Should Wizards have good Will saves?

[Quertus]

Now, I’m not talking “casters”, so no Cleric, Druid, or Psion.

I’m not talking derivative classes, so no War Mage or Beguiler.

I’m just asking about Wizards… and maybe Sorcerers.

IMO, Wizards are just, “I went to school, and learned how to program the universe”.

Sorcerers are “I won the generic lottery, and am therefore better than you”.

Neither of these sound to me like recipes for strong-willed individuals. Rather the opposite, in fact.

Now, “all bad saves” sounds pretty terrible from a Gamist PoV, so (if you agree with me so far), would it match the fiction / the Simulation to say that Wizards have good knowledge of spells, and get some bonus vs spells (for the sake of argument, say, +4 to saving throws vs spells)?

Does your vision of what a “Wizard” is match mine, as expressed by these mechanics? Or do you see Wizards (specifically D&D Wizards) differently?

[Maat Mons]

If the extensive mental training necessary to learn magic doesn't help develop a strong mind, then what does?

[Jervis]

Will saves are tied more to mental power than willpower specifically. It’s why trained soldiers like fighters don’t have good Will. I also like to think of it like magic repels magic so if you can use magic you’re better at saving against supernatural magical whachamagigs.

[Ramza00]

Yes for Wizards in the stories the original D&D was based off from, were silly like that. :smalltongue:

Jack Vance Vanican Wizards, Michael Moorcock, etc, etc.

Of course you can change it if you want too. After all D&D was originally a game you besieged a castle and since you were always going underground to get the treasure (under the castle's walls) it evolved to be a Dungeons game.

I assume the quote below is accurate.


Co-creator of D&D, Gary Gygax, explained Vance's enormous influence on D&D in "Jack Vance & the D&D Game":
When I began to add elements of fantasy to medieval miniatures wargames around 1969, of course the work of Jack Vance influenced what I did. Along with Robert E. Howard, de Camp & Pratt, A. Merritt. Michael Moorcock, Roger Zelazny, Poul Anderson, J.R.R. Tolkien, P.J. Farmer, Bram Stoker—and not a few others, including the fairy tales Brothers Grimm and Andrew Lang, and conventional mythologies—his writing was there in my memory. Happily so. What I devised was based on the fantastic creations of many previous writers, an amalgam of their imaginations and my own, and it was first published in 1971 as the CHAINMAIL Medieval Miniatures Rules, the “Fantasy Supplement” thereto. Not much later, in 1972, I wrote the first draft of what was later to become the first commercial Role-Playing Game, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, published in January, 1974.

[loky1109]

IMO, Wizards are just, “I went to school, and learned how to program the universe”.
I think you are wrong. Magic and for example biology aren't the same. Practical magic is about changing world with your own will. Wizards aren't just know things, they train minds to do impossible with it.

Same about sorcs. Yes, they have a gift, but there is abyss between having and using.

[Fizban]

Wizards usually don't have good Will saves- Wisdom is one of their least needed stats and they think their "high" base will protect them, so they end up with middling Will saves at best. Same for Sorcerers.


Now, I’m not talking “casters”, so no Cleric, Druid, or Psion.
Nothing in particular makes these classes "high willpower" either really. Anyone can be described as either a pushover or an unstoppable titan of will, regardless of their numbers, due to their player's choices or the DM's fiat.


IMO, Wizards are just, “I went to school, and learned how to program the universe”.
"I got another wizard to let me look over their shoulder for a few years in exchange for being their slave," or possibly "I stole and read a book."

Sorcerers are “I won the generic lottery, and am therefore better than you”.
When mechanically the only thing preventing anyone becoming a Sorcerer is Cha 11, the actual limiting factor is "I won whatever lottery allows someone to gain a PC class and had slightly above average Charisma," or roughly 50% of those people if they so chose (instead of being evenly divided between the core classes).


Neither of these sound to me like recipes for strong-willed individuals. Rather the opposite, in fact.
Personally I think the biggest problem is the term "Will," because it's ridiculously vague and can mean all sorts of things depending on context. Mind or mental would be better, until you run into Will save effects that aren't really those either. Unfortunately the term is too deeply ingrained to remove, and splitting it quickly leads to the 5e problem of 6 or more different "saves."

