It seems like wizards are hated around here.
I see threads about sneaky ways to target the Wizard's Spell book.
I see DMs talking about "limiting" the Wizard's spells to control them...
Do you really think Wizards are that game breakingly powerful?
Come on, vent all your frustrations here.
Because Wizards are distilled AWESOMENESS! DM's hate that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to say that the topic right below this one when I entered it was 'They be Goblins!'
Sometimes, the boards answer for us.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because of 4e.
Oh, uhhh. Because they can trivialize bad plots?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am a GM and I love wizards.
When I talk about limiting wizard spells, it is because that is something the GM is permitted to do in order to steer the course of the campaign. It is also my favorite part about wizards, since you can really express a lot of flavor in the spellbooks if you so choose.
For instance, a wizard PC in my game can find that purchased conjuration spells are often written in a Korvosan syntax with a Chelish spell grammar, owing to the influence of the Korvosan Acadamae. "Elfy" type spells are similarly in an Elven syntax, and may be selected by me to line up with the history of elves in Varisia. I'll even allow extra spells to be deciphered from captured spellbooks along these lines (I used a Linguistics roll).
I've also allowed the flavor aspect of spellbooks to serve as a major clue in my Rise of the Runelords campaign. Without spoilering, I can say that a clear connection exists in the grammar of several captured spellbooks, which gives players information they mightn't ordinarily glean.
Sometimes I will limit the access to certain key spells because I just don't like how they feel for that campaign at that point. This isn't done to hobble the PC, but rather in service to the campaign. The Wizard list certainly does contain some of the greatest spells in the game, and sometimes as a GM you see it coming that it would hurt the experience overall. Sometimes, you go ahead and allow it anyway. If you're doing it to increase the overall fun for the PCs, you're doing it right.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards are excellent, and shouldn't be hated by anyone. However, you'll commonly see some board-hate along the following lines:
A) Some feel that they're too powerful at the end of the game, and too weak at the beginning. Though the latter is less true in the Paizo incarnations of the game.
B) Some feel that memorization-based casting sucks, and want it removed, and the Wizard class gets caught in the crossfire
C) Others feel that a weakness is as much a part of the character as their class abilities. Spellbooks fall into that category, because if they weren't intended to be replaced at some point, why do they have stats for them at all? This applies evenly to Paladins and alignment as well as druids and metal armor.
It seems like wizards are hated around here.
I don't know that wizards are hated around here, I think it's players who are arrogant and can't be bothered to read the rules that are disliked around here. It just happens more often when people are talking about wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
B) Some feel that memorization-based casting sucks, and want it removed, and the Wizard class gets caught in the crossfire
Speaking as a former complainer myself — those people who hate spell slots and prepared spells really need to go play another game for a while. There are many terrific systems that rectify this entirely. However, you can't really remove the system from 3.5/Pathfinder, it runs deep. So deep that to remove it is a fundamental change of game system.
Sometimes I wonder if the griping about these things isn't a result of ignorance of the basic nature of the game, and the existence of many, many fully-functional RPGs that address these perceived issues.
If you learn to love Pathfinder magic, it will be rewarding. Fight with it, and you will be constantly disappointed, and have no one to blame but yourself.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because a well-played Wizard is like having a book critic reading over your shoulder while you write..
"Are you sure you want to use that chasm there, it seems kind of superfluous, after all?"
"Oh, no, a physical threat emerges...whatever shall I do? Oh, woe is me, woe is me...<casts I WIN spell, wins>...hehe, sucker"
The trivialization and forced adaptation of most GM's causes headaches and consternation. Not to mention, if you get too attached to your NPC's, seeing them go down without taking an action is more than a little disheartening.
Primarily because they can create more work for a GM. Even more than sorcerers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is also an unfortunate tendency to use "wizard" as a shorthand for "spellcaster" and "fighter" as shorthand for "martial character".
