almost the DMs SOLE job to tailor it to their players. To say "hey, that's how its written!!" is a cop out. If you have so little time to prepare, and I understand this is a real concern for many, maybe you should take some time off as DM, and play when you have more time to devote to it? Just me mouthing off :)About down time in adventures:
1) I don't think it is neccessarily the DMs job to adjust the adventure to the party in all cases, nor is it always a reasonable expectation...
SNIP
Time is a factor, but there's a lot more to it than that. If I tell my players I'm running the Savage Tide and one of my players decides he wants to play a camel-riding desert nomad, I don't feel compelled to change the adventure. If I design my own adventure set in a desert and a player chooses to play a merfolk, I don't feel compelled to move everything to the ocean.
Consider this too: what if I tailor stuff I prepare to suit the characters and then one of them dies, and the player makes up something totally different. Whoops!
And I must also consider that if I tailor aspects of my adventure to suit one character and that interferes with other characters, I'm not helping anyone.
That said, I'll instead help people make their concept workable withing my campaign: like giving the wizard free cantrips and using spell points. And I will adjust an adventure to make it more interesting or challenging or consistent or whatever else I see that needs doing. But I won't decide not to include time-sensitive encounters because it will make life hard for the wizard. I'd rather give the wizard options in a time-sensitive encounter. Otherwise I'm just removing options for adventure from the players and myself.
And frankly, as a DM, I do a better job of running material that inspires me than just running what suits the characters. And you know what else? As a DM, if I'm doing all the work, I'll run what I want and the players can adapt, because I'm here to have fun too. And if I'm not inspired and not having fun, it isn't going to be fun for the players no matter how I tailor the adventure.
As a player, I'd rather have an inspired happy DM running what he likes. This is a cooperative game, not an enslavement of the DM. All I ask is that I have the opportunity to make a charcter who can contribute usefully.
But this is getting pretty for from the topic at hand.
Craig Shackleton,
The Rambling Scribe
I know, I know, its a two way street. DMs make/choose a setting, Players decide how to interact with it, DM makes adjustments to keep it fun and moving smoothly. But it still comes down to the DM. If the player asks for downtime, try to accomodate that. If they don't, then don't worry about it. If the players want to do something off the wall or dumb, let them reap the fruits of their silliness. And then readjust when they make it owrk or chnage their minds. AP design, campaign design, what have you, cannot be static, but evolves as the game progresses. No plan ever survives first contact with the PCs :)
But I won't decide not to include time-sensitive encounters because it will make life hard for the wizard. I'd rather give the wizard options in a time-sensitive encounter. Otherwise I'm just removing options for adventure from the players and myself.
Just thought I'd point out and reiterate that throwing in a time-sensitive element is A) not impossible or even a bad choice with a wizard and B) not inherently opposed to all of a wizard's activities.
However, over the course of the campaign, if there is a wizard in the party, downtime should be commonly available. Either that, or the players should be made to know beforehand that they are going to run into problems (which you said you did, and that's good DMing, I'm just throwing this out as a statement to the general populace).
Saern, as a person who has Dmed over nearly all of your wizards, this is the one thing I never understood. You got blank stares because no one could figure out why you were asking. Everyone knew you knew wizard spells way better than any of them. It's like catching the validictorian trying to cheat off his neighbors math test, there was no real reason why you needed to do it and it was of no real benifit to you. Wizards don't need to ask other players what spells they want any more than fighters need to ask what feats the party wants him to take. If you thought it was some common courtesy that would make sense why you felt irritated by their responses but it wasn't neccessary at all in the first place.As a side note, I really freaking hate it when I play a wizard and ask the party what spell they want me to prepare that day, and only get blank stares, accompanied by comments revealing that they have no clue what my character is capable of, or even doing most of the time, and that it should just be my choice because I'm the wizard and that's my job. Okay, then, I think I'll fill every spell slot with unseen servant, you uncooperative, ungracious twits!
Yes, I did initially think "What?!" when I saw people having this many issues with wizards, particularly after the fighter vs. wizard thread.
As far as my situation went, the more specific details were typically me trying to decide whether I should go with another fireball or haste, and wondering if the party would prefer buffing or more damage output from me. Either that, or I was trying to decide what buff to prepare (Haste or fly? Which would the barbarian desire more?). Thus, I sought their preferences and opinions.
|
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.
By the RAW, can you aggregate spells on a scroll?
It's pretty clear from the RAW that you can put more than one spell on a scroll. From the description of scrolls:
A scroll holding more than one spell has the same width (about 8 ½ inches) but is an extra foot or so long for each extra spell. Scrolls that hold three or more spells are usually fitted with reinforcing rods at each end rather than simple strips of leather.
The only place I can find that might be read otherwise is in the section on creating a scroll:
The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires. If casting the spell would reduce the caster’s XP total, she pays the cost upon beginning the scroll in addition to the XP cost for making the scroll itself. Likewise, a material component is consumed when she begins writing, but a focus is not. (A focus used in scribing a scroll can be reused.) The act of writing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from her currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)
This is singular throughout, but I read the singular to be referring to the most common case rather than as a requirement in every case. (I understand that others might read it differently.)
What I don't see is any rule about how long it takes to, umm, scroll a scroll of more than one spell. (I hadn't thought of the issue before, but I'll probably just include it in the casting time.)
Well, as I was merrily handing out random scrolls the other night, I found the DMG chart that says how many spells are on any given scrolls, and it seemed like 3-6 was the range.