The other half of that problem is defining "Charisma," because the grasping rambling list of attempted synonyms and definitions, they failed to find one that actually stood on its own without bleeding into other named stuff (the word they needed was "assertiveness".) So there are tons of things describing Charisma and Charisma related mechanics as "force of will" and "willpower" etc.


Now, “all bad saves” sounds pretty terrible from a Gamist PoV, so (if you agree with me so far), would it match the fiction / the Simulation to say that Wizards have good knowledge of spells, and get some bonus vs spells (for the sake of argument, say, +4 to saving throws vs spells)?
So now they're good at resisting spell-specific Poison and Fireballs in exchange for being weaker to Supernatural Will effects?

There are three saves: tough, fast, and thinky- and thinky is only thinky because tough and fast are already taken. Each class should be good at at least one, because being bad at all of them is wholly unheroic, and you need a couple people good at each of them to have a good chance that they won't all fail on the same roll. The variety in needed ability scores also means that this is not a binary switch, with each class/character having both its base saves and its most likely ability scores, such that the true "high" Will save classes are Clr/Drd and Monk, while Sor/Wiz but also Pal/Rgr are middling. Wiz vs Rgr at 1st, likely +2 vs +1-2, at 10th +7 vs +5, at 20th +12 vs +8. The Wiz goes higher over time, but only by so much because the Rgr wants at least 14 for their spells (and a Paladin has +Cha to all their saves!). And then there's the actual low classes which have the low save and no need for Wisdom.

Sor/Wiz are not tough, they're not fast, which means they're thinky. Clr/Drd are thinky, and they've been given tough because they're the ones who are supposed to fix it when other people fail to be tough. You could call the third save anything besides tough or fast, building the rest of the content with your chosen word in mind, but the word they chose here was "Will."

It's not perfect, but it's about as well split as you can make it without falling apart.

[Kurald Galain]

IMO, Wizards are just, “I went to school, and learned how to program the universe”.
Seriously, have you seen what those "schools" look like in common fiction? It's either an intense university program, or a harsh and demanding private teacher in his wizard tower, and in both cases the program is likely to be outright lethal to some of the students. Yes, giving wizards a good will save is entirely appropriate.

Sorcerers, it's more likely genetic: you have strong will because your ancestor was a dragon; seems legit. Although if playing PF, it should really depend on your bloodline.

[Melcar]

Now, I’m not talking “casters”, so no Cleric, Druid, or Psion.

I’m not talking derivative classes, so no War Mage or Beguiler.

I’m just asking about Wizards… and maybe Sorcerers.

IMO, Wizards are just, “I went to school, and learned how to program the universe”.

Sorcerers are “I won the generic lottery, and am therefore better than you”.

Neither of these sound to me like recipes for strong-willed individuals. Rather the opposite, in fact.

Now, “all bad saves” sounds pretty terrible from a Gamist PoV, so (if you agree with me so far), would it match the fiction / the Simulation to say that Wizards have good knowledge of spells, and get some bonus vs spells (for the sake of argument, say, +4 to saving throws vs spells)?

Does your vision of what a “Wizard” is match mine, as expressed by these mechanics? Or do you see Wizards (specifically D&D Wizards) differently?

The large amount of strenuous mental training and acrobatics one does as part of learning to cast magic, surely strengthens one mind and its it’s ability to not be controlled or duped by others…

The mind is like a muscle, the more you use it, the stronger it gets… hence the good will save!

[Asmotherion]

If the extensive mental training necessary to learn magic doesn't help develop a strong mind, then what does?
That exactly.

Casting spells is not "I'm gonna do this mumbo jumbo and something will come out of it" rather than a multitude of trials and errors until something happens. This process needs the willpower to keep trying until you succeed. It can take months, even years 'till something comes out of your experimenting with the weave.

[Telonius]

It's easier to find a class that has a good will save than a bad one.

From this (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=8914.0) breakdown, here are the (non-variant) base classes that get Bad Will saves (not counting Paragons):
Barbarian, Battledancer, Commoner, Crusader, Factotum, Fighter, Mariner, Mountebank, Ninja, Paladin, Psychic Rogue, Psychic Warrior, Ranger, Rogue, CW Samurai, Scout, Soulborn, Swashbuckler, Totemist, Warblade, Warrior.

