Wizard Flavor? What is this?

[OracleofSilence]

As time goes on, wizards become more and more like the fighter of spells. In the "old days" of AD&D, being a wizard was flavor in as of itself. No longer. Now, wizards are forced to multiclass like craxy to have anything other then spells to use, and although they are possibly the most powerful class in the game, this gets boring.

is there anything a wizard can do, aside from crazy go nuts optimization or multiclassing to give themselves some much needed flavor (mechanics wise)?

[Morty]

:smallconfused: Well I don't know, roleplay? Not every aspect of the character has to be defined by classes and class features. Besides, the number of combinations of spells and favored schools can make for very different wizards.

[RndmNumGen]

Wizards have good flavor already, but if you want to spice them up a little try adding some pepper as they're roasting over the fire.

...

Not what you meant?

I've never played AD&D, but Pathfinder does a good job of making Wizards have slightly more interesting than in 3.5 whilst staying in-class(Though if you want to have some real fun, check out the Sorcerer Bloodlines). Outside of that, I'm not sure how you can really make the class more interesting outside of completely rewriting it - it's sort of evolved into the swiss army knife of magic usage.

[Shadowknight12]

PrCs, mainly. An Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil is an amazing class to play for a wizard. Enormously flavourful. Or a Master Specialist. Or an Archmage. Or, well, any wizard-centric PrC will come with a flavour of its own.

Failing that, spells. You are in no obligation to use the best spell for every situation that you encounter. You are not a Grease or Glitterdust dispensing machine. You are not an automatic Gate-opener or Solar-caller. You have a right to customise your spells so that they reflect the theme you wish to pursue, and ask the rest of the party to sympathise with your desires.

Items. Again, what I said above applies. You are allowed to divert from the Maxims of Optimisation. There is no Optimisation Police. Just make sure your party is cool with you not being a god.

[Yuki Akuma]

Why do classes need flavour?

[Shadowknight12]

Why do classes need flavour?

Because not everyone is an artist.

[Yuki Akuma]

Because not everyone is an artist.

But you'd assume that anyone who cares about 'flavour' is a roleplayer.

[OracleofSilence]

Yes, i agree about the roleplaying thing, i am in full support but... this isn't about me. its about the class


Besides, the number of combinations of spells and favored schools can make for very different wizards.

Right there.

That is my point. Sure you can make different wizards, from the conventional (fireball any one?) to the generalist, to the somewhat odd (i attack he ground beneath your feet, it has no reflex save), your comment revealed my point. The wizard has become a way to be something else. So, i ask you, what is the Wizard?

He uses a book, and can learn any arcane spell. in the previous editions, they were usually old. Now? Players are overwhelmed with great options, all of which means they aren't playing a wizard, cause you know what? free metamagic beats bonus feats any day.

[Shadowknight12]

But you'd assume that anyone who cares about 'flavour' is a roleplayer.

A roleplayer plays a role. It is never implied that he creates one from scratch. He may do so or play one he's given, with little or heavy modification. An artist is one who enjoys being creative, often creating from scratch. Both roles may overlap. But they don't have to.

[Yuki Akuma]

Yes, i agree about the roleplaying thing, i am in full support but... this isn't about me. its about the class

Classes do not need flavour. They're purely game mechanics. They have no in-setting foundation.

[Doc Roc]

A roleplayer plays a role. It is never implied that he creates one from scratch. He may do so or play one he's given, with little or heavy modification. An artist is one who enjoys being creative, often creating from scratch. Both roles may overlap. But they don't have to.

This is an interesting middle ground. Can we talk about this some?

[OracleofSilence]

True, classes need no flavor. i am in full agreement. build from scratch, create a role, and even enjoy that act of creating something unique.

So then, why does every on other then the Wizard, and Fighter have flavor? I am not asking for an answer, just some other ideas. It is good to have generalists, but for new players, something so utterly without foundation si a little daunting. I am trying specifically to get ideas for a new player in a Faerun campaign i am involved in. He decided to try Wizard, (he has always played tanks before) and fell into this void. Any thoughts?

[Flickerdart]

True, classes need no flavor. i am in full agreement. build from scratch, create a role, and even enjoy that act of creating something unique.

So then, why does every on other then the Wizard, and Fighter have flavor? I am not asking for an answer, just some other ideas. It is good to have generalists, but for new players, something so utterly without foundation si a little daunting. I am trying specifically to get ideas for a new player in a Faerun campaign i am involved in. He decided to try Wizard, (he has always played tanks before) and fell into this void. Any thoughts?
The Wizard is the man who can cast any spell (worth casting). He has no other class features. Therefore he must, by necessity, be defined my his choice of spells, in the same way that a Fighter's feats and a Cleric's domains will determine their favour. The class itself is just a means of getting to said spells.

