Is Standing Back Cool? (3.5, mainly)

[HolyCouncilMagi]

I'm interested in playing the stereotype of wizard that almost never casts spells or gets involved in combat, and mostly focuses on using Knowledges and other learning-related skills to give the other party members information on how to solve their problems without his arcane magic. However, I'm wondering if such a character won't be viewed negatively by other players. He'd generally only use his own magic in situations of dire need, such as when the rest of the party is too exhausted to continue or they're fighting an opposing caster/Eldritch Abomination type thing.

How can I do this role well, and would it be justified for other players to hate my character for it? Can a party even function properly if the arcanist generally isn't using his spells? Could/should I, in the interest of actually contributing, perhaps take up a magic craft or three to give access to the things they normally need my character archetype to do, like provide means of flight and such? Thanks in advance for any answers!

[Thurbane]

Well, at least an Archivists advice on how to fight monsters actually gives a mechanical benefit. It also fits the archetype you mentioned.

If you play a Wizard who doesn't cast spells, but just espouses knowledge and gives directions, he might as well be an Expert.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

Well, at least an Archivists advice on how to fight monsters actually gives a mechanical benefit. It also fits the archetype you mentioned.

If you play a Wizard who doesn't cast spells, but just espouses knowledge and gives directions, he might as well be an Expert.

Well, it's meant to be sort of Gandalf-y, with the truly powerful magic users being more subtle but capable of arcane fury. It's not like he'll *never* use spells, it would just be a rare thing saved for important occasions. Though I guess that really doesn't change the meat of your argument. *sigh* Some concepts are just too wrongbadfun to play after all...

[Ziegander]

I'm interested in playing the stereotype of wizard that almost never casts spells or gets involved in combat, and mostly focuses on using Knowledges and other learning-related skills to give the other party members information on how to solve their problems without his arcane magic. However, I'm wondering if such a character won't be viewed negatively by other players. He'd generally only use his own magic in situations of dire need, such as when the rest of the party is too exhausted to continue or they're fighting an opposing caster/Eldritch Abomination type thing.

How can I do this role well, and would it be justified for other players to hate my character for it? Can a party even function properly if the arcanist generally isn't using his spells? Could/should I, in the interest of actually contributing, perhaps take up a magic craft or three to give access to the things they normally need my character archetype to do, like provide means of flight and such? Thanks in advance for any answers!

There's sandbagging, and then there's just not playing your class. Your party can justifiably be angry at you for never casting spells. Especially if they're struggling through adventures.

Either way, I'm not sure Wizard is the right class for you. Which is strange, because I agree, that's exactly the stereotype that I have for the Wizard as well. Not some being of phenomenal cosmic power, but a wise and brilliant sage who also happens to cast arcane spells. Archivist does kind of do it better, but it casts the divine spells rather than arcane ones. It might still work for you however.

What you could do, as a Wizard, is learn and cast loads of utility and/or "social encounter" spells, and only very rarely cast any "fighting" spells, simply because you don't know those types of spells. Focus on divinations, charms, compulsions, and other spells that simply don't find much use in battle. The few battle spells you do have could either be low-powered (see Lightning Bolt) or buffs that you cast on your fighters (see Greater Magic Weapon). This way you can still be casting spells often, but you are never the guy that defeats every combat encounter. You contribute to the party, using your spells, in other ways.

Crafting magic items is also a great way for you to contribute, yes.

[commander panda]

seconding archivist. it has a mundane party booster for know-it-alls, and its basically a divine wizard anyway.

also, the semi-passive nature of a lot of divine spells feels like it fits with your fluff.

[Yorrin]

I think a lot depends on WHY you arent using spells. If it's because you dont want to expend resources, then look into reserve feats in C.Mage and C.Champion. If it's purely a roleplaying thing, then you're in a harder place. Because if you're not participating in combat then you're a leech. Nobody likes a leech.

That being said, you can still make a caster that stands back and lectures. But rather than a Wizard make him a bard with ranks in Perform: Lecture and have your lecture be Inspire Courage or Dragonfire Inspiration. Combine with Marshal or Dragon Shaman for an aura (or just get the Draconic Aura feat from Dragon Magic), and/or dip Crusader or Warblade for the Bolstering Voice stance, which is essentially another aura.

Of course these ideas could also work on a Wizard, but to a lesser degree, since Wizards aren't designed to be played without their spells.

[veti]

If you Knowledge skills allow you to come up with kick-ass traps and tactical planning, then nobody will be able to deny you're pulling your weight in combat.

I guess it depends on the campaign, but it should be possible.