(Interesting to me: five of those 21 are PHB base classes, and two of them are NPCs; so a full third of the Bad Will Save classes are in core).

The common thread through these is engaging in melee or ranged combat; the focus is on training and using the body, not the mind. Yes, the two Psychic classes are in there, but they're Psychic Lite compared to a Psion or a Wilder.

Going through the list of Good Will Saves, the only ones that leap out to me as melee-centric are Knight, Monk, and Swordsage; and the fluff are either about carrying on even past the point of death (for Knight), or honing your skills with mystic-ish stuff (Monk and Swordsage). Plus the Gish-In-A-Can classes that combine melee with magic (like Duskblade or Hexblade).

[Arcanist]

If the extensive mental training necessary to learn magic doesn't help develop a strong mind, then what does?

I believe it depends entirely on the setting really. In a setting where magic is essentially commercialized such as Eberron? I can't imagine an NPC class like the Adept and the Magewright actually warranting the good Will Save (which they have). They aren't doing anything that requires trial and error, they aren't undergoing intensive training to learn the secrets of any magic that they don't need to fulfill their job.

Not all magic in such a setting IS groundbreaking, or requiring of any stronger will than it takes to learn any other trade.

[Elves]

I've come to think base save bonuses are unnecessary. Mostly because they're redundant with what you want high ability scores in anyway. (The classes that get good Reflex are usually the ones that are supposed to have a high Dexterity anyway, and the classes that get good Fortitude are the ones that are presumed to want a high Con.)

In 3e, the basic DC math is 10 + 1/2 HD + ability modifier. Good saves scale at 1/2 HD +2, so they stay ahead of the HD scaling of DCs. Bad saves scale at 1/3 HD, so they lag behind the DC.* What if we removed the HD scaling and base saves and just made DCs be 10 + ability modifier?
(This is similar to a popular 4e houserule, which is to remove the 1/2 level bonus that applies to most things in that edition.)

Sure, some classes are no longer inherently better at some saves than others. If the class is supposed to be good at something, it should incentivize members to have a high score in that ability. If a class is focused on ranged attacks members will have high Dex and thus good Reflex. You can go further: maybe frontliners get doubled bonus HP from Constitution, which rewards them for having a high Con and also results in a high Fortitude save (this is a good change on another level: currently, frontliners are supposed to want high Con but their high base hp actually make Con increases less proportionally significant). Monks apply Wisdom to AC. Maybe rangers add Wis to favored enemy. And so on.

The other advantage is this makes characters less SAD. Instead of automatically getting a reasonable Will save, a wizard needs to put points in Wisdom if they want that. Although this could be better if you have saves tied to all abilities like in 5e.


*Then you get to load up on various bonuses to skew saves in your favor. You can also increase DCs but this tends to be costlier (eg, feats instead of items). This favors PCs because they get more save-increasing spells and items than monsters or NPCs. (There's a misconception that 3e is balanced on PCs having magic items. It's more accurate to say that due to its system of design parity between PCs and monsters, it uses magic items/wealth as a way to give the PCs a leg up against same-level opponents. It's not PC+WBL=NPC, it's PC=NPC and PC+WBL>NPC. [There's the issue that some classes, like fighter, can't access level-appropriate capabilities like flight without the help of magic items, but that's its own problem]).

PS. If we're talking about the base math of the game, it's notable that unlike DCs and saves, which both scale with HD, attack bonuses scale with HD (via BAB) but AC doesn't. Instead, BAB is opposed by armor and natural armor. It's kind of messed up and probably doesn't work very well. It means high-level monsters need arbitrarily big natural armor bonuses (leaving them vulnerable to touch attacks), while high-level PCs can't get a competitive AC without lots of optimization.

[SangoProduction]

That exactly.

Casting spells is not "I'm gonna do this mumbo jumbo and something will come out of it" rather than a multitude of trials and errors until something happens. This process needs the willpower to keep trying until you succeed. It can take months, even years 'till something comes out of your experimenting with the weave.

And then suddenly the barbarian decides he'll read a book for once in his life after killing 268 goblinoids, and realizes he really does just have a knack for this "book stuff."

[Kurald Galain]

I've come to think base save bonuses are unnecessary. Mostly because they're redundant with what you want high ability scores in anyway.That's probably incorrect, considering we're in a thread talking about wizards (with usually low wis) having "fast-growing" will saves.