That the cleric and druid are also awe-inspiring is frequently glossed over. Is synecdoche the word for it?
When I played a wizard, I got my DM to hate me because of Animate Dead, Shrink Item, and Simulacrum.
Mr. Fishy loves wizards as a player and as a DM. Fun to play and fun to torture.
Wizard have to work for new spells 2 per level and the rest at buy or find. And buying spells can be a chore. As some spell are illegal to sell. That's why Mr. Fishy has Mage Colleges and freelance caster in need of idiots er...adventures. The party does a favor the wizard gets to be an honorary member and learns a few "illegal spells".
See, Wizard improve the game because they look for treasure that fighters start fires with.
Wizards are also great for explaining and expanding the history and culture of a world. K. history K. geography, K. random plot hook.
Mr. Fishy loves wizards as a player and as a DM. Fun to play and fun to torture.
Wizard have to work for new spells 2 per level and the rest at buy or find. And buying spells can be a chore. As some spell are illegal to sell. That's why Mr. Fishy has Mage Colleges and freelance caster in need of idiots er...adventures. The party does a favor the wizard gets to be an honorary member and learns a few "illegal spells".
See, Wizard improve the game because they look for treasure that fighters start fires with.
Wizards are also great for explaining and expanding the history and culture of a world. K. history K. geography, K. random plot hook.
Which is why I don't ban them outright. For all their encounter trivilization they are juicy bits of storytelling I can';t ignore. I jsut tend to design my encounters with lots of archers. Makes the wizards life much more interesting.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Somebody is always complaining about something here, all the time. Why single out the hate against wizards? You can find hate for anything, if you look.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is also an unfortunate tendency to use "wizard" as a shorthand for "spellcaster" and "fighter" as shorthand for "martial character".
That the cleric and druid are also awe-inspiring is frequently glossed over. Is synecdoche the word for it?
I think the issue is that people who play wizards most take advantage of the nature of the class. Players who like to plan, and plot and consider contingencies tend to play wizards. Those kinds of player employ full prepared casting campabilities most effectively (in my opinion). And while such players might play druids or clerics, they are less common (this is ofcourse based on rather thin observational evidence but still). So wizard gets the most heat for this sort of thing because of the people who play him.
There is also the fact of the straightfowardness of the wizard. I know weird right? But think about it, most wizards get ALL their gamechanging ability from their spells. One easily categorized source. Druids/Clerics/Etc they get all sorts of abilities to fill their cups (plus great spells too) which makes it harder to present clear comparisons with others. The same thing is there with the fighter. Weapon training, weapon focus, power attack, these are very straight forward clear cut things fighters do. The value is obvious. However say an inquisitor or a paladin have a wider variety of abilities that make comparison harder.
Thats why I think we tend to get wizard and fighter instead of caster and martial character.
|
The only thing that I dislike, and this goes for all spellcasters, but especially wizards is the tendency for my players to use magic for EVERYTHING!
Spells should not be a replacement for thinking. Nor should they be a replacement for action, otherwise I would expect all mages to be bloated and overweight.
Now, I understand that the enjoyment that may come from occasionally using a spell in a utilitarian fashion, but it becomes frustrating when all it does is take the epic adventure feeling out of the campaign.
[/rant]
Sorry, it has been simmering for quite some time. :)
The only thing that I dislike, and this goes for all spellcasters, but especially wizards is the tendency for my players to use magic for EVERYTHING!
Spells should not be a replacement for thinking. Nor should they be a replacement for action, otherwise I would expect all mages to be bloated and overweight.
Now, I understand that the enjoyment that may come from occasionally using a spell in a utilitarian fashion, but it becomes frustrating when all it does is take the epic adventure feeling out of the campaign.
