What Should A Wizard Be Able to Do?

[Ruethgar]

This isn't talking optimization, but just in general, what are some things that a wizard should just know how to do?

Blast, every wizard should be able to shoot some sort of magic, be it great balls of fire or a volley of magic missiles.

Minor Telekinesis, Mage Hand and Prestidigitation both cover this.

Detect Magic/Identify, knowing things about magic is kinda what a wizard does.

Search magic, whether Arcane Eye, Clairvoyance, Scry, or Locate Object, extra-sensory perception is a very wizardly thing.

What are some other powers that come to mind that a wizard should be able to do?

[Biggus]

First thing that comes to mind is protect themselves from getting squished (Mage Armor, Shield etc).

[Willie the Duck]

Even more than protect oneself, I think get out of harm's way is a primary ability (with a method at nearly every spell level, from expeditions retreat to the teleports).

Beyond that, it is going to depend on your gaming style, but just in general 'have an answer for 4 of the 5 most common things the party runs into' is not a bad answer. In the classic dungeon-delver situation, that might be:

let past a locked door
pull a lever that is across a farther-than-longjump-able chasm
illuminate a room
deal with an uncooperative guard
find the macguffin of the given quest


How one chooses to do that can vary a lot (fireball can possibly be the answer for both the locked door and the uncooperative guard, but it has consequences in both instances).

[Emperor Tippy]

Thematically? Well that really depends on the source material you are drawing the themes from.

I mean there is a strong case to be made that Wizards in D&D should be the slow casters. Like they decide what they want to do and then use Knowledge: Arcana and/or Spellcraft to devise a ritual that will do that thing before spending some decent amount of time casting said ritual.

Like if you want an off the cuff fireball, then you get a Sorcerer. If, however, you want to incinerate a city then you get a wizard and he uses his Knowledge: The Planes, Knowledge: Arcana, Spellcraft, and arcane training to devise a ritual that superimposes the Elemental Plane of Fire on the city for some period of time.

If the Wizard wants to throw a fireball then he spends a few hours creating/casting a spell that gives him the ability to throw a fireball later.

Really play up vancian casting as opposed to essentially just hand waving it away.

Hmm, that could actually be a fun class to homebrew up and play. Wizards don't actually know any spells, what they instead know is how magic works and they put together spells based on level and skill checks.

[Ruethgar]

Stuff

I've actually made some characters like this before, maybe not Incantation length of casting, but using 3.P Spheres of Power's Extended Casting and Skilled Casting(something magicy like Craft:Runes) drawbacks, the Ponderous Spellcaster flaw, and Elder Giant Magic. Most of them had some pretty serious cheese added, a couple Wishes to technically keep a Spellweaver's natural casting for free or Dragonspawn Abomination with all 7 extra sorcerer levels at a +1 LA, something to actually give them the power to end encounters when their magic went off. A few were in low magic situations where the longer casting time was a requirement to use magic at all(though it was only Ponderous in that world, no spheres).

[Quertus]

This isn't talking optimization, but just in general, what are some things that a wizard should just know how to do?

Blast, every wizard should be able to shoot some sort of magic, be it great balls of fire or a volley of magic missiles.

Minor Telekinesis, Mage Hand and Prestidigitation both cover this.

Detect Magic/Identify, knowing things about magic is kinda what a wizard does.

Search magic, whether Arcane Eye, Clairvoyance, Scry, or Locate Object, extra-sensory perception is a very wizardly thing.

What are some other powers that come to mind that a wizard should be able to do?

IMO, none of that.

Every Wizard should be able to understand Magic, Magic theory, etc. This includes reading spells, etc.

Every Wizard should be able to read¹.

Every Wizard should be able to learn spells from scraps of arcane knowledge found by exploring the ruins of the ancients.

Every Wizard should be able to research and invent new spells, preferably putting their name on said spells.

Maybe every Wizard should be able to detect magic.

And that's it. Any given Wizard might have no spells to blast, or move, or clean, or light, or control, or change, or ward, or animate the dead, or anything else.

¹ unless they're really weird.

[Kayblis]

I'm with Quertus on this one. Thematically, the only things "every wizard should be able to do" is the basic that defines a wizard. The rest is all dependant on a wizard's identity. I have great interest in wizards that never shot a Fireball, because using magic offensively should be someone's specialization. Arguing that 'every wizard should be able to blow someone up' is both shortsighted and PC-centered. Most wizards in an actual game world don't have an use for offensive spellcasting, because they're not adventurers going into dungeons every week. If you give your players many options and a defined "Downtime session" kind of thing, you'll see them preparing completely different spells from the usual adventuring and dungeon-crawling loadout. You don't need Fireball to do research and deal with people.

Now, if you're assuming the very specific "4-man adventuring party, one wizard, dungeons every day" scenario, yeah, you can say some of these points are valid. A wizard can do fairly well without any scouting ability at all, because they're not alone in a party. Same for damage. Minor Telekinesis is not something everyone should know, but it's something that's good to have. Having all these is a plus, not a base assumption.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kayblis
Arguing that 'every wizard should be able to blow someone up' is both shortsighted and PC-centered.

Very much agreed.


Originally Posted by Kayblis
Most wizards in an actual game world don't have an use for offensive spellcasting, because they're not adventurers going into dungeons every week.

Can you elaborate on this? I agree with the sentiment, but I'd be interested in what you would expect the non-offensive, non-adventuring wizards to be doing.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Every wizard should have some sort of offensive capability. They live in VERY dangerous worlds, and they need to defend themselves. Furthermore, offensivity is the key means of becoming more powerful. What wizard wouldn't want to become more powerful, since it's how they improve their ability to survive in a hostile world? Even a wizard focusing on defending themselves would want to be able to defeat enemies, as XP equals spell slots equals the ability to run away, if nothing else. So throw a few wall spells and a cloudkill to whack an enemy or two, then run away. Maybe you'll gain a level if you're lucky.

[Ruethgar]

I agree that a non-adventuring wizard doesn't need to focus much effort on blasting, but if they are summoning and binding things as part of their research, they would probably want to have some blasty potential. This question probably would work better in the RPG form to lessen the mechanics responses, but whatever. On the low end it looks like Amanuensis, Read Magic and Scholar's Touch would make a wizard.

[Endarire]

@OP
Plot defines a Wizard's powers. 3.5 Wizards are versatile because 1e Wizards were inspired by mythology, religion, spirituality, fiction, folklore, imagination, etc. "Guy who summons snakes" may be as powerful as "Guy who sees the future" and "Guy who teleports around the world." They're just different abilities to learn.

@Tippy
Level and skill checks for magic? Sounds like a Truenamer to me!

[AntiAuthority]

This isn't talking optimization, but just in general, what are some things that a wizard should just know how to do?

Blast, every wizard should be able to shoot some sort of magic, be it great balls of fire or a volley of magic missiles.

Minor Telekinesis, Mage Hand and Prestidigitation both cover this.

Detect Magic/Identify, knowing things about magic is kinda what a wizard does.

Search magic, whether Arcane Eye, Clairvoyance, Scry, or Locate Object, extra-sensory perception is a very wizardly thing.

What are some other powers that come to mind that a wizard should be able to do?

There's not a real answer... See, Wizard is a pretty generic fantasy term, so it can apply to virtually any type of magic user you can think of from fiction. Besides being able to read magic, turn magic into a science and such, everything else is just whatever you want. There's nothing to really compare a Wizard to, as a Wizard is just a Wizard and that depends heavily on what a person thinks a Wizard is and there's no set things a Wizard should be able to do, if that makes sense?

Wizards don't need to be able to throw out fireballs, lightning or such, as could just as easily be those cryptic old men who know how to divine the future and levitate small objects, or someone who can talk to animals and transform into them or just someone who can teleport. Besides understanding and reading magic... There's not really a "set" type of spells a Wizard should have, everything else is up to personal justification.