Likewise, caster-based clerics don't particularly need a high con, but have a fast-growing fort save anyway; and dex-based melee characters are a viable build but they largely don't get fast-growing reflex saves. In other words, classes are more diverse than you seem to assume.

[Elves]

That's probably incorrect, considering we're in a thread talking about wizards (with usually low wis) having "fast-growing" will saves.

Likewise, caster-based clerics don't particularly need a high con, but have a fast-growing fort save anyway

The biggest exceptions, which you note, are extremely SAD (and powerful) classes. I would see it as a plus to a) nerf them and b) give them a reason to invest in a non-primary stat.

[Maat Mons]

Ability scores are indeed redundant with base saves. That could be seen as an argument for getting rid of one of them. But I think it would make more sense to get rid of ability scores than base saves.

Ability scores are redundant with everything. And they don't even adhere to any consistent definition of what the ability scores represent. I mean, what ability score represents your ability to accurately place a hit with a melee weapon? It could be Strength, or Dexterity if you have Weapon Finesse and are wielding a compatible weapon. It could be Charisma if you have Snowflake Wardance, Wisdom if you have Intuitive Attack, or Intelligence if you're a Factotum. It could even be Constitution if you're a Mineral Warrior.

Ability scores aren't really a mechanism for customizing your character either. You pick your class or classes. Then you assign your ability scores in the way mandated by those classes. Playing a physically weak Barbarian, a clumsy Rogue, or a dumb Wizard aren't real options. If you want ability scores to serve as a way to differentiate two characters of the same class, you'd need to set it up such that there's no single score that each class absolutely needs, and many that provide compelling enough benefits to seriously consider forgoing others.

Since the abundance of stat-switching abilities has eroded any meaning ability scores once had, and ability score assignments have always mostly been dictated by class anyway, we might as well get rid of the whole mess, and just let your class dictate what you're good at, as it already mostly does anyway.

[pabelfly]

Ability scores aren't really a mechanism for customizing your character either. You pick your class or classes. Then you assign your ability scores in the way mandated by those classes. Playing a physically weak Barbarian, a clumsy Rogue, or a dumb Wizard aren't real options. If you want ability scores to serve as a way to differentiate two characters of the same class, you'd need to set it up such that there's no single score that each class absolutely needs, and many that provide compelling enough benefits to seriously consider forgoing others.

I think there's more variety than what you claim. In fact, most classes usually have compelling enough benefits for many stats to seriously consider forgoing other stats, like what you want.

A STR-based Barbarian is likely, but a dex-based Barbarian can work too. Quite besides that, a Barbarian decides their armor type and the level of dex investment, trading away CON or other stats for it. INT and WIS are stats that are also worth considering: bonus skill points or an improved Will save are always appreciated.

Rogue is more MAD than Barbarian: DEX is necessary for both archery and TWF, CON helps with saves and health, WIS helps with saves and skill checks and CHA is helpful if they want to play a face or use UMD, both of which are legitimate and good options for a rogue to take.

Even a relatively SAD class like Wizard has options after pumping their INT. They want DEX for AC, Initiative and improved accuracy with touch attacks, CON boosts their HP and Fort saves, boosting their Will save is never not appreciated, and if you want to use UMD, some investment in Charisma is helpful too.

Some classes have much more variety in how stats can be reasonably invested, sure, but I think all classes still need to make tough choices with limited resources, be they point buy amount or rolled stats.

[Kurald Galain]

Since the abundance of stat-switching abilities has eroded any meaning ability scores once had,
That sounds like a good reason to ban most stat-switching abilities. There's a few of them that make sense (and should be allowed), and a lot of them that don't. Ability scores are plenty meaningful in PF and in 5E, both of which have far fewer stat-switchers than 3E does.

[Elves]

Ability scores are indeed redundant with base saves. That could be seen as an argument for getting rid of one of them. But I think it would make more sense to get rid of ability scores than base saves.

In addition to what you say, I would phrase the problem like this: as an element of character building, choosing whether to get +1 to this or to that (which is all ability scores do) isn’t an exciting decision.