[Shadowknight12]

This is an interesting middle ground. Can we talk about this some?

I've made a thread for it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11290291#post11290291). Seems like it deserves its own space.

[herrhauptmann]

is there anything a wizard can do, aside from crazy go nuts optimization or multiclassing to give themselves some much needed flavor (mechanics wise)?
Do you have an incharacter reason for why you have and use the spells you do, besides the fact that they're powerful?
Perhaps you're from the frozen north where fire is life, so you learn as many fire spells as you possibly can. At the same time, most of the monsters that you had to worry about were resistant to cold spells, so you'll pretty much NEVER learn or cast a cold spell. Even using an Energy substitution feat.

Try it sometime, a wizard only party, at say level 5 and up. No Prestige classes, no ACFs, just Utility mages and the specialists. See how many distinctly different wizards you and your group can create.
There's all sorts of things you can do to spice up your wizard. Why does he adventure? Where did he come from? What are his ultimate goals?

What about his familiar? What kind of creature is it? How does he interact with it?
In an old second edition game, my friend created a wizard who was terrified of rodents. He summoned his familiar, rolled on some chart, and got a rat. :smallamused:
Rat was very friendly in personality. Always trying to be helpful. The wizards general response was always "GET AWAY!"
How about a hyperactive wizard who's entering into Swiftblade? Ends up with a glutton for a familiar. Imagine how the two interact.

[OracleofSilence]

This is an interesting middle ground. Can we talk about this some?

this middle ground is basically that of the author. He (or she) must create characters, worlds, and plots, and moreover, should enjoy doing so. However, they must also understand, and "play that character". DM's are forced to do similar things, as they create or use a world, and must populate said world.

The dichotomy between artistry and DM-ing is interesting. I have personally found two DM's that illustrate it. The first is a superb role player, but his worlds feel less then developed. There is some spark, an essential lack of enjoyment missing from their creation.

Another i have played under was a superb artist. he had beautiful worlds, filled with fascinating characters that he could not make lifelike for love or money. I have only found one who inhabited the middle ground, but alas, i could not get him to do DnD. The structure of it appalled him

[Draz74]

I played a Wizard once. He referred to himself proudly as a barbarian (not meaning a warrior class that gets really angry, just referring to someone from a hunter-gatherer society) and an archaeologist. He had decent athletics skills and Strength was his second-highest score (tied with Dexterity).

You can roleplay plenty of flavor into any class. Just ask Joe Wood the Commoner.

I don't see why Wizard, in particular, should be in need of any particular effort or fixing.

[Fax Celestis]

This is an interesting middle ground. Can we talk about this some?

It's the difference between being an artist and an actor.


So then, why does every on other then the Wizard, and Fighter have flavor?

Because the designers had an idea in mind when making the class and wanted to show that idea to the players.

[Taelas]

Classes do not need flavour. They're purely game mechanics. They have no in-setting foundation.

Classes are meta-game constructs, but it is absolutely not true that they do not "need" flavor. What would be more accurate to say is that they do not need particular flavor -- whether or not your Wizard was taught at a wizarding academy where anyone with coin can learn magic, or if he learned everything on his own, or if he was the apprentice of a powerful mage living in seclusion in a Wizard's Tower doesn't matter.... but there needs to be something, otherwise your 'character' is not a character at all, just a bunch of numbers thrown together.

[SuperFerret]

Classes do not need flavour. They're purely game mechanics. They have no in-setting foundation.

According to you, but not to everyone.

[RebelRogue]

All right. All right. It's bloody... wizard flavour! Bleedin' arcane spellcasting bleedin' flavour.

[Fax Celestis]

but there needs to be something, otherwise your 'character' is not a character at all, just a bunch of numbers thrown together.

Which comes from your character, not from his class.

[QuidEst]

I don't know… focusing on a particular school gives it a little more flavor. For wizards, though, I'm inclined to go with making your own flavor for them. One might be really unpleasant, and enjoy watching the helplessness of somebody who fails their Will or Fort save. Blind or Deafness are nasty in and of themselves, but it takes a special kind of messed up to follow one with the other. Makes for a wizard with lots of nasty compulsion and affliction spells. Or they can be dealing with slowly spreading effects of a botched spell from years ago when they overreached the limits of their powers. Gives a good reason for them to have buffs and healing spells.