[/rant]
Sorry, it has been simmering for quite some time. :)
That is a matter of perspective. For some (myself included) when i am playing a spell caster a big part of the fun is having the spell to help solve the problem in the first place (see being batman in the old 3.5 wizard guides). If you are being creative about the way you use spells and the dm is prepared for the spells you are able to cast, using magic to solve problems doesn't take the epicness out of the campaign, it brings it in in the first place.
But again that is a matter of preference.
Wizards are excellent, and shouldn't be hated by anyone. However, you'll commonly see some board-hate along the following lines:
B) Some feel that memorization-based casting sucks, and want it removed, and the Wizard class gets caught in the crossfire
Mage: the Awakening by White Wolf handles this very well, I'd say.
|
|
That is a matter of perspective. For some (myself included) when i am playing a spell caster a big part of the fun is having the spell to help solve the problem in the first place (see being batman in the old 3.5 wizard guides). If you are being creative about the way you use spells and the dm is prepared for the spells you are able to cast, using magic to solve problems doesn't take the epicness out of the campaign, it brings it in in the first place.
But again that is a matter of preference.
That is fine, I actually applaud that, but it's when the players don't even think about the clues given, and instead use spells (such as Divination) to get an answer, or Teleport to the final destination instead of thinking of the trip being a grand adventure... I don't know. I have always had trouble with getting people to understand where I am coming from. (Especially the players that I was dealing with...) ;p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is fine, I actually applaud that, but it's when the players don't even think about the clues given, and instead use spells (such as Divination) to get an answer, or Teleport to the final destination instead of thinking of the trip being a grand adventure... I don't know. I have always had trouble with getting people to understand where I am coming from. (Especially the players that I was dealing with...) ;p
That is a matter of perspective. For some (myself included) when i am playing a spell caster a big part of the fun is having the spell to help solve the problem in the first place (see being batman in the old 3.5 wizard guides). If you are being creative about the way you use spells and the dm is prepared for the spells you are able to cast, using magic to solve problems doesn't take the epicness out of the campaign, it brings it in in the first place.
But again that is a matter of preference.
Honestly, it sounds like you're applying low level adventure hooks to high level characters. And you're running into the issue that that doesn't actually work.
|
|
Mage: the Awakening by White Wolf handles this very well, I'd say.Wizards are excellent, and shouldn't be hated by anyone. However, you'll commonly see some board-hate along the following lines:
B) Some feel that memorization-based casting sucks, and want it removed, and the Wizard class gets caught in the crossfire
I rather enjoyed the way Earthdawn handled it with their threads and patterns...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is if you target weekness of fighter and no one cares, do the same with rogue and no one cries foul. But talk about targeting the weaknesses of the Wizard and it's Wizard hate.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM target's Fighter's will save
Peanut Gallery: Woo hoo! Way to go! Dominate that dumb oaf!
GM forces the Paladin into a situation where he either faces certain death or falls from grace
Peanut Gallery: Woo hoo! Way to go! Show that holier-than-thou jerk who's boss!
GM rules that a spellbook that the wizard player leaves sitting in a sewer overnight because he's too g~@@+~n lazy to pick it up suffers some damage and ruins the pages with a few spells on them
Peanut Gallery: WTF! Why do you hate wizards, jerkass!
Wizards don't actually have the "I WIN" button that some argue they do. But unfortunately, it seems that lots of posters here think they are entitled to that "I WIN" button. And so if a GM doesn't automatically give it to them, the GM must be a horrible bastard who's got it in for wizards.
That is fine, I actually applaud that, but it's when the players don't even think about the clues given, and instead use spells (such as Divination) to get an answer, or Teleport to the final destination instead of thinking of the trip being a grand adventure... I don't know. I have always had trouble with getting people to understand where I am coming from. (Especially the players that I was dealing with...) ;p
That is a matter of perspective. For some (myself included) when i am playing a spell caster a big part of the fun is having the spell to help solve the problem in the first place (see being batman in the old 3.5 wizard guides). If you are being creative about the way you use spells and the dm is prepared for the spells you are able to cast, using magic to solve problems doesn't take the epicness out of the campaign, it brings it in in the first place.