[Emperor Tippy]

@Tippy
Level and skill checks for magic? Sounds like a Truenamer to me!

The Truenamer is an excellent idea, its execution was just execrable bad.

[Kayblis]

Every wizard should have some sort of offensive capability. They live in VERY dangerous worlds, and they need to defend themselves. Furthermore, offensivity is the key means of becoming more powerful. What wizard wouldn't want to become more powerful, since it's how they improve their ability to survive in a hostile world? Even a wizard focusing on defending themselves would want to be able to defeat enemies, as XP equals spell slots equals the ability to run away, if nothing else. So throw a few wall spells and a cloudkill to whack an enemy or two, then run away. Maybe you'll gain a level if you're lucky.

Some Wizards are not played by a player. Characters tend to not know anything about XP or levels, and the game world is usually not a videogame-lite tongue-in-cheek meta joke.


Can you elaborate on this? I agree with the sentiment, but I'd be interested in what you would expect the non-offensive, non-adventuring wizards to be doing.

Pretty much what the other 95% of the population is doing, living their lives and doing their best to stay out of trouble. You don't expect every single commoner to have Fighter levels and wear armor because "it's a dangerous world out there". People live in towns, hamlets, cities, big groups of people for protection and ease of living. A wizard can live a comfortable life doing alchemy, selling his services, running a pawn shop or simply doing other honest work with a little arcane help. His spare money goes into books and study, if he's a prolific tradesman he can afford some magic items, and through years of study he slowly learns how to use higher level spells. Just because players aren't rewarded for something, doesn't mean it's useless for NPCs, and not everyone has to go the "kill for XP" route to gain power. He'll probably never become a !!Great!! wizard, but "decent" is often good enough for most of the population.

On the other hand there's the adventurous kind, a group that halves in numbers after every crop season, most of them dying off in the woods or some dark swampy place, but the rest gets back able to use magic one level stronger. These will probably become the mid-level mages you'll see locked up in great wizard towers, doing research on something very specific, away from the public eye. These are the standard Wizards you see crop around in tales, and after an anime arc or two they may become either great heroes or great villains.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Some Wizards are not played by a player. Characters tend to not know anything about XP or levels, and the game world is usually not a videogame-lite tongue-in-cheek meta joke. Characters have to know about game concepts, especially spellcasters, because they have abilities that directly interact with them on both a meta and a very real, quantifiable level. Spell levels, hit dice, experience points, hit points, AC, saving throws, and more. They gain XP from overcoming challenges (especially enemies), gain levels by acquiring it, and spend it via spellcasting and item crafting.

If you have abilities that manipulate certain aspects of reality that you use often, you're going to know about those things.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kayblis
On the other hand there's the adventurous kind, a group that halves in numbers after every crop season….

This is exactly how I’ve envisioned it, although 50% survival is generous. I imagine that out of all the hopeful young adventurers that set out each spring, maybe 10% will survive their first year, with survivorship rates slowly improving as each annual cohort dwindles in number.

Attrition is from two main causes—direct mortality and departure from the adventuring life, with a few fringe cases involving dimensional banishment, mind-controlling fungus and so on. I've always felt that far more people will feel the call to an adventuring life than are actually cut out for it, and the lucky ones limp home when they realize this.


Originally Posted by Kayblis
A wizard can live a comfortable life…simply doing other honest work with a little arcane help.

This is an interesting idea, and one that tends not to see much airtime in most discussions—the idea of a wizard as someone using magic on the side while they pursue other interests and occupations. This grades into broader questions of world-building, such as how many of the total population of “wizards” are the sort of non-adventuring, part-time arcanists you’re describing.


Originally Posted by Kayblis
…and after an anime arc or two they may become either great heroes or great villains.

Speaking of tongue-in-cheek meta jokes. :smalltongue:


Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry
Characters have to know about game concepts, especially spellcasters, because they have abilities that directly interact with them on both a meta and a very real, quantifiable level. Spell levels, hit dice, experience points, hit points, AC, saving throws, and more.

It’s reasonable that spellcasters would categorize their spells into “levels,” organized by power and complexity, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that they would categorize themselves into “levels,” much less conceptualize foes as fine-grained sources of power. Sure, you can design an arcane society built around these concepts, but there is absolutely no reason why individuals in any given world “have” to view that world in terms of a framework designed to facilitate action scenarios decided by dice rolls.


Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry
They gain XP from overcoming challenges (especially enemies), gain levels by acquiring it, and spend it via spellcasting and item crafting.

One setting comes to mind which is built around XP as a tangible prize, and that’s Yahzi’s World of Prime (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/222339/Heroes-of-Prime). It’s a great concept (and his campaign journal (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?544396-World-of-Prime-Campaign-Journal-1) is a ton of fun) but that’s a conscious design choice on his part. Settings like his can be deliberately meta, but that doesn’t mean that all settings will be, much less that any setting has to be.


Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry
If you have abilities that manipulate certain aspects of reality that you use often, you're going to know about those things.

A character will understand these things in the context of his or her world, specifically his or her culture and spellcasting tradition, not an artificial framework of rules written up to loosely quantify that world.

.

[Ruethgar]

If HP were actually how much damage you could take as opposed to the much more free-form inclusion of dodge/block/parry/combat endurance, I can certainly see spellcasters having a decent knowledge of levels. As it is, they probably have general ideas about it, but not exact. Sleep will work on most common smaller animals and the peasant rabble and even guards but won't work on those with more training such as the royal guard or larger animals and monsters. For some instances, they do get direct mechanical knowledge such as with the Ritual of Transference with experience points and the Mindsight feat with intelligence. But often detection magic is more vague such as with Deathwatch and similar abilities. Then again, you also have Races of the Wild's ability to determine an animal's exact stats. So all in all spellcaster knowledge of the game mechanics is inconsistent at best and should generally be assumed to be low or abstract to maintain a sense of realism IMO.

As to the original question. I was making a shadow based E6 3.P SoP&M character. I wanted to generally keep to shadow spells but still cover everything that a typical fantasy wizard in stories and such should be able to do. So Spell Dabbler and Adept, Searching Shadows for a bit of divination, Dark Whisper for communication, Night Shield for a touch of defense. Didn't really expect the answers given when I made the inquiry more general for more discussion potential rather than a direct advice post had I included the above context, but it is certainly still interesting seeing the playground's thoughts on what makes a wizard.

[el minster]

A wizard should be able to be played as a tier 3 class unfortunately you can't

[stack]

In a 3.PF framework, I think the question is "what challenges does the party arcane-role PC need to be able to cover?" From an adventure-design perspective, you assume certain abilities will be available at certain levels for the party to overcome the challenges you place before them. There is theoretically a division of labor between party members, with each covering some things and perhaps backing up on others. Now, in practice, this doesn't always work out (CoDzilla, etc.). In the theoretical setup, I would think the arcane character is expected to identify magic (events, ongoing effects, lore), be knowledgeable about creatures, and, more specific to D&D-style games, provide niche effects (handling invisible monsters, dispelling, party transportation, etc.). Sometimes AOE damage is one of these, with challenges being thrown in that amount to 'cast a fireball to clear the chaff' so everyone else can get down to the important enemies. Basically, you need to be able to do whatever the adventure expects you to be able to do that isn't sufficiently covered by other PCs.

[Kalkra]

As to the original question. I was making a shadow based E6 3.P SoP&M character. I wanted to generally keep to shadow spells but still cover everything that a typical fantasy wizard in stories and such should be able to do. So Spell Dabbler and Adept, Searching Shadows for a bit of divination, Dark Whisper for communication, Night Shield for a touch of defense. Didn't really expect the answers given when I made the inquiry more general for more discussion potential rather than a direct advice post had I included the above context, but it is certainly still interesting seeing the playground's thoughts on what makes a wizard.

