Help me describe... the 3e Wizard (and friends)

[Quertus]

In another thread (link?), I tried to find a way to describe the 3e Wizard 20 in a system-agnostic way. Here's what I came up with:

Spoiler: 3e Wizard

Show

• theoretically finite battery, but able to travel to places where time runs differently or travel through time to (usually) mitigate this drawback.
• theoretically finite dwoemer duration, but able to ignore this limitation (for personal spells) by various shenanigans.
• theoretically disruptable, hazardous, and/or costly casting, but all able to be ignored, by various shenanigans.
• Mix of resistable and irresistible spells.
• Mix of "measurable effect" and "infinite effect" / "just works" spells (ie, Wall of Force has infinite damage absorbtion)
• Mix of direct effect spells, and spells that are sufficiently indirect to bypass "immunity to magic".
• Finite number of spells known; even more finite number of spells able to be cast at a given moment (the latter largely mitigated by Divinations and various time shenanigans, to within the limits of the former).
• Mix of defined (published) and "GM Fiat" (researched) spells.
• Plot armor to take around 20+ times the beating of a normal human.
• GM Fiat ability to understand the universe.
• Reliant on particular planar geography; without that, any (published) travel- and summoning-based spells do not function.
• Reliant on existence of magic. Limited ability to ignore certain very specific types of disruptions to this requirement.
• Not reliant on a particular body, but reliant on certain general properties (such as ability to vocalize particular sounds) for some spells (which may be mitigated by Wizards with the correct training / who spent build resources to do so).
• Able to take "interrupt" actions, sometimes even when unaware of the situation.
• Rarely will the average human get the drop on them (never with shenanigans) or best them on the draw (never with GM Fiat & shenanigans?)
• Able to act numerous times / many times faster than a normal human (with pursuant drawbacks, mitigated by shenanigans).
• Able to stop time for a GM Fiat amount of time.
• Able to change self or others into numerous creatures, subject to limitations and GM Fiat, sometimes with special abilities included.
• Able to kill the average human... how many times over?
• Able to not selectively kill the average human in huge areas outside cities (subject to the existence of a city?)
• And to control the actions of nearly any sentient creature (resistable, free resist attempt by GM Fiat on each action, noticeable) for days at a time.
• Able to rewrite the memories and personality of nearly any sentient creature (resistable, noticeable)
• Able to travel instantly through space, time, and "planes" (all subject to planar geography, except time travel).
• Able to create minions, mostly subject to GM Fiat.
• Immune to physical harm (albeit shenanigans)
• Able to cast GM Fiat magic within their usual range of capabilities (costly, mitigated by shenanigans)
• Able to cast GM Fiat magic outside their usual range of capabilities (costly, mitigated by shenanigans, and dangerous, by GM Fiat)
• Able to cast their spells / take their actions through the safety of a proxy (subject to planar geography).
• Able to permanently destroy own ability to cast spells.

Yeah, it's just an incomplete alpha.

I'm wondering if there's an existing "language"/format/whatever commonly used to describe things in a system-agnostic manner.

Or, failing that, if any Playgrounders want to take a stab at helping me make this more approachable. And more complete.

Because I'd love to be able to do this for characters in arbitrary systems, to better facilitate discussing them - both comparing them, and explaining them to people unfamiliar with the source system.

[Phhase]

What are you trying to achieve here, exactly?

I've always liked the analogy of "Spell guns" and "spell bullets". Guns can accept a minimum caliber size or larger. Guns are prepared spells, bullets are spell slots. If that helps.

[Quertus]

What are you trying to achieve here, exactly?

I've always liked the analogy of "Spell guns" and "spell bullets". Guns can accept a minimum caliber size or larger. Guns are prepared spells, bullets are spell slots. If that helps.

Well, many things. But, easiest to focus on, I think, is explaining things to someone who shuts down when you start throwing around a lot of system-specific jargon.

I think the "guns" analogy... Hmmm... I think I'd say that they have just so many clips (spell levels) of different sizes (# spells that they can memorize), and a finite number of molds with which to make bullets (spells known). And a magic gun (themselves) that can pick which bullet to fire.

But I'm also aiming for a much more detailed description than that.

[comk59]

Well, many things. But, easiest to focus on, I think, is explaining things to someone who shuts down when you start throwing around a lot of system-specific jargon.

I think the "guns" analogy... Hmmm... I think I'd say that they have just so many clips (spell levels) of different sizes (# spells that they can memorize), and a finite number of molds with which to make bullets (spells known). And a magic gun (themselves) that can pick which bullet to fire.

But I'm also aiming for a much more detailed description than that.

I'll be honest, the jargon that you're using seems even more confusing than D&Disms.

[Quertus]

I'll be honest, the jargon that you're using seems even more confusing than D&Disms.

True. But that is because... Hmmm... There is a lot of information that we sneak in with those "D&Disms", that we don't have to explain to those familiar with the hobby. And that's part of what I'm trying to avoid.

In other words, a correct implementation of this task will inherently appear more complex that using D&Disms, because such a solution will have unpacked words like "spell" and "cast" into a breakdown of their mechanics.

[Thinker]

True. But that is because... Hmmm... There is a lot of information that we sneak in with those "D&Disms", that we don't have to explain to those familiar with the hobby. And that's part of what I'm trying to avoid.

In other words, a correct implementation of this task will inherently appear more complex that using D&Disms, because such a solution will have unpacked words like "spell" and "cast" into a breakdown of their mechanics.