Anyways, I don't mind if wizards don't have a great deal of flavor in and of themselves. They've got much more freedom to play around with than lots of other classes. Of course, I favor roleplaying, so it's not much help to those who are less interested in that aspect. The class gives plenty of character options.

[zyborg]

Mainly, the 'flavor' of wizards is that they are the intellectuals. Hence, Int for spellcasting and using tomes for spells. They usually are researchers of spells in one way or another, whereas a lot of other magic users cast from natural talent or reliance on another being.

[Taelas]

Which comes from your character, not from his class.

Uh, no.

Those two are not mutually exclusive, since the character's class is part of the character.

Any fluff based on the class is naturally part of the character, in other words.

If you have a character without any fluff based on his class whatsoever, you have a character without an explanation for his abilities. That is not a character, but a caricature.

[Ozymandias]

D&D delivers both fluff and mechanics. It's not GURPS, but it's not freeform, either. There's really no getting around that.

So I think it's fair to say that there is, to an extent, the expectation that WotC's fluff is going to be used. And most people will use most or all of the most basic level of it.

That said, there isn't any actual obligation to use such-and-such flufflet or such-and-such mechanic. Essentially, you pay for a(n ostensibly, as this is 3.5e we're talking about) balanced, working whole, and if you change it you run the risk of screwing things up. With flavor the risk is practically none, so there's very little reason not to change it as much as you want. So on that score I agree with the idea that you

However, D&D does have default fluff; it's there if you want to use it. If you feel it's restrictive, get rid of it. By the same token, if you don't want to come up with your own fluff, it's not wrong to expect something because, after all, D&D has an idiom all its own. Asking, "I rolled a ranger, what is he like?" doesn't sound like a role-playing game to me, but "I rolled a ranger, what do rangers typically do?" is a reasonable question. It's a fine way for some people to enjoy the game, just as "My character is a consummate woodsman and archer, how do I build him?" is.

If you have a character without any fluff based on his class whatsoever, you have a character without an explanation for his abilities. That is not a character, but a caricature.

I don't follow. Say, "My character casts spells because he is a wizard." Okay, why is he a wizard? You either say, "Because he casts spells," (which is clearly recursive) or, "He just is," (or more elaborately, "Because he was trained by a mentor, learned X and Y, attended Magic University, etc.)

Now say, "My character is a wizard because he casts spells." Why does he cast spells? Same thing: "Because he is a wizard," or "He just does (or etc)."

The reason it's not possible to determine causality is because they are actually the same thing. You can't explain something in terms of itself. The real answer is, "My character casts spells and is a wizard because (mentor, university)."

[Taelas]

I think you misunderstood me. I am speaking of a hypothetical character whose background story specifically does not involve training to be a Wizard (that is, none of his fluff is based on his class), despite the fact that he is one.

[LordBlades]

Uh, no.

Those two are not mutually exclusive, since the character's class is part of the character.

Any fluff based on the class is naturally part of the character, in other words.

If you have a character without any fluff based on his class whatsoever, you have a character without an explanation for his abilities. That is not a character, but a caricature.


A character doesn't really know what class he is in game(unless you want to go for OOTS style in character class discussions). He knows what he can do.

So a wizard wouldn't need to have any fluff relating to 'being a wizard', but rather relating to 'preparing and casting arcane spells'.

[Ravens_cry]

I like to fluff wizards as the studious, scientific kind of mage, analysing magic and trying to discover its core principles. Believe it or not, this kind of character excites me, as I too share this joy, the joy of learning and knowing and finding.

[Kobold-Bard]

Play a Binder instead?

[Taelas]

A character doesn't really know what class he is in game(unless you want to go for OOTS style in character class discussions). He knows what he can do.

So a wizard wouldn't need to have any fluff relating to 'being a wizard', but rather relating to 'preparing and casting arcane spells'.

No. He needs fluff relating to being a wizard, which includes preparing and casting arcane spells.

They get other stuff too, y'know. Like saves. Hit dice. BAB. Familiars. Scribe Scroll. Other assorted Bonus Feats.

While classes do not exist in an in-game manner--they are meta-game constructs--class features do exist, as they have an actual mechanical effect. Fluff which relates to 'being a wizard' simply means fluff which relates to all the class features they have.

[LordBlades]

No. He needs fluff relating to being a wizard, which includes preparing and casting arcane spells.