[Spore]

I have an compromise to offer.

You let your caster be the diviner of the party aka "There's a demon in the next part, we will need Banish". Then you prepare Banish, advance and cast the spell. With refluffed spell effects as subtly as possible.

Another idea would be an buffer/abjurer. The main thing he does is to buff up via Haste on important encounters and then just cast spells to prevent spell effects or raise defensive stats.

But yeah playing a full caster not casting may give you the OOC reputation of lazy. Human interaction is finnicky like that. Participation in an "board game" is as easy as it can be (compared to say, sports or a group project at work) so underperforming may just give you a negative rep.

[aleucard]

That's an interesting and potentially useful character. However, there is only 2 ways that its use can be even partially justified. Either it's a DMPC that's there to do all the things good DMPC's do (give in-character reasons for staying to the plan, give the players a decent warning if they're going to get into something they should either prepare for or stay away from, serve as a stopgap in case the party's taking a beating where it shouldn't for one reason or another (That Damn Crab and similar surprises, mostly), etc.), or it's a character being run by someone that knows they can't contain themselves from making a character as high-op as they can and are doing at least some of the functions of a DMPC instead. If it's not either of those, then Thurbane's right on the money in suggesting either going Archivist ( http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=185.0 would be a good read) with Knowledge Devotion or something similar to actually make the bookworm thing work for you or scrubbing the concept.

[rmnimoc]

Well, it's meant to be sort of Gandalf-y, with the truly powerful magic users being more subtle but capable of arcane fury. It's not like he'll *never* use spells, it would just be a rare thing saved for important occasions. Though I guess that really doesn't change the meat of your argument. *sigh* Some concepts are just too wrongbadfun to play after all...

It's not that it is "wrongbadfun", but you can't make a very large contribution through knowledge checks alone. I'm going to throw this out there, in any campaign, that "Gandalf-y" character completely ruins the game for everyone else.

Let me put it like this...
Let's say you are playing Pippen, your friends are Sam and Merry. Another player is Gandalf. How fun do you think it would be, knowing that your actual contribution to the team is basically nothing, beacause the truly powerful magic user is just sitting back and bailing out the team with his arcane fury?

That really isn't any fun for anyone.

If you wanted to play the "wise and subtle" magic user, I'd suggest something that can back up the team by doing so. You can get a fairly "Gandalf-y" experience playing an artificer, while still making everyone on your team stronger. You could be a (and I hate to ever suggest this but....) Truenamer, which is a VERY gandalf-y class, though it doesn't really hold water mechanically. Archivist was suggested, and I second that. You get to use your knowledge to benifit the party, you can buff the party, and you can go "RAWR! DIVINE FURY!!!!" and drop lightning bolts on people if things get bad.

I hope this helps.

Edit: Also seconding bard, after all there are no small number of people in all those threads about statting middle earth who insist Gandalf in a bard and not a wizard due to the whole subtlety thing.

[Ruut]

I second the Archivist route, and the Knowledge Devotion/Bard route. Perform Oratory and Knowledge Devotion would make your smatterings of intellect buff the party and gimp the enemy.

LotR (Movies) Gandalf still used his sword and staff a lot in combat. Peter Jackson explained in behind the scenes why he wanted Gandalf to be a practical magician. He basically wanted the spotlight to be on the ring and the ring bearer.

LotR (Books) Gandalf did a lot more than advise people and tell them to run away from things.

[Azoth]

You could also go for the "I'm not doing magic! I swear!" approach. This requires combining the Invisible Spell metamagic feat with the expanded use for Sleight of Hand from Races of Stone.

Basically, you cast buffs or non attention grabbing spells while lecturing about the enemy. Invisible spell covers their being no visual display to the spell's effects at all. Sleigt of Hand allows you to mask the verbal and somatic components of a spell as something else.

In order to tell you are casting they have to beat your sleight of hand check with a spot check. Seeing as you are a full caster...that shouldn't happen.

[mucat]

As always, the best answer is probably "Ask your group."

In most groups I've played with, a hands-off wizard would be perfectly cool...as long as you played him as an engaging character whose presence added a lot to the game session. A player who never does anything because they're not engaged in the game, or as a form of passive-aggressive sulking, would soon not be invited back. But if you're playing a learned scholar with interesting things to say and do, we would never resent the fact that he is primarily a scholar, and saves the phenomenal cosmic power for emergencies.