And frankly, as a DM, I do a better job of running material that inspires me than just running what suits the characters. And you know what else? As a DM, if I'm doing all the work, I'll run what I want and the players can adapt, because I'm here to have fun too. And if I'm not inspired and not having fun, it isn't going to be fun for the players no matter how I tailor the adventure.
That's one way to lessen your work load, I suppose. With maybe 3 exceptions in the last 10 years, I'm ALWAYS the DM because I either tailor all the adventures to the players' sense of "cool" or even make up new ones around exactly the types of scenarios and challenges that the players like. I just enjoy playing the game, and take my inspiration in that. As DM, I provide adventures with settings and encounters that I've designed or tweaked or borrowed. That's enough control for me; it's up to the players to provide some input, too (through their characters' actions and decisions), so that they have some "ownership" of the campaign world as well.
In games I've been involved with, DMs who are too stringent with regards to settings ("you all have to stay in my original city of Dragath-Nor, because this is MY campaign!") or with sequences of events ("no, you have to do 'X'!") are quickly out of work.
1. How long does it take to scribe a scroll of more than one spell? I'd say 1 day per 1,000gp of the scroll's market price (because it's just one item). This actually is a great boon to wizards, since they can then make "multiple" scrolls in a single day. Of course, then players are going to be asking how come it also takes a whole day to scribe a scroll with just a single spell. Well, the same reason you can prepare all of your spells in an hour, but if you just do one, it takes 15 minutes. I.e., because the rules say so! Need more? Fine, it's the prep time and getting started that takes so much effort, everything after that is pretty quick. Picky players. :)
2. Back to the "Isn't this coming out of left field?" issue (kinda): One of the arguments is that wizards are somehow weaker because of their small alotment of spells per day.
What?! That argument makes no sense! It fails to take into account the customizable nature of the wizard's spells per day and (because clerics and druids prepare, too) the inherent power of the wizard spell list.
The wizard draws spells from the most powerful list in the game, can know a huge amount of said spells, and can customize which ones are available at any given time fairly quickly.
Thus, it completely boggles my mind to hear people list "small number of spells per day" as and independant argument against the power of wizards.
As far as the school of thought that says various warrior hybrid classes are the optimal "build" for wizards, I have to ask, even if its easy to qualify for and mechanically is advantageous for the wizard hybrid's survival, from a roleplaying standpoint, what if I don't want to play a guy that shoots spells through his sword or carries a shield? I could take the PrC and ignore the warrior aspects and just enjoy the extra bonus to hit and hit points, but that would feel wrong to me.
While I realize that game rules shouldn't be balanced, ideally, by roleplaying elements, it is a roleplaying game we are talking about. If my idea of my character is an iconic character along the lines of Merlin/Mordenkainen/Khelben/Justarius, etc., then I'm going to favor PrCs (if I use them) that support my character as a studious, mysterious, powerful spellcaster.
Just a minor point, but honestly, when we get into rules discussions sometimes its easy to get lost in the hypothetical. Sometimes players intentionally don't try to superspecialize their characters, but do try to play a character that fits a theme, although they may do so in the most efficient (game rule wise) manner possible.
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.
Now if this Mystic Thuerge with a wand runs out of spells there is something wrong. These multi-class casters are a good way of increasing the number of castings for players that are willing to sacrifice power for more spells.
I think your correct in the idea that low magic settings can be tough on mages. Note that in some ways such a setting makes them more powerful. If magic is rare and they can use it they gain an advantage presuming the DM follows his own campaign theme and keeps the NPCs short on magic to combat the things a mage can do. Basically NPCs can't use magic items to help them mitigate the wizards spells. No ring of free movement at higher levels means that all the non-casters are extremely vulnerable to battlefield control spells. They simply have nothing that will get them out of the solid fog and little that can save them when the wizard follows it up with stinking cloud or an endless rain of fireballs. However the player must wait a long tome before such power finally arrives while the fighter still has his trusty master work sword every round. Essentially high magic weakens the power of high level wizards but it does mean that low level wizards can afford to buy some supplemental magical power to increase the number of spells they can cast in a day.
Wands do help with this, but limit your options. Scrolls are more versatile, but require more readying actions. Both are items that get used up which I find players are always less happy to buy or use.
I think its very true that players will often refuse to buy charged items. I somewhat understand teh motivation. If you horde every last gp you can spend it on permanent items. This is one of the benefits of the rising wealth by level system. While it might not stop the players from hoarding it makes that tactic less effective. Ten scribed 1st level scrolls are only 125 gp (and 25 XP) and even the wand of magic missile is a mere 750 gp. Reality is that 750 gp saved for later soon translates into a nearly irrelevant amount of money saved for later. By the time your worth 50,000 gp its not a big deal if you once bought a few wands worth a total of 1,500 gp. Furthermore the wands where effective at low level. They increased everyone's chance of living. If there is any kind of a penalty for death in your campaign then some charged items are usually a good investment. Not to mention the fact that it means you have more fun at the gaming table with such items then without.
Actually, this is EXACTLY the DMs job. If they are not writing their own adventures, in which they take into account their party composition and playing style, and are taking the route of pre-generated adventures, it is almost the DMs SOLE job to tailor it to their players. To say "hey, that's how its written!!" is a cop out. If you have so little time to prepare, and I understand this is a real concern for many, maybe you should take some time off as DM, and play when you have more time to devote to it? Just me mouthing off :)About down time in adventures:
1) I don't think it is neccessarily the DMs job to adjust the adventure to the party in all cases, nor is it always a reasonable expectation...