They get other stuff too, y'know. Like saves. Hit dice. BAB. Familiars. Scribe Scroll. Other assorted Bonus Feats.

While classes do not exist in an in-game manner--they are meta-game constructs--class features do exist, as they have an actual mechanical effect. Fluff which relates to 'being a wizard' simply means fluff which relates to all the class features they have.


That's exactly what I meant, sorry for not making it entirely clear. A character's impact in the game world is via what he can do (class features, some feats, abilities etc.) and for that he needs fluff. Whether those abilities result from a single class (like wizard) or a 10 class multiclass build is entirely irrelevant in game.

[faceroll]

An Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil is an amazing class to play for a wizard. Enormously flavourful..

What's the flavor?
Rainbows?

[Xanmyral]

Weird, I thought that wizard fluff was pretty standard. Well, you are some guy who wears clothing, often fancy, usually robes, typically in a fashion where you wonder how the guy could manage a quick walk without tripping over him self. Typically depicted with a spell book, and a familiar. So... Smart guy who says the words that make the peoples fall down? If you want something silly, be that wizard that everyone always talks about. Become the explanation for why things work yet don't make sense. My suggestion if you do take this route though? Get drunk often, and cast spells even more often. Should keep you true to the role. Beware though, you might wind up inventing some sort of dire rabbit boar mixture.

[Kobold-Bard]

What's the flavor?
Rainbows?

Indestructable defender. It's main class feature is it's magic shields & eventually they are all but untouchable.

So yes it is rainbows, buy in a totally manly way.

[Shadowknight12]

What's the flavor?
Rainbows?

I dare you to make rainbows more badass than that PrC. I once had a beguiler going for Rainbow Servant. That was almost as badass.

[J.Gellert]

Spell selection alone used to be pretty important for flavor, back when we didn't have no "prestige" classes... But of course, once this "optimization" thing caught on, every wizard started using the same 12 spells. Gone are the days when a necromancer would use Blindness instead of Glitterdust, the mass version of the same level.

So yeah, where you had Merlin, now you have rainbows.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Wizard flavor is what you get when your level 4 Focused Specialist Diviner decides to try and tame a dragon.

If you really need flavor for a Wizard, they don't have unique class features outside of their spellcasting, but their spellcasting is also the most diverse class feature in the game. If you want fluff and CO/crunch isn't the whole point, then draw spells primarily from a list that supports the fluff idea that you had. For instance, before I found out that long-range teleportation was forbidden by the gods in the world I'm playing in, I was building my spell list around the idea of telekinesis and teleportation, focusing in the direction of a Planeswalker-type character. Afterward, I took the fireball and ran with it, and now I draw my spells know/prepared list (as well as my metamagic feats, incidentally) from the concept of a Fire-based caster.

[Serpentine]

I'm really not seeing what the problem is here :smallconfused: Okay, so I guess the "flavour" isn't as explicitly spelled-out as, say, a Paladin, but that doesn't make ever straight Wizard flavourless :smallconfused: If anything, it gives the player more room to make their own flavour.
I, for instance, have an idea for a Wizard spymaster. I reckon he'd be pretty snazzy.
All right. All right. It's bloody... wizard flavour! Bleedin' arcane spellcasting bleedin' flavour.:biggrin:

[TheCountAlucard]

Weird, I thought that wizard fluff was pretty standard. Well, you are some guy who wears clothing, often fancy, usually robes, typically in a fashion where you wonder how the guy could manage a quick walk without tripping over him self. Typically depicted with a spell book, and a familiar. So... Smart guy who says the words that make the peoples fall down?Say what now? :smallconfused:

Yes, my character has a spellbook and a familiar... but you'll never see either. He does wear robes, but he could certainly go for a run in them - he's had to before. He's just as likely, though, to wear his explorer's outfit; probably the least practical thing he's worn is, as expected, a noble's attire. He also carries a sword and a heavy crossbow, and has gotten fair use out of both.

Only recently did he get stereotypically-wizardy stuff: an ioun stone, a magical staff, and bracers of armor; still, he's not trying to be all up-in-your-face about it. :smalltongue: He's also not the stereotypical "physically-frail wizard," seeing how I got some freakin' lucky rolls for ability scores.

Also, despite regular use of the grease spell, it seems I've never actually made someone fall down, strangely enough; they always pass their Reflex saves, and I have to take consolation in that now the rogues can shank the baddie's kidneys while he's busy keeping his balance. :smalltongue:

[Shadowknight12]

Spell selection alone used to be pretty important for flavor, back when we didn't have no "prestige" classes... But of course, once this "optimization" thing caught on, every wizard started using the same 12 spells. Gone are the days when a necromancer would use Blindness instead of Glitterdust, the mass version of the same level.