If you look at traditional wizards in folklore, most of them are like Gandalf, in that they do nothing most of the time, and then occasionally they perform some god-like feat of magic. The only thing they reliably do is, as Dumbledore said in MoR, know things they have no business knowing and make cryptic comments whose true meaning will only be revealed later.


A wizard should be able to be played as a tier 3 class unfortunately you can't

You totally can. Just choose really bad spells.

Also, if you put Wizard casting into a Truenamer shell, it would be way too good.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

If you look at traditional wizards in folklore, most of them are like Gandalf, in that they do nothing most of the time, and then occasionally they perform some god-like feat of magic. The only thing they reliably do is, as Dumbledore said in MoR, know things they have no business knowing and make cryptic comments whose true meaning will only be revealed later."Godlike"? Gandalf? You do realize that lightning bolt was the highest level spell he ever cast, right?

[Kalkra]

"Godlike"? Gandalf? You do realize that lightning bolt was the highest level spell he ever cast, right?

First of all, I think that Gandalf is technically a god, and second of all, it would take at least two CL 10 castings of Lightning Bolt to kill the average balor, which the Balarog he fought may or may not have been. If you want to argue that Gandalf is only a 10th level Wizard (or Sorcerer), and that that's short of god-like, then sure. My point was just the contrast of that to everything else he does, which is mostly lighting campfires and the like.

[Ruethgar]

First of all, I think that Gandalf is technically a god.

Gandalf is basically in the class of beings with the most divinity that still walk the earth, but is not a god himself. He is in the same class of being as Sauron and has the potential to reach that same level of power, but is nearer a match for one of the dark lord's powerful minions, the Witch King, by his own admission.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

First of all, I think that Gandalf is technically a god,He is Maiar, which is more like a celestial creature that can take a humanlike form, and (in Gandalf's case) with really weak racial arcane spellcasting.


and second of all, it would take at least two CL 10 castings of Lightning Bolt to kill the average balor, which the Balarog he fought may or may not have been.You mean the thing he kept hitting with his staff and stabbing with a sword? That doesn't strike me as "godlike arcane power." It didn't strike the balrog like it, either.


If you want to argue that Gandalf is only a 10th level Wizard (or Sorcerer), and that that's short of god-like, then sure. My point was just the contrast of that to everything else he does, which is mostly lighting campfires and the like.Well, I could stab someone with a pencil, which is "godlike" compared to giving them paper-cuts, but that doesn't mean I'm "godlike" in any actual sense.

[AntiAuthority]

First of all, I think that Gandalf is technically a god, and second of all, it would take at least two CL 10 castings of Lightning Bolt to kill the average balor, which the Balarog he fought may or may not have been. If you want to argue that Gandalf is only a 10th level Wizard (or Sorcerer), and that that's short of god-like, then sure. My point was just the contrast of that to everything else he does, which is mostly lighting campfires and the like.

Now I've only seen the movies, and haven't read any of the books beyond passages and some videos covering the lore so correct me if I'm wrong... The D&D incarnations of the Balor were heavily inspired by the Balrog, they're not exactly the same thing. The Balor is probably tougher than the Balrog, and definitely has spells that the Balrog lacks.

It'd be like arguing Smaug is the same as a PF Adult Red Dragon (possibly older), when an Adult Red Dragon... They're both dragons, but they don't have the exact same abilities, as Smaug never displayed the power to turn invisible like an Adult Red Dragon.

They're not 1:1 copies or anything, just one was inspired by the other, so saying a Balor = Balrog in power (and how much power a Wizard would need to kill one translating to how much to kill the other) doesn't quite work.

That aside, what one considers god-like power is going to vary from person to person I suppose.

[Gavinfoxx]

Personally? I think a Wizard should be able to do the sorts of things Harry Dresden does.

[Quertus]

If HP were actually how much damage you could take as opposed to the much more free-form inclusion of dodge/block/parry/combat endurance, I can certainly see spellcasters having a decent knowledge of levels. As it is, they probably have general ideas about it, but not exact. Sleep

IIRC, 3e actually has a "HP bar" - a Rod which lets you measure someone's ho.


This is an interesting idea, and one that tends not to see much airtime in most discussions—the idea of a wizard as someone using magic on the side while they pursue other interests and occupations. This grades into broader questions of world-building, such as how many of the total population of “wizards” are the sort of non-adventuring, part-time arcanists you’re describing.

"Part time?! Listen, kid, I work 2 jobs, put in over 80 hours every week. I'm a full-time groundskeeper, identifying and dealing with all manner of pests and fungi, prettifing the grounds with a combination of know-how, elbow grease, and illusions. And I'm also a full-time brew master, preparing and selling those magical and alchemical concoctions used to combat the aforementioned pests and fungi. Now, is you'll excuse me, the Half-Dragon bagworms are in the rutabagas again."


It’s reasonable that spellcasters would categorize their spells into “levels,” organized by power and complexity, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that they would categorize themselves into “levels,” much less conceptualize foes as fine-grained sources of power. Sure, you can design an arcane society built around these concepts, but there is absolutely no reason why individuals in any given world “have” to view that world in terms of a framework designed to facilitate action scenarios decided by dice rolls.



One setting comes to mind which is built around XP as a tangible prize,

The aforementioned "HP bar" aside, I have to ask: have you ever had a caster try and fail to cast Wish (or similar) when they didn't have the requisite XP?

[Kelb_Panthera]

A wizard should be able to be played as a tier 3 class unfortunately you can't

Well that's just ridiculously untrue. The wizard's floor is T6 capability. It's a commoner but for bonus feats and spells. If you pick bad spells that are mostly useless in the campaign you're in, you're little more than a pompous commoner. Hitting T3 is just being a reasonably capable specialist that's decided not to specialize in transmutation or conjuration and banned one or the other of the same. T1 is a generalist that knows his spell list inside and out and leverages the most potent spells to their full potential.

Most wizard players are gonna end up playing to T3 or lower for sheer lack of ability to eke out every ounce of wizard power.


IIRC, 3e actually has a "HP bar" - a Rod which lets you measure someone's ho.

Can I get a reference for that. Could prove -really- useful with healer types.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

IIRC, 3e actually has a "HP bar" - a Rod which lets you measure someone's ho."Sir, your ho is 5' 2" tall and 230 lbs. I'd suggest you put her on a diet."

[MR_Anderson]

First thing I thought of is that they can do anything...Wish is a universal spell.


Can you elaborate on this? I agree with the sentiment, but I'd be interested in what you would expect the non-offensive, non-adventuring wizards to be doing.

I know this wasn’t tossed back to me, but so many of the wizards I play in D&D are adventures and don’t have access to Evocation. Just because a wizard isn’t a walking boom stick, doesn’t make them a non-adventuring or even a non-offensive class.

Every player can crack open the PHB the first time and cast Magic Missile, Flaming Sphere, Lightning Bolt and the like until they have to sling rocks.

However, Transmutation & Enchantment are arguably the two best schools, as it is quite literally Mind Over Matter or Me over your Mind.

All classes have their strengths, but dropping Evocation & Necromancy allows you to specialize, and there isn’t as many tricks that you can do with these two schools that you can do with other schools.

Transmutation: Rope Trick, Fly, Polymorph, Haste, and other buffs. Your party will love you for these. Sometimes the best way a wizard contributes is to place the fighter in the air all buffed up with the dragon, and if the party still fails, just delete the enemy with disintegrate, or swing away with transformation.