SNIP
I disagree. It can be the DMs job if thats the way you want to play but thats not how it goes down at my table. I make adventures that my players attempt to overcome the challange while I attempt to kill them. Very adversarial - the players are a team and the DM is that Evil Bastard behind the screen. It works great - there is a ton of energy at my table and the highs the players get when they overcome a particularly nasty challange are just phenominal. The biggest downside is that it can take 10 minutes to get them to stop chanting and high fiving each other and get back to the game.
Does anyone else feel that these arguments are coming out of left field? I've seen the power and usefulness of many classes challenged but the wizard has always been held at the top of the totem pole. The wizard can be the most useful and powerful member of the party when he is on top of his game.
I really agree. This is what I meant when I made a post along the lines of "I think this is a case of some one just not wanting to play the wizard and then finding justifications for that feeling".
Now that said I think the wizard has a heck of a time being a really great class at low level and if the game is always over before one gets to 7th level I can see the issue. A fighter with good stats is maybe more potent at low levels. Stats don't really have a dramatic impact on the wizard at low levels while they can turn a low level fighter into a killing machine.
That, and the fact that unlike Every Other Class... the Wizard has to spend time and money and experience points to do what it is he's supposed to do. As in, learning new spells; he has to spend money and time to scribe spells into his books, and half of his bonus feat choices? Item Creation feats, which further eat up his time and money and xp. So! While the rest of the party's off having ADVENTURE, the wizard gets to stay home and spend the money and XP he's not getting just so he can do what it is he's supposed to be able to do.
This idea seems to me to be part of that philosophy. The Wizard does not have to spend money or take item creation feats. Nothing forces him to do so. Instead he has the option of essentially doubling his wealth by level share of the gold for a smaller expenditure of XP. Far from being some kind of a penalty its actually a really potent ability. Giving the wizard a smallish sum of 'craft points' is actually probably a greater penalty then leaving things as they are. To a large degree this exchange is more then worth it and a wizard that really concentrates on doubling his wealth reaps very significant rewards in the form of very potent magic, especially considering that the wizard that actually manages to loose levels gets rewarded by earning more XP per encounter from then on and still gets to keep their extra magical goodies.
Well I mostly play wizards when I’m not a DM and I would like to address some topics above.
1) Somebody told it above and he is VERY right. The wizard is the best class to multiclass and the cons are minimal. I believe that a Cleric/Wizard/Mystic Theurgy is a killing combo.
2) He is more effective than the other casting classes. The druid is at his best only in a wilderness and open ground environment. The sorcerer is by far the greater damage dealer but when a party has a fighter or barbarian among its members then a spellcaster should do other things. Sorcerers also do not have the knowledge skills that a wizard has which are quite important. For clerics the basic drawback is of what it is expected from them. All the members of the party expect from a cleric to heal them. Thus, most clerics keep up their spells to change them into healing spells. Even those that try to play a cleric and not a healer are found in higher levels to be healers because the party is getting too reckless and why not as long as there is a cleric over there( I was often criticized for not wanting to swap my spells for healing because I hate to only heal). The wizard is: More adaptable than a druid and with greater spell list. More effective than sorcerer in all other areas except "maybe" battle. More playable, funny and free than cleric though they are both equally important, with cleric slightly more.
3) The gap of not casting a great array of spells can be easily thwarted with the least costly item creation feat that he takes for free. The xp costs are minimal: To create a scroll of fireball you need to spend at least 15 xp points. If at 5th level an encounter gives you approximately 1000 xp points imagine how minimal it is to create a scroll. As for the gp used for scroll-making then I think it is quite sound with game mechanics. The bigger problem a wizard has is when copying a spell into the spellbook which is IMO good for the shake of being too overpowering otherwise. Another way to address the issue of minimal spellcasting is through the magic items mentioned pretty good above.
4) If you also play the other supplement books then the wizard is becoming very powerfull mostly so with feats from Complete Mage and I talk of the reserve feats which are a great boost and an endless arsenal. Plus the new spells from spell compendium. Backbiter a 1st-level spell just rocks even at higher levels.
|
Contributor
|
I disagree. It can be the DMs job if thats the way you want to play but thats not how it goes down at my table. I make adventures that my players attempt to overcome the challange while I attempt to kill them. Very adversarial - the players are a team and the DM is that Evil Bastard behind the screen. It works great - there is a ton of energy at my table and the highs the players get when they overcome a particularly nasty challange are just phenominal. The biggest downside is that it can take 10 minutes to get them to stop chanting and high fiving each other and get back to the game.
This is more like how I play, except I'm the friendly evil bastard that smiles and gives them all the rope they need to hang themselves with.
Actually, I'm reminded of some DM advice I read in 7th Sea that really opened my eyes. Basically it said that most players will tell you what they want, but they are wrong. What they want is to have bad guys kick the crap out of them, and then barely manage to pull their own butts out of the fire and win. In my games since then, if a session goes by when none of the PCs thought they were going to die or worse, I feel a bit like I've let them down. I push the envelope hard, and I never fudge a roll. I do give the PCS more than standard resources, but I make up for it by hitting them hard. And when they win, they jump out of their chairs.
|
|
Been reading about, and thinking about wizards far too much as a result of this thread. Here are my conclusions:
Wizards at low levels are less fun because their spell resources are very limited, and they are in constant danger of being the splat mark.
After low level, their main problem is needing down time.
Finally, there is little or no reason to not use a prestige class, as there is a giant void in the mid to high level class abilities column.
Here are some ideas, not all fresh:
Casters gain their full casting stat bonus to their number of 0th level spells per day. It is silly that you get bonus spells for eveything excluding the easiest stuff. So an inteligence 16 gets a wizard 3 extra cantrips per day.
Make Scribe Scroll not required, and simply a wizard bonus feat.