So yeah, where you had Merlin, now you have rainbows.

Bitterness? Where? I can't see no bitterness in them posts.

[lesser_minion]

Classes do not need flavour. They're purely game mechanics. They have no in-setting foundation.

Classes are transparent to people in-setting, but that's not the same thing as having "no in-setting foundation".

The entire purpose of a character class is to provide a way to translate from a concept to a set of rules. A class without a concept is inherently pointless.

In fact, classes don't have to have a mechanical impact -- in point-buy systems, for example, a class is a few lines of text and a build suggestion, if the designers were considerate enough to provide them at all.

[Qwertystop]

Indestructable defender. It's main class feature is it's magic shields & eventually they are all but untouchable.

So yes it is rainbows, buy in a totally manly way.

Yeah, it's the rainbows of DOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
(If you want one that is evil, apply Invisible Spell to all your Prismatic Walls)

[Ormur]

I'm not entire sure what the OP's definition of flavour is but even though wizards don't have many class features besides their spellcasting (which as had been pointed out allows for great specialization of flavour) that is by itself a very defining feature. Just looking at the mechanics, wizards have to prepare their spells from a book, they can all scribe scrolls and learn spells from them and they can research new spells (as admittedly every other spellcaster). Their skill list also provides some clues about their role and outlook.

This immediately pegs them as scholars, not necessarily endowed with any natural talent for magic, that are dependent on their great intellect and the written word for casting their spells. That in turn alludes to a well known archetype and the tropes connected with it, mage towers, robes, pointy hats and flowing beards.

One doesn't have to play out those stereotypes but I can't really see why wizards are any less flavourful than sorcerers which have even fewer features and mechanically even less explanation for their spellcasting, there is some fluff about dragon blood but so is there about wizards and their spellbooks. I'd certainly say the mechanics of wizard spellcasting are more flavourful than either the mechanics or the fluff of the fighter class which is well and truly without any flavour and spectacularly fails in doing what little it's supposed to do on top of that.

[Slartibartfast]

These are a lot of interesting and constructive thoughts, but at this point we seem to have milked the "wizard flavour" question for all it's got. Now I happen to know who OracleofSilence is talking about, so let's take this into a little bit of a different direction, shall we?

A lot of your answers involve "Well I would roleplay" or something similar. This answer is a little bit of a cop-out, because it doesn't really explain what you are doing. The question that really needs to be asked is "How do you roleplay?" On these forums, where many a talented roleplayer resides, it sounds foolish to ask. However, I know players in a lot of games, in real life and on these forums, where some of the players just don't quite get the idea of roleplaying. Some of them play themselves, which isn't terrible, but others play inconsistent characters or sort of "blank" characters with no motivation, goals, or personality. How would you explain roleplaying to these people? More importantly, how would you teach these people who are having difficulty understanding HOW to roleplay, so that they can learn to roleplay themselves?

Thoughts, anyone?

[OracleofSilence]

Again, we are talking about a new player to wizards here. He didn't know what magic missile did.

Anyway, the original point was thus. Wizards, unlike every other class, have no built in flavor. This is perfect for someone that knows what they are doing (a blank slate and all that), but kills the class for new characters, and leaves them blank slates that really have no personality.

I am wondering if the community could help this player out, and give him some ideas for personality and flavor. Kudos to people that actually tried yesterday.

[Kobold-Bard]

Again, we are talking about a new player to wizards here. He didn't know what magic missile did.

Anyway, the original point was thus. Wizards, unlike every other class, have no built in flavor. This is perfect for someone that knows what they are doing (a blank slate and all that), but kills the class for new characters, and leaves them blank slates that really have no personality.

I am wondering if the community could help this player out, and give him some ideas for personality and flavor. Kudos to people that actually tried yesterday.

Maybe offer one of the specialised casters: Warmage, Dread Necro, Beguiler?

[OracleofSilence]

In theory possible, but the problem there, is that you may fall into the loop of "fluff defined" play. wizard (and fighter) is theoretically the best class to learn roleplaying with. Those ones will just be, regrettably, more of the same.

[Endarire]

The OP implies that Wizards need more abilities to differentiate one Wizard from another.

In AD&D, a Wizard's spells were the differentiating factor. In 3.X, PrCs are a bigger differentiating factor.