Enchantment: Suggestion is probably single best spell in the game, and so many no save spells. You should really think about this school more... ;)

Divination: True Strike with called shots happens at Level 1; and don’t underestimate the ability of Arcane Eye, Prying Eyes, True Seeing, or any of the straight up get an answer spells to wreck a DM’s plan and cut to the chase, not to mention detect anything.

Conjuration: If it does not move and it should...Grease it, if it moves and it should not...Web it. Unseen Servant plus Prying Eyes helps you read entire libraries in a few hours while you sleep.

Illusion: If it isn’t what you want it to be, just make it so. Mind effecting spells without all being mind effecting. Simulacrum anything nasty and it isn’t just a phantasmal killer. This is the most player skill dependent school, due to you having to use your imagination, but if you can use it well, you can abuse it. Sometimes the idea of a fireball is better than an actual fireball.

Abjuration: Come for Protection from Evil stay for Mind Blank. Seriously, this is all dispell magics and powerful protections.

Let the melee serve up the big numbers for damage, they won’t feel underpowered and you’ll save spells, which will lead to being able to handle more encounters in a day. A haste spell on multiple people is better than a lightning bolt or fireball on 1 target.

[Crichton]

True Strike with called shots happens at Level 1

3.5 doesn't have called shots. Pathfinder does, but the rules for them specifically disallow True Strike or anything like it.

[Quertus]

"Sir, your ho is 5' 2" tall and 230 lbs. I'd suggest you put her on a diet."

Ah, autocorrect, you have failed me yet again :smallamused:


.
Can I get a reference for that. Could prove -really- useful with healer types.

That was indeed its intended purpose. I'll see if I can (remember to) track it down.


-great stuff-

Thank you for that highly entertaining description of the schools of magic! I think I'll go reconsider Enchantment… :smallwink:


3.5 doesn't have called shots. Pathfinder does, but the rules for them specifically disallow True Strike or anything like it.

aww, but I like pulse laser + targeting computer called shots.

(If it actually worked, what would it let you do?)

[Kayblis]

However, Transmutation & Enchantment are arguably the two best schools, as it is quite literally Mind Over Matter or Me over your Mind.


I agree with the rest of your post, and usually Evocation is my 2nd banned school regardless of specialization(except, you know, Evoker). But I'd like to point out that Enchantment is actually pretty terrible if you're not low-level. The simple fact that most spells are Mind-affecting render them useless against a good portion of enemies, and Suggestion/Charm Person are low level enough that pretty much anyone past level 7 knows they're manipulative tricks. May depend on the world, but I'm used to see merchants actually worth a damn having guards, and having at least some precautions against "1st level wizard shmuck trying to control my mind". Same goes for mid-level NPCs and above. Those are the ones that usually trade in magic items and gems, because lv1 commoner blacksmiths don't sell +10 swords. Again, must be a world thing, because I tend to play in worlds in which players are not the only relevant casters around.

Necromancy on the other hand has some great debuffs. If you don't like using minions or evil spells at all, the school is still at least on par with Enchantment, if not better.

I do believe most wizards would be generalists, simply because it's easier to leave choices open. You have to specialize at 1st level, and I assume most wizards without Specialist masters wouldn't be willing to throw away options they don't know yet.

[MR_Anderson]

3.5 doesn't have called shots. Pathfinder does, but the rules for them specifically disallow True Strike or anything like it.

Yes it does, it just doesn’t call it “called shots”

DMG has a section called “Damage to specific areas” and there are even effects listed for damage done to certain areas.

Hitting smaller body parts is easily calculated off of the size modifier table.

Same AC with size modifier adjustment and possibly additional modifiers +/- as determined by the DM. Called shots doesn’t let you bypass AC.

Called Shot causes the same damage, as normal attack, but you can apply effects. Two shots to the eyes would blind someone, but you are attacking with a fine or diminutive modifier.

They also have called shots againt Hydras.

The called shot of instant kill is also in the game, but you need to be an assassin to use it.



Thank you for that highly entertaining description of the schools of magic! I think I'll go reconsider Enchantment… :smallwink:

Your absolutely welcome,


aww, but I like pulse laser + targeting computer called shots.

(If it actually worked, what would it let you do?)

It does work, just doesn’t automatically kill targets.


I agree with the rest of your post, and usually Evocation is my 2nd banned school regardless of specialization(except, you know, Evoker). But I'd like to point out that Enchantment is actually pretty terrible if you're not low-level. The simple fact that most spells are Mind-affecting render them useless against a good portion of enemies, and Suggestion/Charm Person are low level enough that pretty much anyone past level 7 knows they're manipulative tricks. May depend on the world, but I'm used to see merchants actually worth a damn having guards, and having at least some precautions against "1st level wizard shmuck trying to control my mind". Same goes for mid-level NPCs and above. Those are the ones that usually trade in magic items and gems, because lv1 commoner blacksmiths don't sell +10 swords. Again, must be a world thing, because I tend to play in worlds in which players are not the only relevant casters around.

Necromancy on the other hand has some great debuffs. If you don't like using minions or evil spells at all, the school is still at least on par with Enchantment, if not better.

I do believe most wizards would be generalists, simply because it's easier to leave choices open. You have to specialize at 1st level, and I assume most wizards without Specialist masters wouldn't be willing to throw away options they don't know yet.

I absolutely see your points, and for many players and campaigns what you recommend are wise choices. I am comfortable with having Enchantment for Suggestion, the Power Words, and Dance Dance Revolution spells. Charm and Sleep aren’t worth carrying, and Dominate is questionable too. The no save spells are worth having in the event you face something without mind protection.

In one of my multi-class characters that will not hit high enough to unlock the best Enchantment spells, I actually specialized and gave up Enchantment.

Most Wizards probably shouldn’t be specialists, but there are good reasons to also be one.


EDIT: I should note that we play 3.x and base most of our stuff off the 3.0 PHB and DMG. This makes the Power Word Spells not Mind-Affecting spells and thus much better. I did not realize until today that those spells had that classification applied to them, which would make all of the Enchantment school much worse.

[InvisibleBison]

Yes it does, it just doesn’t call it “called shots”

DMG has a section called “Damage to specific areas” and there are even effects listed for damage done to certain areas.

Hitting smaller body parts is easily calculated off of the size modifier table.

Same AC with size modifier adjustment and possibly additional modifiers +/- as determined by the DM. Called shots doesn’t let you bypass AC.

Called Shot causes the same damage, as normal attack, but you can apply effects. Two shots to the eyes would blind someone, but you are attacking with a fine or diminutive modifier.

They also have called shots againt Hydras.

The called shot of instant kill is also in the game, but you need to be an assassin to use it.

The fact that you have to combine a variant rule and a houserule to produce a system for called shots is pretty clear evidence that 3.5 in fact does not have rules for called shots. The fact that there are a few monsters whose body parts are specifically attackable is also evidence that there aren't called shots - if you could attack anyone's neck or tentacles, there wouldn't need to be specific rules text allowing you to attack a hydra's neck or a kraken's tentacle.

[Crichton]

Yes it does, it just doesn’t call it “called shots”

DMG has a section called “Damage to specific areas” and there are even effects listed for damage done to certain areas.

Hitting smaller body parts is easily calculated off of the size modifier table.

Same AC with size modifier adjustment and possibly additional modifiers +/- as determined by the DM. Called shots doesn’t let you bypass AC.

Called Shot causes the same damage, as normal attack, but you can apply effects. Two shots to the eyes would blind someone, but you are attacking with a fine or diminutive modifier.

They also have called shots againt Hydras.

The called shot of instant kill is also in the game, but you need to be an assassin to use it.




I assume you're referring to the 'Damage to Specific Areas' entry on page 27 in the DMG. Yeah, that's not called shots. At all.


