Wizard (fluff) VS Modern World

[Xar Zarath]

Ok so a lot of these kinds of threads go the way of the wizard cause we know how the crunch goes. So what happens if we only go by the fluff of a "high level" wizard.

Say someone who is skilled and ambitious and relatively competent like Szass Tam or Manshoon from FR decides to take a crack at our world. Going by fluff how would that scenario work out??

[Doorhandle]

If they go in guns blazing they'd probably do quite well until they met a sniper. Long range and stealth +anti-material rifle + squishy wizard + lacking understanding about the power of beyond visual range = dead wizard. A clever disguised bomb or a stealth bomber would also work, as would sneakery like poison. Assuming a direct battle, a fireball would take care of any soldiers and tanks and so it goes toward the wizard, and they could summon monsters to buffer their ranks.

If successful captured/killed they'd probably end up under an autopsy or biopsy.

The stealther, get-immersed-in-society route would work better overall, but even then they'd face hiccups to do with lacking familiarity with the outside world, and would probably have to over-rely on enchantment spells for a while, unless they did a LOT of divination-based research. Plus, they'd lack proper I.D, and would have little understanding of what ID is; overcoming that would be their biggest hurdle. If they want to stealthy take over the planet, they would probably have a hard time without going in guns-blazing as above, for similar reasons as to why no one country has taken over the earth today.

There's always the macguffin route where they pull some sicknasty magic bullhockey that allowed them to eat the world's supply of mana or something like that, but seeing as we don't have magic, something like that many not exist in our plane, and even if it did, it'll probably get stopped at the last minute by a brave team of misfits...or a brave team of navy seals at least.

[Inevitability]

The wizard would probably start with investigation. Learn our weaknesses, chains of command, fighting abilities.

He'd then think about what this world could give him. A wizard who only desires magical lore would probably just leave and never return, but a mage who wants to rule over a large empire might be much more interested.

The traditional M.O would be killing the leader of a large country and replacing him. Alter Self lasts several hours, which makes it possible to just cast it throughout the day, even without Persistent Spell. The only problem is sleeping; so either the wizard just crafts a magic item or he uses a few longer-lasting illusions to cover him in his sleep.

If he is really smart, he just summons some angels (only works if he is neutral/good, but still) and pretends to be the Great Divine Savior of All Men. Given that this doesn't work with an evil wizard, it might work out relatively well for us.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I'm sure an evil wizard could summon, construct or illusion (which is now a verb) something that looks like how we'd imagine an angel to look like...

[Platymus Pus]

Be sure to make sure all spells are quickened.
Spells take too long after all.

[Cwymbran-San]

Why would the wizard want to rule the world at all? Why not play the safer route, charm or dominate the people in power to carry out his will.

Let the politicians be your puppets, enthralled by your magic (that usually takes money), having a perfect scapegoat if things go wrong. A wizard with a few Levels of Mindbender would do nicely.

[Eldan]

I'm sure an evil wizard could summon, construct or illusion (which is now a verb) something that looks like how we'd imagine an angel to look like...

They could go the religious route, yes. Actual angels, actual miracles... if they have decent charisma and diplomacy on top, we're facing a new leader of a world religion.

[ben-zayb]

Be sure to make sure all spells are quickened.
Spells take too long after all.

Considering it takes as long as swinging a sword or shooting a gun, even without Quicken spell, how can you say it takes long?

[Platymus Pus]

Considering it takes as long as swinging a sword or shooting a gun, even without Quicken spell, how can you say it takes long?

A single outdated ak 47 is going to be firing 13.3 rounds per second. Or worse, someone has a minigun that fires 100 rounds per second. Someone lifting a gun and pulling the trigger isn't going to take 3 seconds unless you're a snail.
Standard actions take 3 seconds, meaning spells.

[hifidelity2]

A single outdated ak 47 is going to be firing 13.3 rounds per second. Or worse, someone has a minigun that fires 100 rounds per second. Someone lifting a gun and pulling the trigger isn't going to take 3 seconds unless you're a snail.
Standard actions take 3 seconds, meaning spells.

True but if I was said wizard and done some research I would have a protection from normal missiles on an item - fire away!

[ben-zayb]

Someone lifting a gun and pulling the trigger isn't going to take 3 seconds unless you're a snail.Someone throwing a punch isn't going to take 3 seconds. Neither are doing a Sleight of Hand (unless you deliberately want to give the trick away from the audience), Drawing a dagger, Spotting some do something, Opening a door, Feinting a blow, Ready a counterattack, nor bracing yourself for an attack using a Total Defense.

By the way, Drawing a Weapon (move action) and Attacking with it takes 6 seconds, not 3 as you thought. So are stabbing someone with a dagger and following up with a punch, making a 1-2 punch, and tying a single knot. A lot of things take plenty amount of time by D&D rules.