But again that is a matter of preference.
I think like cheapy said you dont realize that the game is completely different when you get to a certain level. After levels 6-8 the characters become essencially super heroes. Superman doesnt ask around where the bomb is planted if he can use his xray vision to find it. A trip through space isnt a big deal to the green lantern.
Dnd/pathfinder is very high fantasy past level 6. If you dont want to play that kind of game I strongly suggest something like E6 where the rules enforce the kind of feel you are actually looking for. A trip through the woods or investigation of clues isnt supposed to be a challenge for a 15th level party. Stoping a horde of demons, or a rampaging dragon is.
It seems like wizards are hated around here.
I see threads about sneaky ways to target the Wizard's Spell book.
I see DMs talking about "limiting" the Wizard's spells to control them...
Do you really think Wizards are that game breakingly powerful?
Come on, vent all your frustrations here.
Every class is hated by somebody. :)
<grabs popcorn and a drink>
|
|
Honestly, it sounds like you're applying low level adventure hooks to high level characters. And you're running into the issue that that doesn't actually work.
It is very similar to literary works. Usually in epic tales, you have high level characters going on grand quests. I understand why it doesn't work with the customary mindset of players, but what I am saying is that it shouldn't have to be that way. I just think that you rob yourself of a great story by taking shortcuts ALL the time.
Which brings me back to my original point. I dislike it verily when they use magical shortcuts ALL THE TIME.
Anyway, like I mentioned before, I don't mind innovative ways of utilizing magic, and even the occasional utilitarian use of magic to make something easier, but when that is your first and only answer and throw a tantrum when that doesn't work (major exaggeration ;p) it is disappointing...
Honestly, it sounds like you're applying low level adventure hooks to high level characters. And you're running into the issue that that doesn't actually work.
It is very similar to literary works. Usually in epic tales, you have high level characters going on grand quests. I understand why it doesn't work with the customary mindset of players, but what I am saying is that it shouldn't have to be that way. I just think that you rob yourself of a great story by taking shortcuts ALL the time.
Which brings me back to my original point. I dislike it verily when they use magical shortcuts ALL THE TIME.
Anyway, like I mentioned before, I don't mind innovative ways of utilizing magic, and even the occasional utilitarian use of magic to make something easier, but when that is your first and only answer and throw a tantrum when that doesn't work (major exaggeration ;p) it is disappointing...
It is not a shortcut though. The game is based on being high magic, and that magic is intended to make former problems less problematic. The only reason people in novels go through all that trouble is because they have no other choice. The players have a choice. As people level up you have to change the problems they have to address.
For the games you like to run it is better to try E7 or E6. I forget the actual name of the variant system where people stop advancing at a certain level.
|
|
It is a shortcut. Whether or not it is there right to use a tool that they have, it is still a shortcut.
But you have a valid point. As a GM, if I want to curtail it, I can do that by providing a reason not to, but it frustrates me as a player too. It's like the fighter that gets upset at the cleric for healing him after a big battle... "There you are all better, now go back out there and soak some more damage for us!"
Anyway, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, the OP asked, and I gave my answer. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, it sounds like you're applying low level adventure hooks to high level characters. And you're running into the issue that that doesn't actually work.
It is very similar to literary works. Usually in epic tales, you have high level characters going on grand quests. I understand why it doesn't work with the customary mindset of players, but what I am saying is that it shouldn't have to be that way. I just think that you rob yourself of a great story by taking shortcuts ALL the time.
Thats just it, you DONT have high level characters going on grand adventures in the vast majority of classic fantasy literature. Gandalf was a 5th level magic user. He wasn't a high level caster when looked at through the lense of dnd.
Which brings me back to my original point. I dislike it verily when they use magical shortcuts ALL THE TIME.