1 - That's a VARIANT rule, so it doesn't exist in your game until the DM says you're gonna use it in your campaign

and

2 - Nowhere at all in that entire entry does it allow for a player to 'call' a shot to a specific area, or even hint that you can use that entry to do something like that. It allows the DM to enact specific consequences, in the form of penalties on actions that use a specific part of the body, if the DM decides a character has done something that would damage just that part of the body and thus hinder free usage of it.



One could, I suppose, take this VARIANT rule and use it as a foundation to make their own houserule for called shots, but it is not, in itself, such a rule, nor intended to substitute for such a rule. I stand by my statement that 3.5 doesn't include rules for called shots. Your DM is free to invent them, if so desired.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

I absolutely see your points, and for many players and campaigns what you recommend are wise choices. I am comfortable with having Enchantment for Suggestion, the Power Words, and Dance Dance Revolution spells. Charm and Sleep aren’t worth carrying, and Dominate is questionable too. The no save spells are worth having in the event you face something without mind protection.
Dominate Person is one of those spells that breaks the game so completely that you can't use it. Either your DM gives every single oppt mind-protection effects that can survive a Dispel Magic, he stops using Humanoid oppts, or else you own them. DM throws an ubercharger at you? That's your Ubercharger now. Enemy Mage's Mindblank/Protection from Evil gets Dispelled? He's your pet mage now. The fact that so many are immune to it doesn't matter, since every time it works, it's basically getting a free Cohort. And you can have several at once, because it lasts a day per level. Any 5th-level spell can win the current fight. How many can win a fight 4 days from now?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Dominate Person is one of those spells that breaks the game so completely that you can't use it. Either your DM gives every single oppt mind-protection effects that can survive a Dispel Magic, he stops using Humanoid oppts, or else you own them. DM throws an ubercharger at you? That's your Ubercharger now. Enemy Mage's Mindblank/Protection from Evil gets Dispelled? He's your pet mage now. The fact that so many are immune to it doesn't matter, since every time it works, it's basically getting a free Cohort. And you can have several at once, because it lasts a day per level. Any 5th-level spell can win the current fight. How many can win a fight 4 days from now?

It's not that simple. Some enemies have immunity, some have dispellable protection, still more simply have a solid will save and that's before you even consider allies that can break your domination, orders that give them an extra save, save replacer feats and features, etc and so on.

A good DM will let your trick work often but not always. The binary nature of the most powerful enchantment effects doesn't create an exception to this. The fact that they're so unreliable is precisely -why- players shy away from them and optimizers advise away from them but they're still quite powerful when they -do- work. They're hardly game-breaking but they do require you -think- about how to handle them from either side of the screen. It's not unreasonable to expect you can dominate a -lot- of the BBEG's minions but you probably shouldn't expect to be able to nab him or his closest lieutenants. The mayor of small-town village, sure. The king of the nation small-town village is in, probably not unless the BBEG got him first.

A GM that never lets enchantments work is no better or worse than one that always shuts down uberchargers or trippers or scry-and-die tactics. Same goes for one who always lets it work with any of these and complains about it. There's a middle ground.

At the end of the day, dominate is just a save or die with some extra features in a fight and it's no different than any other kind of minion that can be generated, afterward. The only exception is that there are so many extra ways to undo it compared to summons, called creatures, and controlled undead. You're not likely to have a called minion or controlled undead turn on you because you walked into the wrong church, for example; see (un)hallow.

[Hawk12192]

In my opinion? People generally prefer that their wizard play a support role, buffing allies and giving them the spotlight. While blaster wizards are fun, I see a lot of folks get grumpy if they are good at that + everything else a wizard can generally do.

[Gnaeus]

A wizard should be able to do a small subset of anything. There is nothing that a wizard shouldn’t be able to do. But a particular wizard shouldn’t be able to do 90 or more % of that everything. They should have a few areas in which they are very capable, and maybe a few more with low power tricks.

[MR_Anderson]

3.5 doesn't have called shots.
I will disagree and make my case below.


...'Damage to Specific Areas' entry on page 27 in the DMG. Yeah, that's not called shots. At all.

1 - That's a VARIANT rule, so it doesn't exist in your game until the DM says you're gonna use it in your campaign
Correct it is not called shots, it merely provides the first rule needed in having called shots, that being how damage or more so the effect of damage on particular parts would be reflected.


I2 - Nowhere at all in that entire entry does it allow for a player to 'call' a shot to a specific area, or even hint that you can use that entry to do something like that. It allows the DM to enact specific consequences, in the form of penalties on actions that use a specific part of the body, if the DM decides a character has done something that would damage just that part of the body and thus hinder free usage of it.

One could, I suppose, take this VARIANT rule and use it as a foundation to make their own houserule for called shots, but it is not, in itself, such a rule, nor intended to substitute for such a rule. I stand by my statement that 3.5 doesn't include rules for called shots. Your DM is free to invent them, if so desired.
&

The fact that you have to combine a variant rule and a houserule to produce a system for called shots is pretty clear evidence that 3.5 in fact does not have rules for called shots. The fact that there are a few monsters whose body parts are specifically attackable is also evidence that there aren't called shots - if you could attack anyone's neck or tentacles, there wouldn't need to be specific rules text allowing you to attack a hydra's neck or a kraken's tentacle.

We don’t need houserules to create a system for called shots, they are already in 3rd Edition Rules.

Let me paint a picture of how something could play out to help explain called attacks exist.

There’s an enemy that the 3 man party of a Fighter, a Ranger, and a Rogue is hunting down. The enemy is an escaped 3 Armed Mutant Elf in Full Plate Armor. The Elf has lost its legs to experiments performed by the necromancer he served and now instead has two magical prosthetic legs. The evil creature weilds a Medium Shield and Short Sword using his 3rd arm to express himself and wearing no helmet so he can make sure his expletives are heard.

Moving into a combat encounter the Fighter has won the initiative and steps into engage in combat with his attacks. He attempts to sunder the shield with his first attack, and then a disarm with his second attack, but both attempts fail. On his final attack he tries to trip, but finds he isn’t strong enough against those legs.

The Ranger stands prepared with his bow and notched arrow, readying a shot to shoot whatever the mutant pulls out of the bag of misfit toys to stop it from doing what it did last time.

The elf finally takes action and pulls out a magical orb out of a pack, and the Ranger’s arrow strikes true shattering the orb before he can use it.

The mutant knowing he’s been beaten turns to make his escape, departing at the fastest means possible. The Fighter seizes the opportunity, as he forgoes trying to trip again and instead strikes the creature’s leg crippling it beyond function and the elf falls to the ground.

The rogue who is a master thief empowered by his ring of haste, steps out from his hiding place behind the elf to steal the magical amulet from around the elf’s neck. Now having what they had been hired to obtain he looks at the elf’s unprotected head right below him and saps the creature without a helmet unconscious.

All of that is legal by 3rd edition rules, and each action by the party was a called shot of some kind except one.

The Sap while described against a target without protection on the head are made as normal against the AC of the target.

There are rules for striking objects. The rules are written out much better in the 3.0 PHB than the 3.5 PHB as in 3.5 they pass it quickly under sundering rules.

Now we have rules straight from the books that give a formula on how to strike anything, and it is adjusted by multiple things, of those size is one of the two main factors.

We have the following rules:

Rules for Damage to specific Body Parts
Rules for Modifying Attacks based on Size
Rules for Hitting Objects that Wielded
Rules for Hitting Objects that Carried
Rules for Hitting Objects that Worn
Rules for Calculating ACs of all types.


According to RAW you would have me believe that I can let my players make a called shot to strike a Magical Ring on an enemy’s hand, but I cannot make a called shot to strike an enemy’s actual hand which is larger let alone something larger than that?

Do you know what kind of BS erupts from players (& other DMs) that know these rules and makes logical arguments that these rules cover called shots?

We allow called shots based on these rules.