Wizards may spontaneously cast cantrips, perhaps gaining this ability at level 3 to prevent cherry picking.
Roll the archmage class abilities into the wizards base class, obviously without the PrC prerequisites, at 12,14,16,18, and 20.
Scribing scrolls is completed at a rate of 125gp/hour, or 50gp/hr under less than ideal conditions. Create a new item, similar to a spell component pouch, which allows a caster to create scrolls in the field see below.
The whole 1000gp/day rule was obviously a result of someone deciding the target market of 10 year olds can't use fractions.
Scribing spells into a spell book takes 1 hour per spell level.
NEW ITEM: Spell Scribing Supplies 50gp + supplies
Scribing supplies include the writing tablets, paper, pens, inks, and special reagents necessary for casters to create scrolls, and for wizards to record spells in their spell book.
Casters must still pay the normal gp cost to create scrolls as that cost represents the consumables used up in each creation. This kit allows them to do so without the normally required resources. (12 gp 5 sp per spell level times caster level)
Net results:
A bit more power at low level from the extra 0th level spells.
Make scroll scribing optional.
Let a wizard be somewhat more versatile with spontaneous cantrips.
Have a reason to stay a wizard, and not jump to a PrC at the earliest opportunity.
For a small investment in gp, you can jot down a scroll of any spell you don't get to use in a day, rather than just wasting the spell for the day. "Hey we're going into a dungeon, I'll pick up a scribing kit and the supplies for 5 'levels' of spells before I go."
|
|
I like your summary Dragonmann, and your conclusions (at least at first glance).
I'd personally apply the scroll scribing times to batches of potions as well, or other items with costs under 1000 gp.
Times yes, portability only makes sense for scrolls though.
And another note for the discussion, I real crafting nut can take craft construct, and build a dedicated wright (eberron haemonculous) which will keep working on the item while the wizard adventurers, so to an extent "down time" can be mitigated
|
Now if this Mystic Thuerge with a wand runs out of spells there is something wrong. These multi-class casters are a good way of increasing the number of castings for players that are willing to sacrifice power for more spells.
He hasn't yet; the wands have been an excellent addition.
I think your correct in the idea that low magic settings can be tough on mages. Note that in some ways such a setting makes them more powerful. If magic is rare and they can use it they gain an advantage presuming the DM follows his own campaign theme and keeps the NPCs short on magic to combat the things a mage can do. Basically NPCs can't use magic items to help them mitigate the wizards spells. No ring of free movement at higher levels means that all the non-casters are extremely vulnerable to battlefield control spells. They simply have nothing that will get them out of the solid fog and little that can save them when the wizard follows it up with stinking cloud or an endless rain of fireballs. However the player must wait a long tome before such power finally arrives while the fighter still has his trusty master work sword every round. Essentially high magic weakens the power of high level wizards but it does mean that low level wizards can afford to buy some supplemental magical power to increase the number of spells they can cast in a day.
This is exactly how things were run, because I did not load the NPCs up with magic gear I didn't want in the hands of the group. The party wizard was indeed powerful, but it was brutally hard on the player (our "expert wizard player") to get his character high enough in level to be meaningfully effective. He spent much of his early life hiding and casting a spell here and there, something my other players have never wanted to do now that our "expert wizard player" had to leave the game.
NEW ITEM: Spell Scribing Supplies 50gp + supplies
Scribing supplies include the writing tablets, paper, pens, inks, and special reagents necessary for casters to create scrolls, and for wizards to record spells in their spell book.Casters must still pay the normal gp cost to create scrolls as that cost represents the consumables used up in each creation. This kit allows them to do so without the normally required resources. (12 gp 5 sp per spell level times caster level)
I have always allowed this, since no special laboratory or other "fixed in place" equipment is required for making scrolls. The wizard is free to purchase scrollmaking supplies at cost (I don't even charge the 50gp adder), and can take advantage of a full day's downtime in the field to scribe a scroll. Thus, when the cleric needs to rest all day and all night to bring up another Restoration, the wizard has something to do. It works great and is not unbalancing. I still keep the scribe scroll time limit the same because I do not want the wizard dropping to his knees at every dungeon intersection while the rogue searches for traps and scratching out a new scroll (an exaggeration but you get the idea).
I think much of my group's issues with the wizard have come from running low magic / low gold games with little downtime or money for item creation. While years of this sort of play have driven the party away from Wizards, my new campaign has the Mystic Theurge in it and I am encouraging the "rebirth of the (nearly) RAW Wizard" by doing the following:
- Using RAW wealth by level guidelines
- Providing for ample downtime between adventures and one long (the 4 winter game months) downtime period per game year
- Allowing almost-RAW magic item purchases and allowing partially charged wand purchases during the long downtime period once per game year
- Allowing permanent loss of familiar for a feat of the player's choice (a suggestion from these boards - thanks)
- Spells require one page in a spellbook regardless of level (a suggestion from these boards - thanks)
- Allowing cantrips to be spontaniously cast and granting bonus cantrips equal to wizard INT bonus (a suggestion from these boards - thanks)
- Allowing free transcription of scrolls to spellbooks (a suggestion from these boards - thanks)
I am going to see how this plays out. I know that I do not have a "pure" wizard in the group and with so many spells the 3/3/1 Theurge will probably not run into some of the things a dedicated wizard would, but this should go a long way toward helping the wizard portion of the character be competitive with the other characters (who are either 7th or 8th level, depending on racial LA).
Allowing permanent loss of familiar for a feat of the player's choice (a suggestion from these boards - thanks)
There's a good precedent for this one anyway, if you use the "flaws" rules, there's one called Forlorn that does exactly that.