The current ability system, even in 4e and 5e, basically amounts to whether you want +1 in this or that secondary attribute — +1 skill point or +1 Will, +1 Reflex/init/ac or +1 hp/Fort. When the game was simpler these might have been meaningful choices, but we’re way past the point where they cease to be interesting choices, or even significant ones to your power level. An interesting choice is between two tactical or gameplay abilities. A choice relating to your base stats should be one that changes them by a large enough amount to change how you play.

Ability scores do remain useful for assigning stats to monsters, in part because monsters can see the sort of BIG stat variances that PCs don’t, resulting in meaningful differences. You’d have to create a replacement system (type chassis alone would be far too broad of a brush). I can see a 4e style role system (brute, lurker, etc) which modified the typical type chassis (for example a fey brute would have the traits of the fey type but a barbarian-like statistical chassis).

[SangoProduction]

In addition to what you say, I would phrase the problem like this: as an element of character building, choosing whether to get +1 to this or to that (which is all ability scores do) isn’t an exciting decision.

The current ability system, even in 4e and 5e, basically amounts to whether you want +1 in this or that secondary attribute — +1 skill point or +1 Will, +1 Reflex/init/ac or +1 hp/Fort. When the game was simpler these might have been meaningful choices, but we’re way past the point where they cease to be interesting choices, or even significant ones to your power level. An interesting choice is between two tactical or gameplay abilities. A choice relating to your base stats should be one that changes them by a large enough amount to change how you play.

Ability scores do remain useful for assigning stats to monsters, in part because monsters can see the sort of BIG stat variances that PCs don’t, resulting in meaningful differences. You’d have to create a replacement system (type chassis alone would be far too broad of a brush). I can see a 4e style role system (brute, lurker, etc) which modified the typical type chassis (for example a fey brute would have the traits of the fey type but a barbarian-like statistical chassis).

Quite the convincing argument for rolling stats.

[Elves]

Quite the convincing argument for rolling stats.
When you're allocating the rolled stats it's the same question. Put the 11 and 13 in Con or Dex, etc

[Kurald Galain]

When you're allocating the rolled stats it's the same question. Put the 11 and 13 in Con or Dex, etc
But perhaps you've rolled an 8 and a 14.

Allocating ability scores is not the most exciting thing ever, but at least (1) it impacts roleplaying and (2) it doesn't take long. Frankly I could think of worse elements of the game.

[Tzardok]

I agree. I remember rolling an unusually low stat for my one-shot character, decided to dump charisma and was inspired to play a really ugly and unpleasant kobold. That was fun, and it would've propably not happened if we had used point-buy.

[Thunder999]

Wizards literally hold all their prepared spells in their heads ready to go, something which definitely takes the sort of mental discipline that would give good will saves.

[Elves]

But perhaps you've rolled an 8 and a 14.

Allocating ability scores is not the most exciting thing ever, but at least (1) it impacts roleplaying and (2) it doesn't take long. Frankly I could think of worse elements of the game.
Perhaps you buy an 8 and a 14? I'm not seeing the difference.

[SangoProduction]

Perhaps you buy an 8 and a 14? I'm not seeing the difference.

The statement was in response to you saying that you're just allocating a "+1 to this and that." And he was pointing out that even the most moderate of variance is greater than that at a 4-bonus swing.
Of course, because many people hate low stats, the variance is reduced by newer, more upper-weighted rolls, but even on rerolling 1s, you can get as low as 6 and as high as 18.

[Elves]

But the rolling method is intentionally designed to minimize variance, so clearly that’s not what it promotes. The scores get put through three filters to create a strong bell curve: rolling with multiple dice instead of one, discarding the lowest roll, and then allocating your highest result to your main stat and the lowest to your dump stat, meaning that the 4 rolls remaining will usually be in a similar range.

PB’s bell curve is more rigid, but both systems are doing the same thing. And PB’s
more rigid curve is necessary because it means all PCs are on even footing. Even if you think rolling fixes the problems with ability scores — I don’t think it does — you’re sacrificing fundamental game structure in order to do that, so it’s not a solid solution.

[rel]

I'm for this change.
But I'm also for giving anything that doesn't cast spells all good saves so I might be biased.

[Pinkie Pyro]

Wizards have to have good mental discipline to be able to learn magic in the first place, so they should have good will saves.

Sorcerers *shouldn't* have good will saves, but fort saves, but will saves should be based off CHA anyway, as that represents your force of personality and how well you'd resist outside mental influences.