Called shots on an enemy are Normal AC + Size Modifiers, but damage is applied against total HP with damage causing effects as discussed similar to the variant.

There are no called headshots or called neck shots for instant kills, those are in game, but not as called shots, but as rolled with special items.

In summary, Called Shots are absolutely in supported by rules in the game books not house rules, and as such True Strike can be applied

If you think True Strike + Called Shot is overpowered, you clearly have never rolled a “1” on a True Strike attack.



Dominate Person is one of those spells that breaks the game so completely that you can't use it. Either your DM gives every single oppt mind-protection effects that can survive a Dispel Magic, he stops using Humanoid oppts, or else you own them. DM throws an ubercharger at you? That's your Ubercharger now. Enemy Mage's Mindblank/Protection from Evil gets Dispelled? He's your pet mage now. The fact that so many are immune to it doesn't matter, since every time it works, it's basically getting a free Cohort. And you can have several at once, because it lasts a day per level. Any 5th-level spell can win the current fight. How many can win a fight 4 days from now?

To cast 5th level spells a character is of 9th Level and has reached a point where they are what is a few levels short of a legendary renowned status. Most people will never meet someone of this stature so this is rare and there are many ways to deal with it rather than shutdown all mental attacks.

I once had a DM not allow me to take Phantasmal Killer and made it a 9th level spell because he thought it was too powerful because it could kill someone instantly.

I had less respect for the DM afterwards, because a DM unable to adapt to Player tactics is doing what he wants, not running a game for everyone, and I had a similar issue with a recent DM who just didn’t like spellcasters and we had to have an intervention because the spell casters were out powered by the magic items of the fighters.

I am sorry your DM does this, it isn’t a good sign that a DM responds this way.

[NigelWalmsley]

Dominate Person breaks the CR system. Most of the minionmancy spells do. There's simply no way to balance a campaign where a player could have forty equal-level minions, but could also have zero, and that number could change by ten or more over the course of a day. If you put a cap on it -- basically any cap, really -- it would be workable, but trying to play cat and mouse with it just doesn't hold up.


This is exactly how I’ve envisioned it, although 50% survival is generous. I imagine that out of all the hopeful young adventurers that set out each spring, maybe 10% will survive their first year, with survivorship rates slowly improving as each annual cohort dwindles in number.

Well, sure, if you assume that every adventuring party is a bunch of roughly equal level people. But the only reason that happens is genre conventions. If you were a society that lived in D&Dland, you'd send your starting adventures out with a mentor to protect them until they leveled up to the point where they got useful abilities. No reason to let the guy who will end up being able to make Decanters of Endless Water, cast Plant Growth, or do other useful stuff die because he poked an Owlbear wrong.


It’s reasonable that spellcasters would categorize their spells into “levels,” organized by power and complexity, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that they would categorize themselves into “levels,” much less conceptualize foes as fine-grained sources of power.

If you accept that people will identify spell levels, I think at least a minimal ranking falls out of that. If you can identify a difference between Web and Fireball, you can tell the difference between people who can't cast Fireball and people who can. That's not as precise as level, but it's fairly close.

[Quertus]

To cast 5th level spells a character is of 9th Level and has reached a point where they are what is a few levels short of a legendary renowned status. Most people will never meet someone of this stature so this is rare and there are many ways to deal with it rather than shutdown all mental attacks.

I once had a DM not allow me to take Phantasmal Killer and made it a 9th level spell because he thought it was too powerful because it could kill someone instantly.

I had less respect for the DM afterwards, because a DM unable to adapt to Player tactics is doing what he wants, not running a game for everyone, and I had a similar issue with a recent DM who just didn’t like spellcasters and we had to have an intervention because the spell casters were out powered by the magic items of the fighters.

I am sorry your DM does this, it isn’t a good sign that a DM responds this way.

Ouch. Sorry. Are your stories posted anywhere? Sounds like there'd be some lessons there worth passing along.

[InvisibleBison]

According to RAW you would have me believe that I can let my players make a called shot to strike a Magical Ring on an enemy’s hand, but I cannot make a called shot to strike an enemy’s actual hand which is larger let alone something larger than that?

Yes, that is absolutely correct. If you think I'm wrong, please provide a citation for the actual rules that let someone attack a part of an opponent's body. Not the optional variant rules for what would happen if such an attack was made, and not the rules for attacking an object the same size as a body part, but the actual rules for doing the thing you say that the rules allow you to do.

[MR_Anderson]

Dominate Person breaks the CR system. Most of the minionmancy spells do. There's simply no way to balance a campaign where a player could have forty equal-level minions, but could also have zero, and that number could change by ten or more over the course of a day. If you put a cap on it -- basically any cap, really -- it would be workable, but trying to play cat and mouse with it just doesn't hold up.
Where is someone finding so many equal or higher level characters to take control of?

Is there no one missing these people, whether it be loving family or the dark forces of evil that want to keep things a secret, sooner or later the person dominating others will leave a trail of things that aren’t right even if they let these people return into their lives as though nothing has happened.

What type of logistics does it take to feed these people if he is keeping them close to him? Is the Wizard working in conjunction with clerics who freely work with him?

A player that is continuing to dominate more and more people is not good aligned, or is barely hanging onto CG if dominating evil. Good people would want to bring forth evil to be judged fairly (CG possibly being the exception for the good ends).

Thus this borders on actions of evil, and while it doesn’t have to be evil, as it could be neutral forces, Good forces are going to believe it to be evil and they’ll start raising a coalition.

Was someone dominated a Cleric or other follower/servant of a religious order? Is the cleric still receiving powers from the god, or does the god shut it off? Does the god not know what is going on? This would also apply to Rangers & Paladins. You don’t mess with the followers of gods unless you are backed by a bigger one.

The general rule is that there will always be someone or something bigger and more powerful, and doing things that draw attention to yourself are not a good idea in a realm that you don’t control, especially if you are a player.

Dominate has a strong effect, but really only between the levels of 9-14, and only if some 3rd level caster did craft a Protection from alignments (Evil/Law/Chaos) item like a robe, cape, or headband.

It’s not like Spell level 1 x Caster level 1 x 2,000gp x Continuous modifier of 2 is an expensive craft. Almost every party should have people in their party protected by such mind protection, and if it costs so little, a majority of mid/high-level NPCs should have such an item.

Last but not least, Dominate is still a spell that allows a save and can be resisted if the person isn’t protected or immune.


Ouch. Sorry. Are your stories posted anywhere? Sounds like there'd be some lessons there worth passing along.
Thanks for taking interest. I’ve lurked on these pages for years and only recently made an account to contribute back into the community here. I’ve played for 35 years.

Lots of people have many lessons worth passing on to others. I just try to share my experience when I see a place where what I’ve witnessed may be of assistance to people. Sometimes it helps, sometimes times it doesn’t. Sometimes people like it, sometimes people reject it. Either way I just try to share where I think it fits.


Yes, that is absolutely correct. If you think I'm wrong, please provide a citation for the actual rules that let someone attack a part of an opponent's body. Not the optional variant rules for what would happen if such an attack was made, and not the rules for attacking an object the same size as a body part, but the actual rules for doing the thing you say that the rules allow you to do.
Actually, unless you can show specifically where called shots are not allowed, the rules are on the side of allowing them.



FINAL NOTE
The power of creating worlds, controlling deities and dragons, and leading entire nations is in your hands. You are the master of the game—the rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately, the fun. This is a great deal of power, and you must use it wisely. This book shows you how.
-Page 4

In your role as Dungeon Master, you’re the focus of the game. If the game’s fun, it will be to your credit. If it’s a failure, you’ll get the blame, whether it’s deserved or not. Don’t worry, though—running a D&D game is not as hard as it may seem at first. (But don’t tell the players that!)
-Page 5

ADJUDICATING
When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you’re in charge. That doesn’t mean you can tell people what to do out- side the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you’re the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechan- ics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don’t rebel (more on that later).