[JackRackham]

True, classes need no flavor. i am in full agreement. build from scratch, create a role, and even enjoy that act of creating something unique.

So then, why does every on other then the Wizard, and Fighter have flavor? I am not asking for an answer, just some other ideas. It is good to have generalists, but for new players, something so utterly without foundation si a little daunting. I am trying specifically to get ideas for a new player in a Faerun campaign i am involved in. He decided to try Wizard, (he has always played tanks before) and fell into this void. Any thoughts?

I would strongly suggest a new player NOT play a wizard. The wizard class is overwhelming. If he wants to be an arcane caster, a 1st-timer would be better suited to sorcerer. I also really like to have newbies play Clerics (I feel it goes along way to teaching what things are and are not useful in the game).

If he's set on Wizard and overwhelmed, there's no reason he has to have been exposed to every spell in the game. Maybe he was trained by someone focused on a certain aspect of the craft or at a school that turns out a certain type of wizard.

You could then take an existing PrC or....something....and create a more specific Wizard base class from it (sort of borrowing the flavor of a PrC, but giving it weaker abilities up to 7th level or so).

Just some ideas...

[JackRackham]

On the roleplaying question, I like to ask my players a ****-ton of really specific (potentially overwhelming, but useful) questions about their character. Are you fromt he city or country? What city are you from? What's your relationship with your parents like? Siblings? Are you married or single? Romantically involved? Do you have any pets? Who has pissed you off in the past? How did they piss you off?

At the point where they've though about these things, they'll have an idea for how their character acts and you can then try to link that to their race/class/alignment choices.

EX: "My character was orphaned early on, met someone who knew magic and withdrew from his surroundings into a near-constant study of magic." So, he uses magic as an escape, doesn't relate well socially, may know a lot of obscure spells from an earlier age. What, then is bringing him to adventure? "Well, he wanted the opportunity to apply all he's learned about magic." Ok, so maybe he'd prepare different spells each day and try to find weird, new ways of using them, kind of an experimentalist spellcaster? He probably wouldn't be overly concerned with winning or losing, then, or his teammates' well-being? "No, not really." Ok, so you're starting to sound pretty neutral....etc.

Obviously, it won't go this smoothly, but this is the approach I use.

[Serpentine]

I am wondering if the community could help this player out, and give him some ideas for personality and flavor. Kudos to people that actually tried yesterday.This wasn't present in your original post at all, and is pretty independent from your original claim that wizards are "flavourless" (which I still don't get, especially not as a problem :smallconfused:).


He could start with an archetype: the "mad scientist" wizard or the "absent-minded professor" wizard or the "wise old advisor" wizard or the "looks innocent but is much more cluey than he lets on" wizard or the "mental blaster" wizard or the "archaeologist" wizard or... so on and so forth.

He could start with a spell that he particularly likes and work it out from there (my aforementioned spy-wizard comes from Ammanuensis and Secret Page).

He could start with metagame party role: blaster or controller or manipulator or face or support or whatever.

Or, finally, he could start with pure fluff, with the background and personality and so forth of the character. Everyone has their own ways of doing this, and of expanding on it - inspiration from a fictional character, for example, or a cool scene you'd like to see, or just a general type of person you'd like to play. Among other things, I have a list of stuff I like to see from my players on their characters, including fears, fetishes, short-term and long-term goals, likes and dislikes, and so on.

[Infernalbargain]

Anyway, the original point was thus. Wizards, unlike every other class, have no built in flavor. This is perfect for someone that knows what they are doing (a blank slate and all that), but kills the class for new characters, and leaves them blank slates that really have no personality.

Maybe because the designers thought that since there are many possible concepts for a heavy spellcasting class, they didn't wanted to shoehorn people into a particular character. The class is supposed to serve as a focus for the character, not the character itself. Let us suppose that the class did have a particular flavor. Suppose they built in the flavor of an eccentric old man that spends most of his time researching in his tower. But what if I wanted to play a magical investigator? There's not really any other class that can fit that bill. Yet it isn't a crazy guy locked up in a tower. When you build in flavor to class, you are essentially saying "all wizards are like this". That's bad for people who want to use the class to play out other concepts. It is just fights against the open ended nature of D&D / PF.

[Serpentine]

And following from that, I, at least, am more than willing to break the mechanics of a class from its fluff if I find it too restrictive - I completely ignore the whole guild thing or whatever they have going in the Tome of Battle, for example, and I'm more than happy to tweak the Druid requirements to suit a good character concept.