Again, this is fine, but then you shouldn't be playing with mid to high level casters. Thats what they do. They get very little else besides magic. What you call shortcuts they call getting to do something. If you dont want this to happen you should either be playing E6 or have no full 9 level casters in your game. Because to ask them not to use spells to solve problems is asking them not to participate in overcomming the challenge.
Anyway, like I mentioned before, I don't mind innovative ways of utilizing magic, and even the occasional utilitarian use of magic to make something easier, but when that is your first and only answer and throw a tantrum when that doesn't work (major exaggeration ;p) it is disappointing...
I know it can be disappointing to a dm to have a problem seemingly made trivial by a caster's spell, but the issue is like i said, thats what they do. Without a major redesign of the magic system, full casters are completely incompatable with your expectations. You should either be running very low level games, or you should be removing full casters from your game entirely, they aren't designed to work the way you want them to without failing to participate in the game.
|
|
I agree with Aeshuura on this one. Even if i often myself have used magic in such ways.
I remember esp. a part where we were in a dungeon with loads of traps and similar dangerous things. The group more or less cleared it all based on "boring" things like "commune with deity", teleport etc. Sure, its cool to use magehand to push the lever from outside the bars of your jail, but to clear traps wich were designed to make us think, to make us wonder what the answer to the riddle was etc with a simple spell..
To me its the boring way out.
------------------------------------
But to stay on topic. My main reason for disliking mages is that most of my experience with them is that they either are full-combat-mode and can blast away what every is thrown at them or they are completly unprepared of the encounter and than whine their ass of based on things like low ac, low hp, targeting spellboks, resistances etc..
Whoa, someone who agrees with me! ;)
Which is why I don't ban them outright. For all their encounter trivilization they are juicy bits of storytelling I can';t ignore. I jsut tend to design my encounters with lots of archers. Makes the wizards life much more interesting.Mr. Fishy loves wizards as a player and as a DM. Fun to play and fun to torture.
Wizard have to work for new spells 2 per level and the rest at buy or find. And buying spells can be a chore. As some spell are illegal to sell. That's why Mr. Fishy has Mage Colleges and freelance caster in need of idiots er...adventures. The party does a favor the wizard gets to be an honorary member and learns a few "illegal spells".
See, Wizard improve the game because they look for treasure that fighters start fires with.
Wizards are also great for explaining and expanding the history and culture of a world. K. history K. geography, K. random plot hook.
So you give your wizards a reason to memorize wind wall, shield, and protection from arrows?
It is a shortcut. Whether or not it is there right to use a tool that they have, it is still a shortcut.
But you have a valid point. As a GM, if I want to curtail it, I can do that by providing a reason not to, but it frustrates me as a player too. It's like the fighter that gets upset at the cleric for healing him after a big battle... "There you are all better, now go back out there and soak some more damage for us!"
Anyway, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, the OP asked, and I gave my answer. :)
It depends on your definition of the word.
If you mean a faster, easier way to do something then we take shortcuts all the time in real life. :) Why walk 30 miles instead of drive?Even in literature you don't see them scaling the side of a building if they can fly unless the bad guys have a way to take them out if they do so.
If you mean take the easy but more risky way out, which is normally the bad connotation, then no it is not.
PS: You have a fighter that gets upset for being healed? All he has to do is make a will save to resist the spell, and try to move out of the way.
I wish I did not have to go to work now. I will check the response tomorrow.
|
|
Honestly, it sounds like you're applying low level adventure hooks to high level characters. And you're running into the issue that that doesn't actually work.
It is very similar to literary works. Usually in epic tales, you have high level characters going on grand quests. I understand why it doesn't work with the customary mindset of players, but what I am saying is that it shouldn't have to be that way. I just think that you rob yourself of a great story by taking shortcuts ALL the time.
Thats just it, you DONT have high level characters going on grand adventures in the vast majority of classic fantasy literature. Gandalf was a 5th level magic user. He wasn't a high level caster when looked at through the lense of dnd.