[Platymus Pus]

True but if I was said wizard and done some research I would have a protection from normal missiles on an item - fire away!
That's when bigger things than bullets come in. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3T403dHXUs)
Though if you wanted to be smart an anti-tech field is what you want.

Someone throwing a punch isn't going to take 3 seconds. Neither are doing a Sleight of Hand (unless you deliberately want to give the trick away from the audience), Drawing a dagger, Spotting some do something, Opening a door, Feinting a blow, Ready a counterattack, nor bracing yourself for an attack using a Total Defense.

By the way, Drawing a Weapon (move action) and Attacking with it takes 6 seconds, not 3 as you thought. So are stabbing someone with a dagger and following up with a punch, making a 1-2 punch, and tying a single knot. A lot of things take plenty amount of time by D&D rules.

It says fluff for a reason.
Also as martial characters get stronger they do several blows in 3 seconds due to bab, the comparison doesn't really hold for level 1 characters because concise blows take skill and effort.
Spells don't get faster, ever. That level one spell you're casting at level 20 takes just as long as a 9th level spell. Spells have concrete set rules on time. Some spells take 10 mins, some take 3 seconds. The wizard is going to have that disadvantage because people aren't going to wait on him like FF7.

Someone trained in the military before firing is going to take .5 seconds, that means in that other 5.5 seconds of a full attack the wizard would be riddled with 100 or so bullets that hit touch ac just from a single soldier. Guns are good at killing for a reason and the reasons that guns are flintlocks 99% of the time in dnd is because they'd murder otherwise.
Direct battle would never end well for a wizard he'd be resource starved and outlasted.

[Vhaidara]

Point of order: this is the wizard's FLUFF, not his crunch. And the only thing stronger than wizard crunch is wizard fluff: he does magic. There is NOTHING more than that. Which means that literally, "because magic" covers everything doable by wizard fluff.

[ben-zayb]

Point of order: this is the wizard's FLUFF, not his crunch. And the only thing stronger than wizard crunch is wizard fluff: he does magic. There is NOTHING more than that. Which means that literally, "because magic" covers everything doable by wizard fluff.

Exactly. Fluff. That's why silly crunch-based ideas like "Quickened" spells never belongs in such a conversation in the first place, especially if it belongs to a terrible RL simulation/approximation of how long actual actions in RL resolve.




That's when bigger things than bullets come in. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3T403dHXUs)
Though if you wanted to be smart an anti-tech field is what you want.


It says fluff for a reason.
Also as martial characters get stronger they do several blows in 3 seconds due to bab, the comparison doesn't really hold for level 1 characters because concise blows take skill and effort.
Spells don't get faster, ever. That level one spell you're casting at level 20 takes just as long as a 9th level spell. Spells have concrete set rules on time. Some spells take 10 mins, some take 3 seconds. The wizard is going to have that disadvantage because people aren't going to wait on him like FF7.

Someone trained in the military before firing is going to take .5 seconds, that means in that other 5.5 seconds of a full attack the wizard would be riddled with 100 or so bullets that hit touch ac just from a single soldier. Guns are good at killing for a reason and the reasons that guns are flintlocks 99% of the time in dnd is because they'd murder otherwise.
Direct battle would never end well for a wizard he'd be resource starved and outlasted.Please don't invent stuff up. A standard action attack will always take the same effort from ECL1 to a billion, and it will only get you one attack barring additional feats or abilities. Approximating what ought to happen in D&D doesn't make it so.

[Elkad]

True but if I was said wizard and done some research I would have a protection from normal missiles on an item - fire away!

10d12 every round, per M1A2 tank engaging you. (a good loader can actually double that RoF, but I used the d20 modern rules). 55pts each, your DR10 doesn't go far. Better have lots of miss chance too.

[Telonius]

Intelligence gathering would probably be the way to go about it. He'd probably set up some sort of simulation to game it out, one wizard versus the modern world, to see how he'd fare. Then somehow convince a bunch of really smart people to critique the ideas and figure out how he could use this world's strengths against it. To do this, he'd need to set up some sort of anonymized platform where those kinds of nerd would congreg ... ate ...

[Vhaidara]

If you're implying its us, that conclusion was reached like a year and a half ago. And Tippy is the wizard.

[Platymus Pus]

Exactly. Fluff. That's why silly crunch-based ideas like "Quickened" spells never belongs in such a conversation in the first place, especially if it belongs to a terrible RL simulation/approximation of how long actual actions in RL resolve.



Please don't invent stuff up. A standard action attack will always take the same effort from ECL1 to a billion, and it will only get you one attack barring additional feats or abilities. Approximating what ought to happen in D&D doesn't make it so.