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.
By the RAW, can you aggregate spells on a scroll?It's pretty clear from the RAW that you can put more than one spell on a scroll. From the description of scrolls:
I recognize that you can put more then one spell on a scroll. I was commenting that, by RAW, you'd still have to spend a full on each spell placed on the scroll no matter how minor the spell.
What I don't see is any rule about how long it takes to, umm, scroll a scroll of more than one spell....
This is covered under creating magic items.
The creator also needs a fairly quiet, comfortable, and well-lit place in which to work. Any place suitable for preparing spells is suitable for making items. Creating an item requires one day per 1,000 gp in the item’s base price, with a minimum of at least one day. Potions are an exception to this rule; they always take just one day to brew. The character must spend the gold and XP at the beginning of the construction process.The caster works for 8 hours each day. He cannot rush the process by working longer each day. But the days need not be consecutive, and the caster can use the rest of his time as he sees fit.
A character can work on only one item at a time. If a character starts work on a new item, all materials used and XP spent on the under-construction item are wasted.
So we end up with creating a magic item always takes at least one day. It takes 8 hours even if your just scribing a cantrip and your not allowed to make more then one at the same time.
(In fact, the creature doesn't even know it was charmed unless it saw the caster and made a spellcraft check - creatures only automatically know they were the target of a spell if they make the save. Failing the save grants them no knowledge that they are effected by a spell if it isn't otherwise obvious).
They do know that they had to make a will save. They can probably infer that it was a charm spell.
(3) Lasting the adventure: If you cast good spells you'll only need 1-2 per encounter, and can go a decent number of encounters. (Even at 1st level in your 1st adventure sleep or colorspray has a good chance of just ending an encounter, and you're almost as good with a crossbow as anyone else.
This would likely depend on their dextarity. With a low point buy game a wizard probably wants to go completely crazy with his intelligence score because his spells save DCs are based on that stat. That can mean pretty low stats otherwise with, say 25 point buy.
(4) You vastly outpower all the other arcane classes because you get new spell levels a level before them. You get your first 4th level spell at 7th, the sorcer is waiting until 8th. This will be true almost half your career. If you look at the actual number of spells castable/day by a sorceror vs a wizard, including bonus spells, the wizard is actually comparable because when he picks up a higher spell level he also picks up 1 or more bonus spells on average, spells the sorceror isn't getting. And those spells are *better* because spell power increases exponentially.
Spells per day presuming both casters have an 18 in their primary stat.
1st Wizard = 5 / Sorcerer = 95th Wizard = 13 / Sorcerer = 18
10th Wizard = 24 / Sorcerer = 36
15th Wizard = 34 / Sorcerer = 50
The Sorcerer always has close to 50% more spells per day.
(5) You know almost as many spells as the sorceror, because you get 2 free each level, and you will always know more different spells at your highest level than the sorceror. It really is that simple.
Actually the Wizard - presuming that he does not copy and scrolls and such into his spell book knows almost twice as many spells as the Sorcerer. This is because the Wizard learns two new spells at every level while the Sorcerer only learns one new spell.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Sorcs actually learn more than 1 spell per level at many levels. In terms of 20 levels of progression, a wizard will learn 38 new spells from levels 2-20, a sorcerer 32 excluding cantrips. I left out 1st level, when the wizard has a variable number, and the sorcerer 2. They come pretty close to the same number of spells as a wizard, but of course wizards can turn cash into more spells (especially with a Boccob's blessed book).
This would likely depend on their dextarity. With a low point buy game a wizard probably wants to go completely crazy with his intelligence score because his spells save DCs are based on that stat. That can mean pretty low stats otherwise with, say 25 point buy.(3) Lasting the adventure: If you cast good spells you'll only need 1-2 per encounter, and can go a decent number of encounters. (Even at 1st level in your 1st adventure sleep or colorspray has a good chance of just ending an encounter, and you're almost as good with a crossbow as anyone else.
25 point buy:
10 Str (2 points)
14 Dex (6 points)
13 Con (5 points)
16 Int (10 points)
10 Wis (2 points)
8 Cha (0 points)
With point-buy, it's usually not worth getting more than a 16 in any one stat (and an 18 is almost always not worth it). Taking one ability increase for Con at either 4th or 8th still gives this character a 20 Int at 20th level, before inherent and enhancement bonuses. You could go 8 Str, 12 Con, 17 Int and pump all ability increases into Int for 22 Int at 20th, I suppose, but that's if the player decides a higher Int is worth the lower Str and Con.
Sorcs actually learn more than 1 spell per level at many levels. In terms of 20 levels of progression, a wizard will learn 38 new spells from levels 2-20, a sorcerer 32 excluding cantrips. I left out 1st level, when the wizard has a variable number, and the sorcerer 2. They come pretty close to the same number of spells as a wizard, but of course wizards can turn cash into more spells (especially with a Boccob's blessed book).
Not to mention that if a wizard obtains an enemy's spellbook (or finds one as treasure), it's usually a net profit if they sell it after copying any spells they don't know from it. See "Selling a Spellbook" PHB, pg. 179. A sorcerer makes more profit, but can't increase spells known, which is a large drawback.
In my game last night, both scroll scribing and capturing an enemy wizard's spellbook came up.
1. Scrolls can be scribed at a rate of 125gp/hour, as suggested here.
2. Once a wizard uses read magic (or even Spellcraft) to identify a spell from another wizard's spellbook, he needs not scribe it to his own. So, using read magic on the entire spellbook makes it as good as your own, with no additional need to spend money or time copying.