Granted that they are not spellcasters, Legolas, Boromir, Gimli, and Aragorn are relatively high level even in Fellowship. They are all heroes of their respective realms. And though the magic of Middle-Earth is much more subtle than Pathfinder, Gandalf was far above 5th level especially facing off with a Balrog without dropping a fairly large size load of scat. But I digress... you have a point. Often they are less experienced and gain the experience through the end.
Remember that even Gandalf makes mention of the importance of the Journey.
Which brings me back to my original point. I dislike it verily when they use magical shortcuts ALL THE TIME.
Again, this is fine, but then you shouldn't be playing with mid to high level casters. Thats what they do. They get very little else besides magic. What you call shortcuts they call getting to do something. If you dont want this to happen you should either be playing E6 or have no full 9 level casters in your game. Because to ask them not to use spells to solve problems is asking them not to participate in overcomming the challenge.
Granted, once again. But it is the philosophy of the players that frustrates me. Magic is not ALL they do. Of course this is where role-playing comes in. Now, while it is all fine and dandy to show off your power once in a while, it doesn't have to be in detriment to the story.
It is easy to forget on both the GM and Player side, that the responsibility of everyone to make sure that the game is fun and the story is told. The philosophy should never be "I must beat the GM at all times" or "I must beat the Players at all times." The philosophy, in my opinion, should be, "We are getting together to create a story and have a great time!"
I know it can be disappointing to a dm to have a problem seemingly made trivial by a caster's spell, but the issue is like i said, thats what they do. Without a major redesign of the magic system, full casters are completely incompatable with your expectations. You should either be running very low level games, or you should be removing full...Anyway, like I mentioned before, I don't mind innovative ways of utilizing magic, and even the occasional utilitarian use of magic to make something easier, but when that is your first and only answer and throw a tantrum when that doesn't work (major exaggeration ;p) it is disappointing...
See philosophy above. They don't have to. The spells they cast do not MAKE their character. Thanks for a thrilling debate! :)
"You have a fighter that gets upset for being healed? All he has to do is make a will save to resist the spell, and try to move out of the way."
@Wraithstrike
Mr. Fishy has had a fighter chase Mr. Fishy's cleric to be healed.
|
|
It is a shortcut. Whether or not it is there right to use a tool that they have, it is still a shortcut.
But you have a valid point. As a GM, if I want to curtail it, I can do that by providing a reason not to, but it frustrates me as a player too. It's like the fighter that gets upset at the cleric for healing him after a big battle... "There you are all better, now go back out there and soak some more damage for us!"
Anyway, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, the OP asked, and I gave my answer. :)
It depends on your definition of the word.
If you mean a faster, easier way to do something then we take shortcuts all the time in real life. :) Why walk 30 miles instead of drive?
Even in literature you don't see them scaling the side of a building if they can fly unless the bad guys have a way to take them out if they do so.
If you mean take the easy but more risky way out, which is normally the bad connotation, then no it is not.PS: You have a fighter that gets upset for being healed? All he has to do is make a will save to resist the spell, and try to move out of the way.
I wish I did not have to go to work now. I will check the response tomorrow.
First, Will save for a Fighter, likely not going to resist, unless it is a Cure Light and even then, he is likely to fail half the time. :p
There are other reasons to not take shortcuts. Walk the 30 miles for exercise and to enjoy the company of a friend. It would be a lot more bonding, as well as good exercise, with a walk than a drive. In terms of a PF setting, your team relationships should be pretty solid by then, but it's nice to have reinforcement. Then some people also enjoy the feel of nature on their person... ;)
Flying is fine, if it is part of some plan, but just to frivolously fly up? Makes no nevermind... utility is fine. But why cast Knock, if you have a perfectly capable Rogue who is more than willing to take the challenge? It's that kind of philosophy... >.<
As I mentioned multiple times before, there are times to use it, but sometimes there are options that may allow you to save your resource.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Granted that they are not spellcasters, Legolas, Boromir, Gimli, and Aragorn are relatively high level even in Fellowship. They are all heroes of their respective realms. And though the magic of Middle-Earth is much more subtle than Pathfinder, Gandalf was far above 5th level especially facing off with a Balrog without dropping a fairly large size load of scat. But I digress... you have a point. Often they are less experienced and gain the experience through the end.Remember that even Gandalf makes mention of the importance of the Journey.