A full round action takes 6 seconds or can be split into a standard action and move action.
Unless you are DMing the game it doesn't matter if you think I'm inventing stuff up that is just how it is.
Part of fluff of a wizard isn't "does magic." Part of fluff of a wizard is "Does magic under certain restrictions".
There are tons of magic users that outdo any DnD wizard because of its limitations, several million spells in a microsecond isn't a standard for example, the best a DnD wizard can normally do is a spell that is within 3-6 seconds.
He has to stop time itself just to do better than that,take swift actions,use certain items, take feats and/or cast certain spells beforehand to do better. It's why wizards take the time to prep instead of walking into the room and just casting everything within a second because it is part of the wizards character, what makes a wizard a wizard in dnd. A wizard has to think and prepare carefully precisely because of these restrictions he has to suffer from with his arcane magic. It is his fluff otherwise it's just something homebrewed.
Myself being objective is no reason for rudeness.

[ben-zayb]

A full round action takes 6 seconds or can be split into a standard action and move action.
Unless you are DMing the game it doesn't matter if you think I'm inventing stuff up that is just how it is.
Part of fluff of a wizard isn't "does magic." Part of fluff of a wizard is "Does magic under certain restrictions".
There are tons of magic users that outdo any DnD wizard because of its limitations, several million spells in a microsecond isn't a standard for example, the best a DnD wizard can normally do is a spell that is within 3-6 seconds.
He has to stop time itself just to do better than that,take swift actions,use certain items, take feats and/or cast certain spells beforehand to do better. It's why wizards take the time to prep instead of walking into the room and just casting everything within a second because it is part of the wizards character, what makes a wizard a wizard in dnd. A wizard has to think and prepare carefully precisely because of these restrictions he has to suffer from with his arcane magic. It is his fluff otherwise it's just something homebrewed.
Myself being objective is no reason for rudeness.
As opposed to <insert every other caster here, and even warlocks/binders/shadowcrafters/truenamers> who also only cast spells or use their SLA/Su within 3-6 seconds barring the exceptions you mentioned? That certainly makes the fluff relevant, right? And for some reason, it appears that you really have this idea that there are caster types who doesn't have "magic under certain restrictions" in their fluff, which is as incorrect an assumption as can be.

And, no. An entire round takes six seconds. There is nothing that suggests full-round action do, especially with the implied difference between full-round and 1 round actions.

Being blunt doesn't necessarily mean being rude. I'm simply baring your faulty assumptions. In particular, you are still not understanding the fact the action simulation in D&D is severly inaccurate when applied in real life, and have refuted none of my points about this matter.

[Xar Zarath]

...If successful captured/killed they'd probably end up under an autopsy or biopsy...

What sort of info could govt's/organisations hope to learn from biopsy? I mean they wouldn't know that wizardry is something you learn unlike sorcery which is innate...but still cutting people open is necessary?

[Platymus Pus]

As opposed to <insert every other caster here, and even warlocks/binders/shadowcrafters/truenamers> who also only cast spells or use their SLA/Su within 3-6 seconds barring the exceptions you mentioned? That certainly makes the fluff relevant, right? And for some reason, it appears that you really have this idea that there are caster types who doesn't have "magic under certain restrictions" in their fluff, which is as incorrect an assumption as can be.

And, no. An entire round takes six seconds. There is nothing that suggests full-round action do, especially with the implied difference between full-round and 1 round actions.

Being blunt doesn't necessarily mean being rude. I'm simply baring your faulty assumptions. In particular, you are still not understanding the fact the action simulation in D&D is severly inaccurate when applied in real life, and have refuted none of my points about this matter.
I'm talking about spellcasters in fiction not classes.
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/6955/943884-drstrange042wm1.jpg
A full round action takes a round to do so that's why it is called a full round action. Because it takes up an entire full round. Don't argue for the sake of arguing please.
Saying I'm only making assumptions and you're only saying facts isn't helping your case.
Occam's razor we assume that spells work for wizards the same as always unless evidence is proven otherwise else we are making extra baseless assumptions.

[Inevitability]

What sort of info could govt's/organisations hope to learn from biopsy? I mean they wouldn't know that wizardry is something you learn unlike sorcery which is innate...but still cutting people open is necessary?

Biopsy:
-Worst case: A sentient being who was hostile anyway just suffered unnecessarily.
-Best case: Casting spells just became possible for everyone.

No biopsy:
-Worst case: A source of incredible power was just ignored.
-Best case: You avoided having to hurt a single sentient being.

I have trouble seeing anyone pick 'no biopsy' here, at least until they figure out the wizard's magic comes from study. Even then, the scientific value of a being from another universe isn't to be neglected.