There is just seems to be a lot of redundant steps involved in the process of "acquiring" a spell from another source. Plus, I think it's cooler for the wizard to have a collection of spellbooks (many taken from other mages) that they reference and prepare spells from. If the wizard still wants to sell the old spellbook, they can always go ahead and copy the spell into their own and proceed with the gp earning. :)
Sorcs actually learn more than 1 spell per level at many levels. In terms of 20 levels of progression, a wizard will learn 38 new spells from levels 2-20, a sorcerer 32 excluding cantrips. I left out 1st level, when the wizard has a variable number, and the sorcerer 2. They come pretty close to the same number of spells as a wizard, but of course wizards can turn cash into more spells (especially with a Boccob's blessed book).
I knew there was a reason I loved Sorcerers!
25 point buy:10 Str (2 points)
14 Dex (6 points)
13 Con (5 points)
16 Int (10 points)
10 Wis (2 points)
8 Cha (0 points)With point-buy, it's usually not worth getting more than a 16 in any one stat (and an 18 is almost always not worth it). Taking one ability increase for Con at either 4th or 8th still gives this character a 20 Int at 20th level, before inherent and enhancement bonuses. You could go 8 Str, 12 Con, 17 Int and pump all ability increases into Int for 22 Int at 20th, I suppose, but that's if the player decides a higher Int is worth the lower Str and Con.
I sure agree with you except possibly in the case of a wizard or sorcerer. For this class DC is a huge factor. More even then Druids and Clerics and such. Furthermore bad guy saves climb faster then standard DC. The higher you can get this the better your spells are for longer. Since casting spells is what you do - well I would at lest strongly consider making my prime spell casting stat as high as possible. +2 to to dex is nice but I am not at all sure its better, over the long haul, then +1 to spell DC. When thinking of your above build I might drop the strength, constitution and dextarity by 2 points each and go for 18 intelligence.
If you mean they treat each spell on a scroll as one item, that's not true. The whole scroll is the item, and it requires every spell placed upon it. So it takes 1 day for a scroll worth 1000gp or less, regardless of how many spells you put on it.
Thats a reasonable interpretation but RAW does not detail how to make scrolls of more then one spell at a time.
Here's the relevant passage of the SRD:Scribing a scroll requires one day per each 1,000 gp of the base price.First note that the time required is 1 day per 1000gp of the base price of the *scroll*. The value of scrolls is well-defined for multi-spell scrolls (sum the value of each spell), and therefore we can calculate the time required to scribe the scroll as a whole based on its total price *exactly like the RAW asks us to*.
Where specifically does it say 'sum the value of each spell' in RAW or any words to that effect in creating scrolls. It obvously makes sense but under creating scrolls I see absolutely nothing about the sum of the value of the spells and without that I don't see how we can interpret the time requirements in making magic items as applying to multiple spells scribed at the same time.
Essentially RAW tells me how to randomly generate scrolls with more then one spell on it but does not tell me how to make such an item.
Here's the relevant passage of the SRD:Scribing a scroll requires one day per each 1,000 gp of the base price.First note that the time required is 1 day per 1000gp of the base price of the *scroll*. The value of scrolls is well-defined for multi-spell scrolls (sum the value of each spell), and therefore we can calculate the time required to scribe the scroll as a whole based on its total price *exactly like the RAW asks us to*.Where specifically does it say 'sum the value of each spell' in RAW or any words to that effect in creating scrolls. It obvously makes sense but under creating scrolls I see absolutely nothing about the sum of the value of the spells and without that I don't see how we can interpret the time requirements in making magic items as applying to multiple spells scribed at the same time.
Essentially RAW tells me how to randomly generate scrolls with more then one spell on it but does not tell me how to make such an item.
I'll note that the 'Rules of the Game' articles over at the Wizards site actually bring this up and do mention the idea of adding the prices of multiple spells to a scroll while it remains just one scroll.
This is turning out to be a great thread for reading- since magic items and scrolls and such are topics I'd like to know more about. Still, 200 posts is going to take a while so I'll finish reading later, and just nod along since I'm posting now, though I might change my mind and quip something later.
Said it before...The DM should always work with the players- individually as time allows. While encounters that are pre-made are not tailor made for individual character builds- I agree that the DM can and should make adjustments for players. Player style and experience should be taken into account, but the player is supposed to come prepared just as much as the DM is expected to in the case of Spell Casters.
Sure, most DM's I know give a pass on Spell Components, or simplify the process- The RAW should always take priority in character concept, creation and play. Homebrews, House Rules, and DM/player compromises and experiments are exceptions that may be palpable- but not necessarily favorable to all groups.
Quick and Dirty Response before my Rantage:
As a player first and DM second:
I might agree with 0-level spontaneous casting (though read magic saves a wizard from complete uselessness without physical spellbook.)
Components and GP/XP costs especially should be tweaked according to resources and DM's preference (In gameworld economics and the ambiguous Spell Component pouch should be filled by character preference and access).
Skill points are an issue- but not something that needs to be fixed except under extenuating circumstances- or groups that don't have use for knowledge checks or synergies. (Knowledge Dungeoneering for one is an undervalued skill- the ONE knowledge skill one of my groups needed that even my High Int Warmage didn't have).
It is easier to overestimate other class characters than the back of the line Wizard/Magic User- as mentioned they are often enough they are the last person left or the one sparred by baddies. In a 2e Hybrid- the DM sicked a dozen or so Sea Lions (a pride of lions with fins) on a small boat of Elves and our party. The rather evil npc wizard- in a desperate bid that knocked him out of the boat- killed the Sea Lions with a well strung behind and blown up magic staff...again creative use of resources.