He was a 5th level spell caster with a massive level adjustment race (maiar). And he was forbidden to USE those abilities by his gods against the principal enemies (servents of sauron). So yes he faced down the balor, but he was not able to use that power in any other circumstance, hence a lower level caster.
And borimir, gimle, aragon and legolas were indeed lower level characters. Remembe the pinacle of human ability (in the real world) is represented by 5th level characters in dnd/pathfinder. There is a really good article on the subject here. The the fellowships main characters were not likely above level 6 ot 7 when compared to what a dnd character can do.
Granted, once again. But it is the philosophy of the players that frustrates me. Magic is not ALL they do. Of course this is where role-playing comes in. Now, while it is all fine and dandy to show off your power once in a while, it doesn't have to be in detriment to the story.It is easy to forget on both the GM and Player side, that the responsibility of everyone to make sure that the game is fun and the story is told. The philosophy should never be "I must beat the GM at all times" or "I must beat the Players at all times." The philosophy, in my opinion, should be, "We are getting together to create a story and have a great time!"
It is not a matter of being antagonistic or lacking roleplay, it is about using what your character can do. A good story should make sense as well as be exciting and intriguing. If you had the ability to teleport the party directly to your destination at no detriment to you, would you as your character honestly decide 'Nah I'd rather walk, the townsfolk can deal with the demonic invasion themselves for a while longer'? I dont think so.
And while I certainly value a good story, I think you plan the story around how the game plays, not shoehorn the game around the story. If you know your players can do something it is your responsibility to account for that in your story, or be prepared to improvise. The players arent trying to detract from the story (most of the time unless they are actually jerks) they are simply using the tools the class gives them to interact with your world. For the ranger that might be a survival check, for the fighter it might be rations from his pack, and for the cleric it might mean create food and water.
If you're 'good time' requires a player to actively restrict himself from using abilities given to him by the game, something is wrong. There is a disconect between your expectations and what the game assumes.
See philosophy above. They don't have to. The spells they cast do not MAKE their character. Thanks for a thrilling debate! :)
Here we disagree, I believe the mechanical aspects of a character do and should have an impact on their roleplay. If I am a master swordsman skilled at all arms and unmatched in melee combat, then i will react very differently when challenged to a hand to hand duel then if I was a 1st level commoner. Likewise, if I am a wizard with access to invisibility and fly, I will react to a mission of infiltrating a castle very differntly then if I was a fullplate wearing paladin. If you are not making rational (or irrational depending on the character) choices based on what your character can do, how are you roleplaying?
If the fate of the world depends on you getting the magic amulet back to the king asap and he is 100 miles away and you DONT teleport because you think it will make for a better story, you are doing some massive metagaming, that for me at least crushes the suspension of disbalief and makes for some pretty serious damage to immersion in the story.
And you are most welcome. I dont disagree with your desire, I like that kind of game sometimes, I just think the game doesn't provide for it well as is, and changes have to be made for it to actually work.
So you give your wizards a reason to memorize wind wall, shield, and protection from arrows?Which is why I don't ban them outright. For all their encounter trivilization they are juicy bits of storytelling I can';t ignore. I jsut tend to design my encounters with lots of archers. Makes the wizards life much more interesting.Mr. Fishy loves wizards as a player and as a DM. Fun to play and fun to torture.