To carry out this responsibility, you need to know the rules. You’re not required to memorize the rulebooks, but you should have a clear idea of what’s in them, so that when a situation comes up that requires a ruling, you know where to reference the proper rule in the book.

Often a situation will arise that isn’t explicitly covered by the rules. In such a situation, you need to provide guidance as to how it should be resolved. When you come upon a situation that the rules don’t seem to cover, consider the following courses of action.
• Look to any similar situation that is covered in a rulebook. Try to extrapolate from what you see presented there and apply it to the current circumstance.
-Page 6
In following the DMG I have extrapolated from the existing rules the means for called shots on body parts, because there is little to no difference in striking the magic ring on a targets hand or actually striking a hand in a called shot.

There is a reason that most people reference the size modifiers for called shots, and it is because they are used when making other called shots in the game.

As to how the damage is applied or effects the target, you can make up whatever rule you want since the only rule you are hanging your objections on is the variant rule of damage, as all the others are actual rules.

If you want to argue your stance you would now be arguing that there are indeed called shots, but there isn’t any rule for special damages. I would defer back to the quoted sections of the DMG and start the process for special damage, but that is a different discussion.

Fact Remains: Called Shots are supported and you can combine it with True Strike as a Wizard at level 1.

[NigelWalmsley]

Where is someone finding so many equal or higher level characters to take control of?

I mean if you want to declare that your game doesn't contain any 10th level characters, that also seems like warping it around a single spell.


What type of logistics does it take to feed these people if he is keeping them close to him? Is the Wizard working in conjunction with clerics who freely work with him?

Well I would imagine you could Dominate whoever it is that makes trail rations, or just have some of your Dominated Clerics cast Create Food and Water.


Thus this borders on actions of evil, and while it doesn’t have to be evil, as it could be neutral forces, Good forces are going to believe it to be evil and they’ll start raising a coalition.

Trying to solve the problem of a character being too powerful this way doesn't work. Either the forces that oppose them can be defeated, and you're rewarding their actions with additional gold and XP, or they can't and you're better off talking to them OOC.


It’s not like Spell level 1 x Caster level 1 x 2,000gp x Continuous modifier of 2 is an expensive craft. Almost every party should have people in their party protected by such mind protection, and if it costs so little, a majority of mid/high-level NPCs should have such an item.

It's not like you can only Dominate people in combat time. You could just knock people out, take off their magic items, then cast Dominate. The fact that you might sometimes be able to do it in combat is an upside if anything. After all, no one considers Planar Binding worthless because you need to do it in downtime.


Last but not least, Dominate is still a spell that allows a save and can be resisted if the person isn’t protected or immune.

Yeah, but iterative probability will get you eventually. Once you've got your target captive, you can just hit them until they fail.

[InvisibleBison]

Actually, unless you can show specifically where called shots are not allowed, the rules are on the side of allowing them.


In following the DMG I have extrapolated from the existing rules the means for called shots on body parts, because there is little to no difference in striking the magic ring on a targets hand or actually striking a hand in a called shot.

There is a reason that most people reference the size modifiers for called shots, and it is because they are used when making other called shots in the game.

As to how the damage is applied or effects the target, you can make up whatever rule you want since the only rule you are hanging your objections on is the variant rule of damage, as all the others are actual rules.

If you want to argue your stance you would now be arguing that there are indeed called shots, but there isn’t any rule for special damages. I would defer back to the quoted sections of the DMG and start the process for special damage, but that is a different discussion.

Fact Remains: Called Shots are supported and you can combine it with True Strike as a Wizard at level 1.

The DM has the authority to create rules for called shots, yes. But that doesn't mean that called shots exist by RAW. And in internet discussions it's important to understand what is and isn't RAW, because that's the only common basis for discussion.

[Asmotherion]

Everything. What changes is the amount of effort you need to put for it.

If you're refearing to the archetypical idea of "what a Wizard does", it changes between subclasses. I expect other things from an Abjurer than what I expect from a Necromancer. for example.

In general fantasy, I believe the conjurer sums up the Idea of the generalist "wizard". Can shoot energy blasts, control the battlefield with massive AoEs and conjuring Walls out of thin air, summon creatures under his control and teleport arround.

[Beowulf DW]

Everything. What changes is the amount of effort you need to put for it.

If you're referring to the archetypical idea of "what a Wizard does", it changes between subclasses. I expect other things from an Abjurer than what I expect from a Necromancer. for example.

In general fantasy, I believe the conjurer sums up the Idea of the generalist "wizard". Can shoot energy blasts, control the battlefield with massive AoEs and conjuring Walls out of thin air, summon creatures under his control and teleport around.

There's a lot of variation in "general fantasy," though. In books set in D&D and Pathfinder settings, for instance, wizards are going to approximate what we see in those respective games. In LotR, wizards are far more subtle; the most we see from Gandalf is setting pine cones on fire and bolstering his allies. In the Inheritance Cycle, magic is theoretically capable of anything, limited only by the user's imagination and the power available. Again, quite a bit of variance, but all potentially quite powerful in their own ways and in their own settings.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Beowulf DW
In LotR, wizards are far more subtle; the most we see from Gandalf is setting pine cones on fire and bolstering his allies.

I agree with your broader point about the variation in power among fantasy books. But to be fair to Gandalf, he also turns away several Nazgul on winged mounts, and in the original books he was the one who drowned all Nine in the river on Rivendell's border. Raising a river to a roaring flood is something most D&D wizards probably couldn't do.

And he also fights the balrog for three days straight and smites its ruin on the mountainside, so not always that subtle.

[MR_Anderson]

I mean if you want to declare that your game doesn't contain any 10th level characters, that also seems like warping it around a single spell.

I never said that, I’m saying they become less and less common.

Well I would imagine you could Dominate whoever it is that makes trail rations, or just have some of your Dominated Clerics cast Create Food and Water.

Dominated Clerics have a tendency to bring attention to gods what you are doing, not a good idea if you want to keep doing it.

Trying to solve the problem of a character being too powerful this way doesn't work. Either the forces that oppose them can be defeated, and you're rewarding their actions with additional gold and XP, or they can't and you're better off talking to them OOC.

Coalition forces could be a hired group of adventures with the skills needed to take out such an individual.

It's not like you can only Dominate people in combat time. You could just knock people out, take off their magic items, then cast Dominate. The fact that you might sometimes be able to do it in combat is an upside if anything. After all, no one considers Planar Binding worthless because you need to do it in downtime.

If you’ve already knocked them out, they’ve already been defeated.

Yeah, but iterative probability will get you eventually. Once you've got your target captive, you can just hit them until they fail.

We’re talking about a Player abusing a single spell over and over, especially one straight out of the PHB.

It is no different than if Arcane Eye ruins all dungeon craws.

The problem that you speak of and every way to continue it is a failure of the DM. The DM needs to grow a spine and control the world. Certain actions bring about certain reactions, and it teaches players that they can be the next XP and Loot for another adventuring group.


The DM has the authority to create rules for called shots, yes. But that doesn't mean that called shots exist by RAW. And in internet discussions it's important to understand what is and isn't RAW, because that's the only common basis for discussion.

As stated above:

RAW cover many different types of called shots.
RAW have the necessary modifiers to calculate called shots.
RAW do not explicitly cover all called shots
RAW do not make called shots against the rules.
Therefore RAW don’t cover this and it requires DM to extrapolate the rules for the situation.


You don’t have to agree with me, but like in other situations not explicitly covered, the RAW provide the framework needed in a called shot situation.

Most groups I know of allow called shots to some degree under the same rule extrapolation I mentioned. Where they differ is how damage is applied.