Revenge of the Nerds:
Knowing things should be the real focus of wizards- and bards too- as Magic- in the most realistic sense of the word- is all about Knowledge as Power and the ability to make the connections. Wizards to the Book learning the rest of the party doesn't bother doing, just like the occasional Bard played is the mouthpiece and social networking guru- they know things because they hear things.
I'm still with the 2e idea of character creation- if you roll the stats, play stats you get. Point buy is hard on versatile builds, but for specialists? not really. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard (possible Ranger) parties will probably work very well for core savvy players and DMs.
But, sure, tweak restrictions on costs, add skill points (or do what I would foolishly do below, and multi-class: Human, Half-Elf, Elf.)
If Wizard isn't an attractive class, consider Non-core options or the Bard or Sorc for arcane casters in the group (weigh these options against your DM at all times.
Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If the class doesn't work for you as a DM- tweak or change it or figure out what place it may or may not have in your gameworld. If you're a player- it is your job to build a feasible concept (with the DM) and to work within restrictions and have a fun time. Some of my friends' love playing Wizards and play anything different due to other restrictions- not personal preference. (again Nerds.)
Rant follows, sorry:
Out of the box, the shiny new Wizard character doesn't seem like the action figure super-hero adventurer most players may want to be. I know I'm not really one to consider Wizard for my player character. I have used wizards to some degree as NPCs and faced them as such- and find them challenging, especially rich and obsessed ones. (liches doubly so).
The restrictions on Wizards are the things that seem prohibitive, but these can be laxed, countered or dealt with legally by creative and resourceful DM's and Players.
I recently got handed the opportunity to make YET ANOTHER 4th level character in a Mercenary based, survival and Role Playing heavy campaign world (30 year old Home Brew BABY of about 4 or so D&D Veterans). At first, the suggested build had the 4th (and subsequent) level(s) as Wu Jen. And WHY would such even be appealing to me (after the fact?), crazy wu jen stuff, sure...but it is the character build that got me interested (and the pitch from a drunk world creator). But, the main temptation (since I was supposed to be some sort of Yakuza enforcer rip-off)- alternative Spellbook format, Symbolic tattoo arrangement. Pick what spells your Wizard knows anyway (and you gain new spells automatically through presumed research), add new spells via new or expanded ritual tattoos or incorporate Mnemonic links with existing tattoos, I think this bridged firmly from the Wu Jen concept into an almost Monk/Shaman feel, but it was fun to consider as an option.
If you find yourself limited on a front you don't want to play a character build, there are legal and quasi-legal ways around that even in Core RAW or the SRD, and I certainly hope so since as creative and different as the afore mentioned gameworld is, with guys running it trying to be as 3.5 Core friendly as possible. Even going as far as to exclude Prestige classes.
Anyway, I would recommend Wu Jen as fresh perspective or option for the Arcane Spell caster players who have to/want to play a wizard roll. But this suggestion is based on what I figure looks good on on paper, not from personal experience, elemental specialization at 6th level is funky but interesting.
Now using the online Javascript character generator (that I am obsessed with) and on paper, I decided to further educate myself on the Wizard class.
Still, I find myself distracted by build options, which I think is where ANY class has the potential to shine. If I wanted a more versatile wizard- I would start him off as Rogue or if Prestige or funky mult-class is an option- Spellthief, etc. Ranger even might be an option if only dipping. (Human and Elves, and half-elves, are probably going to make up the bulk of wizards anyway unless you get the psycho-dwarf caster or gnome illusionist.)
But, for Wizard build, some things make sense: He's the studious type- the power obsessed, the nerd. This is fun for players of certain types, play the high INT character that doesn't necessarily have athletic ability (Monk, Fighter) or witty remarks (Rogue, Bard), and perhaps put little faith in any sort of Religion (Cleric, Paladin) or is a shut in (Druid, Ranger). Wizard is a class for people who WANT to play it. If I roll the stats, I'd go high INT, CON and DEX for survival, and get in a good group- preferably Core rules or SRD.
From my experience Magic Users had it pretty good in 2e from time to time, but in 3.5, outside core if not inside core, research and the expert mindset that comes for wizards and specialist wizards works in their favor. Knowledge Skill? Class. Spell Craft & Concentration? And you can do your job better. (Again, Counterspell? take Improved Counterspell if you're in a Spell heavy campaign?)
IMHO, Wizards fit their character type- with the exception of the Alternative of Wu Jen- they can be of any alignment, don't have to get out much, might be independently wealthy (starting gold IMO is where Wizards start getting jipped, they don't always steal their money like Rogues, but books aren't always CHEAP).
Having 2-3 dump stats isn't bad, player character wise, but I don't like dumping stats myself. Just sky high the INT for skill points and future spell levels (and bonus spells) and beef on Con/HP and Dex.
Anyway, since everyone has nailed the strengths/weaknesses pretty much, and I already ranted on my thoughts about Pros/Cons (Trust me I read for a while, but with 200 posts, I figure I did pretty good so far), I figure I'll share my exploration into a Multiclass wizard build:
Here is a quickie 4th level build I would consider if a group of that level lacked an Arcane Caster or I just wanted to play something weird.
Rog1(maybe up this later, but doubtful, maybe just go 2) Wizard 3.
Rather lucky Standard Roll
Strength 9 (-1) [Might bump this up, but went with dex at 4th for AC, merciful or easy DMs might allow no stat below 10, I did that- not really necessary]
Dexterity 16 (+3)
Constitution 16 (+3)
Intelligence 18 (+4)
Wisdom 14 (+2) [Might consider putting this into Str for Surivalist build, but higher Will helps fill the roll of the guy in the party who doesn't get taken out as easily by another spell caster.]