That makes me wonder; wouldn't the wizard carry a lot of germs and parasites we have never become immune to? What if an epidemic of Filth Fever scours the world because the wizard doesn't care about hygiene?

[ben-zayb]

I'm talking about spellcasters in fiction not classes.
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/6955/943884-drstrange042wm1.jpg
A full round action takes a round to do so that's why it is called a full round action. Because it takes up an entire full round. Don't argue for the sake of arguing please.
Saying I'm only making assumptions and you're only saying facts isn't helping your case.
Occam's razor we assume that spells work for wizards the same as always unless evidence is proven otherwise else we are making assumptions.Er...the same as always? There you go assuming once again; this time, that there is a specific "casting time" that is somehow being followed in all (always, you said) fiction. Feel free to cite each and every one of them (not just the Sorcerer Supreme) following this imaginary standard that you set.

More importantly, will you actually even try to address my points earlier? Making a single punch* and casting a spell takes about the same 3 seconds in D&D, as do a lot of other otherwise mundane things that pretty much take less than a second in RL. That doesn't mean those actions have to be literally translated to take that long in real life.

* No. Just because you can make 4 (or 6, or 120) attacks using a full-round action (6 seconds), doesn't mean it only takes 0.66 (or 1, or 0.05) second to make your standard action single attack. It's still taking 3 seconds, like the caster's spell.

[Platymus Pus]

Er...the same as always? There you go assuming once again; this time, that there is a specific "casting time" that is somehow being followed in all (always, you said) fiction. Feel free to cite each and every one of them (not just the Sorcerer Supreme) following this imaginary standard that you set.

More importantly, will you actually even try to address my points earlier? Making a single punch* and casting a spell takes about the same 3 seconds in D&D, as do a lot of other otherwise mundane things that pretty much take less than a second in RL. That doesn't mean those actions have to be literally translated to take that long in real life.

* No. Just because you can make 4 (or 6, or 120) attacks using a full-round action (6 seconds), doesn't mean it only takes 0.66 (or 1, or 0.05) second to make your standard action single attack. It's still taking 3 seconds, like the caster's spell.


Always in dnd's fiction, not all spell casters. Context.
There isn't a point, because your point is a baseless assumption.A point needs a point to be addressed, else it is pointless.

Because dnd spellcasting is a special thing only in dnd it can only be translated in dnd terms.
Melee and magic are two different things. Magic doesn't exist RL, mundane does. The rounds comparison was just to put in context how screwed the wizard is in combat if RL rules are followed.
We have to follow DnD's rules of magic. If we follow RL rules magic doesn't work at all and a wizard is a 30 year old virgin.
If we make the assumption it doesn't work as dnd magic just because it's in the real world then it isn't dnd magic, it's something entirely else.
If the assumption of magic working differently is made then other silly assumptions can be made.
Like say our universe is in a expanding antimagic field making the wizard powerless.
You play things how they are not how you want them to be.

[ben-zayb]

Always in dnd's fiction, not all spell casters. Context.
There isn't a point, because your point is a baseless assumption.A point needs a point to be addressed, else it is pointless.

Because dnd spellcasting is a special thing only in dnd it can only be translated in dnd terms.
Melee and magic are two different things. Magic doesn't exist RL, mundane does. The rounds comparison was just to put in context how screwed the wizard is in combat if RL rules are followed.
We have to follow DnD's rules of magic. If we follow RL rules magic doesn't work at all and a wizard is a 30 year old virgin.
If we make the assumption it doesn't work as dnd magic just because it's in the real world then it isn't dnd magic, it's something entirely else.
If the assumption of magic working differently is made then other silly assumptions can be made.
Like say our universe is in a expanding antimagic field making the wizard powerless.
You play things how they are not how you want them to be.So in this imaginary world of yours, Doctor Strange is part of D&D fiction? Was it a useless link that serves no point at all? Or was it an attempt at backpedaling because you realized the ridiculousness of your statement?

My point did not assume anything outside of the rules. Baseless assumption wasis your mode of reasoning, not mine.

The rounds comparison and your whole argument fails because you are using D&D rules that are meant for use in both mundane AND magic, but you lack consistency because you only apply it on magic IRL.

If you assume that mundane D&D combat (and D&D statistics in general) doesn't apply in the real world, then there would be nebulous (if meaningful, even) mechanical interactions between this world and the wizard. Real life humans and animals don't have a BAB, AC, skill modifiers/ranks, ability scores, damage die, saves, Hit Points, Hit Die, ECL, CR, Character Level, Class Level, etc.

There can be no cherry picking wherever you feel comfortable. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either use the D&D rules for the entire scenario, or you CAN not use it at all meaningfully.