EDIT: You could also ask your GM to let you reflavor your buff spells as not spells at all; when you are present, the universe simply alters itself subtly in favor of your friends. As long as you are doing this for flavor and not to gain a mechanical advantage -- for example, you should never "stealth-buff" anyone when you are being watched by an enemy who might otherwise react to your spellcasting -- then the GM may have no objection.

[BrokenChord]

Something about this thread feels oddly depressing. I can't pinpoint why, it just sorta does.

Anyway, if you really want to do this (and I don't recommend it, because magic is cool) then I second crafting big time.

[Stoneback]

I think there are three options that you can use, and mix and match how you like:

1) Bard. Make your perform Lecture (great idea). I had a Gnome bard once who took his Perform ranks in Comedy.

2) Dragon Shaman. T4, but otherwise wizard-y. Not a lot of skill points.

3) Tailor your spell book in such a way that you're not obligated to memorize Fireball three times every day.

[NichG]

One thing you could do is play a character who relies on one-use items to create magical effects. So you have a legit reason not to bust out the spellcasting - it would cost you XP and thousands of gold pieces. An Artificer is actually kind of a good match for this, plus you're everyone's best friend for crafting permanent items as well.

Alternately, UMD Rogue with a few staves/wands/scrolls of various things. Yes, you can bust out the arcane fury and keep going strong even when the Vancian caster is out of slots, but OOC everyone knows how expensive it is for you.

Factotum also works well for this - 'I could bust out the arcane fury normally, but I used my Arcane Dilletant for other stuff today. But look at how I leverage my Intelligence to do everything without magic in a pinch anyhow!'

[Alefiend]

You could also go for the "I'm not doing magic! I swear!" approach. This requires combining the Invisible Spell metamagic feat with the expanded use for Sleight of Hand from Races of Stone.

Basically, you cast buffs or non attention grabbing spells while lecturing about the enemy. Invisible spell covers their being no visual display to the spell's effects at all. Sleigt of Hand allows you to mask the verbal and somatic components of a spell as something else.

In order to tell you are casting they have to beat your sleight of hand check with a spot check. Seeing as you are a full caster...that shouldn't happen.

I was going to suggest something similar, which works better with low-level spells that don't require flash. Pretend that the magic is extremely subtle, so that it's your presence and encouraging words that bolster the party—which is one way to view the value of Gandalf's presence in the JRRT books.

Example: When you cast Bull's Strength on the fighter, the somatic component can be a pat on the shoulder, and the verbal can be something to the tune of, "We shall rely on your strong right arm today." Likewise, divinations can be handled off-camera; nobody sees you cast the spell, but you draw on deep wells of knowledge and wisdom to interpret events.

This doesn't work as well for things that are obviously magical. Despite what we saw in Dumbo, no amount of mundane encouragement can make you fly. It's at those times that you are pulling out the real, vulgar magic to have a more direct influence.

Of course, if you really don't want to be casting spells at all, there's other very good advice that has been provided.

[HunterOfJello]

I could go along with a build designed to make it look like you don't use magic while you are secretly and covertly helping your allies through buffing and debuffing. However, sitting back and lecturing at people while they die in front of you sounds like a very swift road to angering the rest of the table.

[BrokenChord]

I could go along with a build designed to make it look like you don't use magic while you are secretly and covertly helping your allies through buffing and debuffing. However, sitting back and lecturing at people while they die in front of you sounds like a very swift road to angering the rest of the table.

I would think this argument holds substantially less water if your "lecturing" as you would call it is what's helping the party figure out the opponent's strengths and weaknesses and thus significantly helping them not get killed in front of you. Not that spells aren't way better for the job, but it's not like you're not being useful.

[Sith_Happens]

Something about this thread feels oddly depressing. I can't pinpoint why, it just sorta does.

Probably because it shines a light on the fact that D&D and Middle Earth Wizards have never really had anything to do with each other, something we usually spend our lives drifting along blissfully not acknowledging?

[HolyCouncilMagi]

Probably because it shines a light on the fact that D&D and Middle Earth Wizards have never really had anything to do with each other, something we usually spend our lives drifting along blissfully not acknowledging?

I was just using Gandalf as an example of knowledgeable and not heavily magic-using wizard. I'm sure there are better examples and I know D&D doesn't work like LotR, but it was the best example on hand to maintain coherency because most people at least know who Gandalf is, unlike a lot of other fantasy characters who might be better examples.

[Kane0]

snip

Sounds uncannily similar to my father.
It's perfectly fine with the right party. So long as you can and do contribute you should be fine. Just make sure you hve a thick skin for any lazy/coward jokes and comments that might come your way.

[Maginomicon]

First and foremost, just because you say you're a "wizard" doesn't mean you have to play the wizard class.