Charisma 13 (+1) [Dump it, right? Probably could have, but Roguish build.]
Diviner specialist- works for the Roguish role character build- he just works for Thieves and Bookies/gambling outfits- why not? Only lose one school (necromancy is an easy choice for me since I run Ghostwalk, so Necros are illegal in city).
Focus on Concentration, Spellcraft and persuasion skills.
Feats? Improved Counterspell (still play the ready to counterspell role as needed, switch this out for something built for survival otherwise), Silent Spell, Still Spell. (how many times have you run into circumstances where your party gets tied up, loses their hands, has to be quiet or subtle, etc?)
HP: 28- 6, 3, 3, & 1. Toad included. (not a bad idea to start off with a more skill and hp endowed class if free or favored multiclassing supports wizard move- and spell level isn't too badly needed.)
Tactics:
Wizard/Bard:
"Hi, I'm Layla Miller. I know stuff."
Divine information your party wants to know- or you want to know. Think moves ahead, use knowledge skills like they are going out of style (they are in out culture, aren't they?). Spellcraft and Counterspell. Add spells to your spellbook, and prep useful scrolls and items. (Spell Storing is underrated, isn't it?). Convincing or fooling others into thinking you know or don't know things would be a major boon.
Unfortunately a major tactic of Wizards falls against the first rule of being a Lawyer "don't commit anything to paper." But then there are spells and techniques to get around that adage. And hey, just because you write things down, doesn't mean other people can or want to read it- and you can always leave things you want other characters and enemies to read lying around. Fight with a Barbarian, they can't read.
Rogue side (Skill Points, Limited Class Skills, Survival bonuses, 1d6 Sneak Attack, Trapfinding and disabling Magical Traps):
Steal materials, Con people, Cantrip the hell out of the locals and tourists. Don't stay caught. Get paid. Borrow, beg, loot and steal. Always get the money up front.
sure, straight Rogue is great, but it is also one of two classes I would consider dipping into (three or four counting Ranger for 2 or Monk with no armor options or no need/possibility for further progression).
Still, straight Wizard gets you to 9th level spells in a fashion most classes might find admirable. Though I don't have the tendency to write every interesting spell I read or want to create down (I started doing that for 2e and for Advanced Learning for Warmage builds once or twice though), I find the option of doing research and having book learning interesting. I think it would be nice to be the first one in your family to go to college and become a wizard. Necromancers can go Cleric- but Liches are always Wizards- right?
Classism would probably exist in D&D, too.
the d20 srd is a good start for anyone, like myself, looking seriously at the Wizard (or any core) class for the first time- but there is always the good ol' PHB and DMG.
I love(d?) playing my Ftr/Warmage, but utilitarian spells may not be totally covered by the Druid and Cleric in the group. (or the ftr/sor for that matter).
If I were to play a wizard, I'd probably go Spellthief style (or take the class if allowed), but then if I really set out to do that- I'd probably go Sorcerer. Still playing a "Key Master" style rog/wizard- protected by the party and used for opening doors and solving problems, seems favorable.
Anyway, I like the idea behind what I've got, and didn't get much lower in HP than what the computer originally rolled for my Rog2Ftr2 build that I ended up with for the Yakuza enforcer/Survivalist character for the Mercenary Company campaign. (when I rolled dice I got 35, I could physically roll 30 possibly for the Rogue/Diviner build above, or use Toughness a feat even.)
Add 4th level equivalent gold, character background & items- including a decent weapon set up- then you've got a decent Expert with jack-of-all trades potential character build. (I prefer bows over crossbows, obvious reasons if the character is any good with bows and doesn't want to carry around a large mechanical one-shot per round at best weapon).
Apologize if the unsolicited multi-class build was a bit much or flawed. (I figure it works for me, or might in a campaign style that I'm used to- though higher rolls on attacks might be nice and the Homebrews I am playing are low-magic settings).
I for one appreciate all of the opinions on the subject, I appreciate many of the point by point lists of problems, but generally finding myself in the "if it ain't broke" crowd. Sure- more skill points are great, survivability is nice. But options for the Wizard are fairly good, and I don't expect much more in the skill set or ability department for the book toting mega-nerd of the party other than blasting the hell out of monsters and being able to anticipate party needs for spells.
Still, limited spontaneous casting (0-lvl or Known), Cost alternatives for higher level spells and scrolls (again as with other posts, a group cost coverage of magic buffing items such as scrolls, wands, potions and such might be preferable), more skill points though maybe not more class skills, or consideration of variants might be beneficial to the game.
I'd like to see any serious considerations for seriously altering the class in 4.0 (if that is even that far in the works). I don't think that any well-balanced game will outright kill a caster, but sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.
+2 to to dex is nice but I am not at all sure its better, over the long haul, then +1 to spell DC.
Three words: ranged touch attacks.
Unless you always cast area/automatic hit spells, a better attack roll will be useful (not to mention the AC benefit). Considering that the orb no save/no SR spells in Complete Arcane are all ranged touch attacks, as well as many of the best save or die spells (disintegrate), Dex is definitely a wizard's second most important stat. Note that the 8 Str, 14 Dex, 12 Con, 17 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Cha wizard still has a great spell save DC, unless you are of the opinion that a wizard needs an 18 Int at 1st level to be a viable character.
Also, this comes down to "use the right spell for the situation." Target spells with saves against an opponent's weakest save when possible (don't cast Fort save spells against giants, cast Ref save spells instead).