Are you trying to explain this to a non-Gamer? If so, you will probably want to ditch any explanation of specific system-mechanics. If not, many people in the hobby will understand most of the concepts on their own.

For something basic and easily understood, I'd suggest something like this:

A wizard is a profession where members of the profession learn to wield magic. In this context, magic alter reality to do anything from create projectiles of pure energy to transforming people and objects to even altering the flow of time. One of their main weaknesses is that they can only cast a limited number of spells without a long period of rest. Wizards divide themselves into 20 levels of prowess, with level 20 wizards being the most powerful. At this point, they are nigh-omnipotent and nigh-omniscient. Their magical training and scholarship has led them to unlock fantastic abilities such as perfect foresight, the ability to experience time either faster or slower than everyone else, create or summon allies nearly as strong as themselves, transform into other any other creature, and essentially break the universe. They can even circumvent the main weakness of their profession by changing the rules about their rest period.

[Spore]

What your spoiler contains and looks like to a system agnostic player is:

"Twenty ways how your wizard character can and will ruin the game."

If you want to explain the class, you go like this:

"The 3e D&D wizard is a bit different than other magic users. You do not have a unified source of magic that you can pull your spells freely from. You have to decide at the start of the day which spells you want to use and how often. While this makes the game a bit more complicated, it encourages planning and lets highly situational spells that are often neglected in other games shine. Imagine a siege on a city and you don't have ammunition for your siege weapons. The wizard can create some, not only that, they can enchant it to be magical or flaming or whatever.

Over the decades the game has attracted a gigantic amount of source books to pick spells from but a wizard is still viable with basic spells. Make sure to ask your DM first because some can and will ruin the games, because they are either breaking the immersion or are just instant wins throwing all challenge and tension aside. If your group allows for heavy scouting and later magical scouting (idk if scry is a word you'd use in casual conversation) so you know what the enemy has in store for you, the wizard is a very good pick. Just keep in mind to stay within the game's limits, your DM's sanity will thank you for it."

If they want a more in depth explanation of D&D magic, I always refer to D&D spells as "cheat codes for the universe" or "universal equations that explain the universe that are so powerful they change after you use them so you cannot use a spell twice and have to figure out the new equation after your rest."

[Willie the Duck]

Given the specific things mentioned in the OP, I am going to assume what the OP was being asked to explain was something along the lines of, 'what is the deal with the 3e wizard and why is it the ur-example of cheeze?'

Well, many things. But, easiest to focus on, I think, is explaining things to someone who shuts down when you start throwing around a lot of system-specific jargon.

The way I always put it is roughly thus:
"In all editions of D&D, magic (and spells in particular) are exception-based snippets of rules text that state roughly 'regardless of how things normally work, this is what happens when this spell is cast,' 3e wizards are basically launching platforms for expendable instances of those effects (so, limited ammunition or the like) , having virtually nothing else going on, and in compensation, get the best access to those snippets. In theory, this should be balanced with other classes which gain (to the other extreme) no access to those rules-exceptions snippets, but instead continuous access to really good implementations of the normal ruleset (such as a knight in shining armor who is really good with weapons and armor, or skillful characters who can run, jump, hide, deceive, or know the right thing at the right time; or classes which are a mixture of the two extremes. The problem are that 1) the rule system seemingly colluded to make the fighting and skillful abilities (and the classes which get strong access to them as their primary benefits) as constrained as possible (never missing an opportunity to add a complicating factor-- like making having to move while swordfighting reducing your sword-swinging frequency, a limitation that spellcasters do not share), 2) a lot of the limitations of the wizard class are entirely too easy to circumvent, and 3) the ability to mix and match those spell-rules-snippets in limitless combinations makes the potential for a whole greater than the parts through various (honestly, usually fairly obvious) combinations."

[Quertus]

Dang. Y'all are right - I'm coming at this backwards.

This makes my head hurt.

OK, I'll need to adjust my thinking (if I can) to get to a "correct" answer. But, until I can get there, let me quibble a bit, describing how to get y'all closer to a correct answer.

One key quibble is that the D&D Wizard does not alter reality. This is very important when distinguishing him from other styles of magic that actually do alter reality.

Second, the description should have layers. I'm stating the lower level details. Bad me! Yes, those matter for certain purposes for which I'm making this, but I'm losing the forest for the trees. I need to describe the forest in such a way that discussion of the trees flows naturally from that, not just start in on the trees, and hope that the reader will see the forest for themselves.

So, I need to find a way to break it down, such that all of my information is captured for those who need it, but where it opens with a higher-level summary for those who only need that.

[Thinker]

One key quibble is that the D&D Wizard does not alter reality. This is very important when distinguishing him from other styles of magic that actually do alter reality.

Outside of system-specific details, what is the functional difference between what a wizard does and altering reality?

[Man_Over_Game]

Outside of system-specific details, what is the functional difference between what a wizard does and altering reality?

One affects a single object or event, the other changes everything and regularly impacts other players.

I might not want to play with a reality-altering mage, as it means that the actions that I take may become useless on a whim. Sure, I just killed that guy, but then my friend just rewinds time so all my work was pointless. Sure, I can move really fast, but what's that compared to the wizard that can stop time itself? Ironically, this happens a lot in the actual game.

Compared to a mage who can cause a blade to catch on fire, or be able to cause a cluster of enemies to be lifted into the air, or being able to create a force field, and there is quite a bit of difference.

One works with others, and one doesn't.