A powerful version of what you're looking for could be to take the Alternative Source Spell feat, and go Wizard 1 / Archivist X. Prepare most or all of your Archivist spells as arcane spells (through Alternative Source Spell), making them essentially wizard spells.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm interested in playing the stereotype of wizard that almost never casts spells or gets involved in combat, and mostly focuses on using Knowledges and other learning-related skills to give the other party members information on how to solve their problems without his arcane magic. However, I'm wondering if such a character won't be viewed negatively by other players. He'd generally only use his own magic in situations of dire need, such as when the rest of the party is too exhausted to continue or they're fighting an opposing caster/Eldritch Abomination type thing.

How can I do this role well, and would it be justified for other players to hate my character for it? Can a party even function properly if the arcanist generally isn't using his spells? Could/should I, in the interest of actually contributing, perhaps take up a magic craft or three to give access to the things they normally need my character archetype to do, like provide means of flight and such? Thanks in advance for any answers!

The wizard doesn't get enough skill points, there are what? 11 knowledge skills and the wizard only get 2+int mod skills per level (remember now, that is un modified Int, enhancement bonuses don't count) so at best we're looking at 7/11. But in doing so you've dumped concentration (a mandatory skill for casters), spell craft (another mandatory for casters), and craft (so no plans to make your own stuff).

[HolyCouncilMagi]

The wizard doesn't get enough skill points, there are what? 11 knowledge skills and the wizard only get 2+int mod skills per level (remember now, that is un modified Int, enhancement bonuses don't count) so at best we're looking at 7/11. But in doing so you've dumped concentration (a mandatory skill for casters), spell craft (another mandatory for casters), and craft (so no plans to make your own stuff).

You hardly need all the Knowledge skills for this, though. 4 is plenty, leaving you 3 left for the two mandatory skills and at least one Craft. The only Knowledges relevant to this type of character are Arcana, The Planes, Nature, and Religion, given that those are the only ones related to learning information about magical effects and the strengths and weaknesses of monsters. As a side benefit, those Knowledges have many other functions as well, but regardless they're simply the only essential ones. Heck, K:Religion only does anything for Undead in this regard, so since the Cleric has that maxed practically by necessity there's two Crafts for you.

The character can function in this role, and I know this much. I just wonder if it's a role anyone will care about.

[Vogonjeltz]

You hardly need all the Knowledge skills for this, though. 4 is plenty, leaving you 3 left for the two mandatory skills and at least one Craft. The only Knowledges relevant to this type of character are Arcana, The Planes, Nature, and Religion, given that those are the only ones related to learning information about magical effects and the strengths and weaknesses of monsters. As a side benefit, those Knowledges have many other functions as well, but regardless they're simply the only essential ones. Heck, K:Religion only does anything for Undead in this regard, so since the Cleric has that maxed practically by necessity there's two Crafts for you.

The character can function in this role, and I know this much. I just wonder if it's a role anyone will care about.

I assume them that this will not be an adventure that contains urban areas or any ruins/old places (nobility and royalty, local, history, dungeoneering)

That or the bard can pick up the slack.

[TuggyNE]

craft (so no plans to make your own stuff).

Ironically, there is as far as I know no reason at all for most magic item crafters to take any of the Craft skills. They are not prerequisites for the feats, nor are there any checks to make while crafting magic items.

[Malcador]

I, too, strongly encourage the archivist. Is there some reason why that won't work? Note that many DMs will let your character be an archivist (the class) but describe himself in-character as a wizard (the noun).

If you can't or don't want to play an archivist (maybe nobody you know has a copy of Heroes of Horror), a bard could fill a similar role, though not as well.

The key aspect that both the archivist and the bard have is that they accomplish something important just by standing back and lecturing. In this role, the archivist gets more use from knowledge skills than a wizard would, while a bard is just as good with knowledge as a wizard, but also has the group-oriented bardic music abilities.

The problem with being a deus ex machina (for our purposes, a character who only acts to save everybody else from certain doom) is that it's usually not fun. Most of the time, you won't have fun, because your character won't be doing anything. The other players won't be having fun because while you are standing back, they feel like you are wasting time, loot, and experience, and when you step up and do something, they feel like you held back before just so you could show off now.

[Drachasor]

I don't see how an Archivist or Wizard really works with this idea. They are just too focused on spellcasting. If you are going to rarely use spells, then you need to be able to do something else.

A Bard makes a lot more sense here. It's solid, it can help others -- just refluff or use an odd perform skill and you should be fine. A Factotum would also work.