In all fairness, I did have one DM who did not allow them, but he was also the same DM that made Phantasmal Killer a level 9 spell, and killed the party with the PC of an individual that didn’t come to a game session, so he was pretty much a horrible DM.

True Strike + Called Shot happens on many tables, and it isn’t overpowering, because of the number “1” on the dice roll.

[FaerieGodfather]

A wizard should be able to do a small subset of anything. There is nothing that a wizard shouldn’t be able to do. But a particular wizard shouldn’t be able to do 90 or more % of that everything. They should have a few areas in which they are very capable, and maybe a few more with low power tricks.

Basically this...I don't have any problem with the Wizard spell list, except some spells let casters do certain things too well, and I think Wizards should generally be able to do anything on the Wizard and/or Witch spell lists.

Just that any given individual spellcaster shouldn't be able to do much more than half of those things, or should have to make a serious tradeoff between power and versatility. Something like a Pathfinder Arcanist but it specializes in two schools, has to hard ban three schools, and can use Exploits to make prohibited spells soft banned instead.

[Beowulf DW]

I agree with your broader point about the variation in power among fantasy books. But to be fair to Gandalf, he also turns away several Nazgul on winged mounts, and in the original books he was the one who drowned all Nine in the river on Rivendell's border. Raising a river to a roaring flood is something most D&D wizards probably couldn't do.

And he also fights the balrog for three days straight and smites its ruin on the mountainside, so not always that subtle.

In the books, the Nazgul fled because their captain wasn't there to fight Mithrandir; he didn't smite them with lightning or anything over the top like that. And the river was enchanted to rise at Elrond's command, not Gandalf's. Gandalf just added the bit with the water turning to horses.

And the Balrog smote the mountainside in his ruin in the books, Gandalf didn't describe himself as doing any smiting. Additionally, while the fight with the Balrog is impressive, it was still mostly a physical battle on Gandalf's part, as he relied on his own power and nature as a Maiar to combat the Balrog. Again, very impressive, but no outright spells being cast. Also, I'm pretty sure that the Silmarillion has explicitly non-wizard characters taking on a few Balrogs at once and winning in just the span of a few hours. Given, those were legendary elf lords arguably as powerful as some Maiar, but I still think it's a decent reference point.

[hamishspence]

Also, I'm pretty sure that the Silmarillion has explicitly non-wizard characters taking on a few Balrogs at once and winning in just the span of a few hours.

Feanor was attacked by multiple Balrogs and didn't die instantly - but he didn't win either - he took enough damage that, very shortly after being rescued, he died. There's no hint that he killed any of them.

Similarly - Fingon fought Gothmog for a while - then another Balrog attacked him from behind during the fight, and he died.

Balrog vs Elf-lord one-on-one tends to result in mutual kill at best (Gothmog vs Ecthelion, unnamed Balrog vs Glorfindel).

Interesting fact - the total number of Balrogs in Morgoth's service was revised, from over a thousand in early sources, to "at most 7" in later ones:


There came wolves, and wolfriders, and there came Balrogs a thousand, and there came worms and drakes, and Glaurung, Father of Dragons. War of the Jewels, The Grey Annals - Year 472 ~230


The idea that Morgoth disposed of a 'host' of Balrogs endured long, but in a late note my father said that only very few ever existed - 'at most seven'. Book of Lost Tales, Tome 2, The Fall of Gondolin

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Beowulf DW
And the river was enchanted to rise at Elrond's command, not Gandalf's. Gandalf just added the bit with the water turning to horses.

Fair catch; that's what I get for not checking the original text beforehand.

But as for balrogs, given what we see of others who fight them in single combat, I'd say the overall point is still valid--that Gandalf is capable of much more than pine cones and supporting allies.

.

[Beowulf DW]

Feanor was attacked by multiple Balrogs and didn't die instantly - but he didn't win either - he took enough damage that, very shortly after being rescued, he died. There's no hint that he killed any of them.

Similarly - Fingon fought Gothmog for a while - then another Balrog attacked him from behind during the fight, and he died.

Balrog vs Elf-lord one-on-one tends to result in mutual kill at best (Gothmog vs Ecthelion, unnamed Balrog vs Glorfindel).

Interesting fact - the total number of Balrogs in Morgoth's service was revised, from over a thousand in early sources, to "at most 7" in later ones:


There came wolves, and wolfriders, and there came Balrogs a thousand, and there came worms and drakes, and Glaurung, Father of Dragons. War of the Jewels, The Grey Annals - Year 472 ~230


The idea that Morgoth disposed of a 'host' of Balrogs endured long, but in a late note my father said that only very few ever existed - 'at most seven'. Book of Lost Tales, Tome 2, The Fall of Gondolin

Ah, thank you. Been a while since I read it, and I can't find my copy anymore.

[Xar Zarath]

Well, I guess its up to the situation the Wizard find themselves in. If they come up with a locked door, they may just chuck a fireball at it, only later maybe deciding that a spell to open locked door or locked object may be more useful eg Knock.

but the must have must be lore related, divinations and perhaps universal spells. Wizard at least commonly in fiction is the wise old sage, not the travelling hero, the mentor and teacher, not the dashing hero. I say commonly, but its not always so.

A Wizard who has the right spell for any situation would be interesting if the situation they find themselves in can constantly challenge and make it seem like they are truly in danger. but then again maybe not

[InvisibleBison]

Additionally, while the fight with the Balrog is impressive, it was still mostly a physical battle on Gandalf's part, as he relied on his own power and nature as a Maiar to combat the Balrog. Again, very impressive, but no outright spells being cast.

I don't think that's correct. Gandalf describes the battle thusly:


Those that looked up from afar thought that the mountain was crowned with storm. Thunder they heard, and lightning, they said, smote upon Celebdil, and leaped back broken into tongues of fire.

The fire is the work of the Balrog, but from whence came the lightning? I'd say it was Gandalf's doing. Look at the section where the Fellowship is attacked by wargs:


High in the air [Gandalf] tossed the blazing brand. It flared with a sudden white radiance like lighting; and his voice rolled like thunder.

Thus, Gandalf's battle magic can produce something that looks like lightning, and the battle on Celebdil involved something that looks like lighting, so it seems reasonable to say that Gandalf was using some battle magic during the battle on Celebdil.

[Beowulf DW]

I don't think that's correct. Gandalf describes the battle thusly:



The fire is the work of the Balrog, but from whence came the lightning? I'd say it was Gandalf's doing. Look at the section where the Fellowship is attacked by wargs:



Thus, Gandalf's battle magic can produce something that looks like lightning, and the battle on Celebdil involved something that looks like lighting, so it seems reasonable to say that Gandalf was using some battle magic during the battle on Celebdil.

Ah, I had forgotten those. Yes, you're right. I concede that Gandalf was indeed capable of quite spectacular fetes, when the situation called for it. Still, he rarely escalated things to that point at the drop of a hat, which is a level of restraint I don't often see from wizards in most games. So...Gandalf was being the "Batman Wizard," or the Enabler Wizard, I guess?

[Doctor Despair]

In my opinion? People generally prefer that their wizard play a support role, buffing allies and giving them the spotlight. While blaster wizards are fun, I see a lot of folks get grumpy if they are good at that + everything else a wizard can generally do.

In general, I absolutely agree with your assessment. A full-progression wizard can obviate the need for non-caster party members with sufficient optimization, but while that's interesting to consider from the outside, as the non-caster party member, it feels pretty bad to have the wizard be better at your thing than you. A generalist, support-style wizard that answers the problems the party can't answer, provides BFC, buffs, and status-curing is something I aspire to when I bring a caster to the table. I suppose that's one way of saying a wizard should be able to do those things, even while they are able to do everything after a certain point as designed in 3.5