Wizard have to work for new spells 2 per level and the rest at buy or find. And buying spells can be a chore. As some spell are illegal to sell. That's why Mr. Fishy has Mage Colleges and freelance caster in need of idiots er...adventures. The party does a favor the wizard gets to be an honorary member and learns a few "illegal spells".
See, Wizard improve the game because they look for treasure that fighters start fires with.
Wizards are also great for explaining and expanding the history and culture of a world. K. history K. geography, K. random plot hook.
Actually invisibilty tends to work better for them. Sometimes. Sometimes the archers have glitterdust backup.
Plus he's wasting spells trying not to get pinkmisted by lvl 6 rangers rather then beat them outright. Considering damn near every archer I make also tends to have high strength scores and two handed back ups even the fighter has to tread lightly around them.
They way I see it a wizard on the dfensive is a wizard not wrecking the encounter. Which is my only real goal as a GM. Make them fear, but do not make them useless. It's tough to find that line but I've found that a combination of variety of hazards and environments gives wizards headaches. The moment he gets used to one flavor of enemy and tactic I switch up to something completely different.
Recently, the wizard has had to cope with not having a spell book and being miles beneath the sea with abtou 20 minutes of water breathing left. Using his superior intellect and lots of aid another checks they managed to craft a holy symbol for the cleric for coral so she can keep them alive. So far it's been a great experience for getting them to really use the resources they have outside of spellcasting, as he has a very limited amount that he can use. Sadly, the whole group is somewhat trivilizaed by the 24 hour octopus that is the druid currently. Different situations for different things it seems.
tldr; the enemy of the wizard is unpredictability. When chaos comes knocking on his door with a herring in one hand and a bloody axe in the other the wizard goes into the corner and gets into a fetal position.
I think a big part of it is that a well-crafted wizard just ends encounters.
To many wizards lock in on fireball and have to "suffer" through the low levels where they only have "terrible" spells like color spray, grease, and glitterdust. Oh, those poor things.
I think that Color Spray in and of itself is really a good indicator. Starting fresh out of the gate, a low level wizard is already basically ending encounters with 4 words out of the player's mouth, and it can be tedious and boring to the other players when it becomes 'alright... let's go slit their throats.. again."
I'll just say it like this: If enemy wizards were all run like PC wizards were run, it would be extremely rare for a to make it past 2nd level.
Sleep...they use a lot of sleep.
The number of big bad guys the DM spends hours on, his build, his stats, his tactics, his character, his motivation, and how he's going to kill the party.. and gets turned into a box turtle in the first second of the fight.
Teleport: No more travel/journey stories.
Fly: no more obstacles, no more interesting terrain.
Teleport: No more travel/journey stories.
Travel: no more obstacles, no more interesting terrain.
I've often thought that teleport spells should be kicked up a level or 2, for just that reason. They're extremely powerful.
I think Dimension Door is fine where it is.
I've often thought that teleport spells should be kicked up a level or 2, for just that reason. They're extremely powerful.Teleport: No more travel/journey stories.
Travel: no more obstacles, no more interesting terrain.
Wizards don't get teleport until 9th level right? That's a lot of levels. Moving into "high level" play at that point. Adapt.
Mr. Fishy is sorry his spell didn't scramble his fishness, maybe next time.
Wizards don't get teleport until 9th level right? That's a lot of levels. Moving into "high level" play at that point. Adapt.I've often thought that teleport spells should be kicked up a level or 2, for just that reason. They're extremely powerful.Teleport: No more travel/journey stories.
Travel: no more obstacles, no more interesting terrain.
Uhm, it's one thing to have the paradigm shifted by the addition of Fly, it's completely another to have any chance of a meaningful overland adventure removed by someone saying "we link hands and teleport".
I'll agree with you that the "burdens" of travel should not be something that HIGH level characters are concerned with, but 9th is not high. You're not even halfway through the prescribed max progression and still 7 levels before the d20 system generally begins to break down.