Really though, it's actually very hard to have "save the day" magic that's rarely used. D&D just isn't a system designed for that sort of thing. It's not like you can store your magical power for a couple days and have a big attack or game changer.

[Ellowryn]

I also second, or i guess i third, the "i'm not doing magic" idea, knowledge devotion is a good idea, and you should also look into going Loremaster because they get bardic knowledge which would work with your knowledge devotion. For you general spell list look up Batman Wizard guide by The Logic Ninja for an idea of what spells to get that combined with invisible spell and slight of hand i believe would make you "look" like your doing nothing but actually being very useful in combat without actually casting spells.

[Vogonjeltz]

Ironically, there is as far as I know no reason at all for most magic item crafters to take any of the Craft skills. They are not prerequisites for the feats, nor are there any checks to make while crafting magic items.

If you don't want to go out and purchase the masterwork weapons, armor, or shields, or buy high quality (insert item before it was magic here) then your other option is to craft it.

Also this is kind of important if you want some alternative familiars, or clockwork animals, and various golems.

[Azoth]

Craft Alchemy is also handy for various reasons. Getting 3 of an item for the cost of 1 isn't a bad thing at all.

[TuggyNE]

If you don't want to go out and purchase the masterwork weapons, armor, or shields, or buy high quality (insert item before it was magic here) then your other option is to craft it.

Uh, OK? I guess? It can maybe save a few hundred gp in some cases. Doesn't mean a thing for wondrous items or rings or wands or scrolls or potions, of course, but hey.


Also this is kind of important if you want some alternative familiars, or clockwork animals, and various golems.

And why would I want any of those? Sure, sometimes they're handy, but most crafters don't bother.


Craft Alchemy is also handy for various reasons. Getting 3 of an item for the cost of 1 isn't a bad thing at all.

Well, sure. It's nice, it's just not even slightly essential, and if, for some reason, a Wizard is low on skill points … it's not the first to go, but an Int-based usable-untrained skill? It's pretty high on the list.

[Talya]

If you're using Gandalf as your archtype, Gandalf was heavily involved in combat. You are right that he didn't cast very many spells (although they did happen). If you want to look at being Gandalf, you need to be proficient with a sword, and capable of holding your own in melee combat. In fact, there is evidence that Gandalf was a superior combatant to anyone else in the fellowship.

I don't have any build suggestions at the moment, but that's what you'd want to look at.

(Although, as has been mentioned, the Archivist fits your bill, and gets access to Divine Power...)

[BrokenChord]

I assume them that this will not be an adventure that contains urban areas or any ruins/old places (nobility and royalty, local, history, dungeoneering)

That or the bard can pick up the slack.

Um... That wouldn't really be relevant to what Magi was talking about, I think? Those Knowledges don't help fight monsters, and those other skills are generally situational, almost non-Knowledges. Ignoring that having other knowledges don't matter to the concept (and for that matter, are kind of bad) they can generally be covered by Bardic Lore.

[Zubrowka74]

I'd vote for a diviner type. With Unseen Seer or Clairvoyant as PrC, for what it's worth.

If you really feel ballsy, tack a Vow of Peace or Non-Violence on that...

But seriously, ask your gaming group if they're ok with this. You can always buff and cast defensively. Perhaps make him really old? You get the bonus and give an RP reason for him not to fight.

[Particle_Man]

I recommend Bard. Elan your way to help, help, help the party without spellcasting. :elan:

[Sam K]

I would say that it REALLY depends on the campaign.

If you're an experienced player, playing with people who are new to the game and making low powered characters, playing a wizard who CAN save the day but doesn't can actually work pretty well. Your advice is useful even without any in game effects (when you're new, you might need reminding to pile on the enemy caster), you can stop party wipes with a well placed spell, but you're not stealing the show every encounter. And you can use subtle magic to help people out, through buffs and divinations.

If you're playing with people who know enough about the game that your coaching isn't going to improve anything, but you're doing a RP heavy campaign with some combat, it would probably be ok. You should really pick a class that can contribute something else as well though, wizard is really bad for it (archivist sounds good, though, or beguiler with all those skillpoints and some utility). But if combat isn't the main focus, you should be good if you really want to do it.

If you're doing a combat heavy campaign, especially one where the DM plays the enemies smart, it's probably not a good idea. You'll be doing nothing most of the time (since combat is a major part), and you might end up dragging down your party.

[BrokenChord]

Well, yes, the above post has a very good point... This character doesn't do anything for you in games that aren't careful about metagaming. Which is, admittedly, most games.