Wizards are kind of boring

Wizards are kind of boring.

Sure, you can do a lot of cool things with them, but that's kind of the problem. Most other classes or archetypes have some strong distinguishing features or defining traits that give them an identity along with implicit strengths and weaknesses. Even other flavours of magic users with stronger themes have this kind of thing built in.

Wizards? It's just 'dudes who do magic'. In a setting with lots of people who use magic running around, it doesn't really carry much weight. Yes the whole intellectual and academic side is a factor, but that rarely seems to have a real impact on anything, just a bit of thematic flavouring or fluff skill bonuses.

I think this is part of why generic magic users, when they occur, often create problems in RPG systems. Because of the lack of limitations in their identity, a Wizards scope of capabilities is roughly 'do everything', which honestly makes them much less interesting as an archetype.

What are some interesting ways you could better define wizards, that would limit their capabilities but strengthen their themes, giving them a stronger and more consistent mechanical identity alongside other iconic fantasy archetypes?

I thought about dividing the D&D magic classes roughly by school. Warlocks would specialise in conjuration and necromancy, trafficking with demons and spirits. Bards would get illusion and enchantment. Wizards would be themed on Hermetic alchemists with a focus on transmutation with evocation as a side dish (representing the physical/material side of magic). I would keep divination and abjuration, along with healing, as specialities of divine magic.

Like I said, it would be more rough then absolute. Some schools would spill over. You could probably cut it up differently but if you think in those terms it gives you a general basis for what each class can do.

In the Burning Wheel Codex, there's an essay on the subject of magical characters which talks about this sort of thing. It's worth a read in full but one of the basic points made is three important concepts:
>The Other
The magic user is acknowledged by the community they're a part of but are also seen as separate from it. This can manifest as a different set of social norms for/for interacting with mages if not outright hatred or fear. This is essentially just a function of power, or more specifically poorly understood power; sure just because the man at the edge of the village helps make it rain sometimes for the crops doesn't necessarily mean he could also set you on fire, but do you really want to risk it?
>The Mistake
When people screw up there are consequences. When mages screw up those consequences are much worse. Rituals, spells or summonings going wrong can have as big of an effect as when they work, there's not a middle ground, you're a savior or a destroyer.
>The Forbidden
This is the idea of places, ideas, actions, or items which are considered taboo by the community but are also useful as a means of magical power or knowledge. Generally, these things are treated as taboos for a reason, baseless superstitions come under the first point, this point is for when some books really shouldn't ever be read.

You don't need all three of these obviously, but they're three ways of making the use of magic interesting in terms of how characters act about it.

It should be noted for clarity that 'community' in this context is a group of people with whom the mage has relationships to and interacts with regularly. If you're in an adventuring party then they're part of your community, the villages you pass through probably aren't.

Some systems include or disclude option here by the mechanics obviously, D&D makes it hard to really implement points 2 or 3 for example since magic in D&D carries little risk or cost.

Make magic less of a "do everything" tool and more of a dangerous, mysterious force like it's supposed to be.

The trouble there is that, while that works well in books, it's less ideal in an RPG. You can do it to an extent, like the 40k RPGs, but if you go too far you make it an option your players will never want to touch, which makes the idea of playing a magic user kind of pointless.

I agree that a sense of danger and mystery is something magic should have, but RPG's also require a degree of reliability just for practicality.

First, it is completely doable in RPGs. There are plenty of games out there that do exactly that. Magic is crazy and dangerous, and you shouldn't fuck around with it, but the archetype that does fuck around with it is interesting and fun to play.
Second, there's absolutely nothing wrong with keeping magic out of the hands of the players.

Can you point me to one? Because every example I've seen has kind of half arsed it. IMO necessarily, since not doing so just makes it a non-factor.

And while what you say is true, that doesn't help if you want to include player magic as an option.

The full essay for anyone curious

Dungeon Crawl Classics has a great system for magic that you can easily slot into a D&D game.

Could you go into how it works a little?

Anything like that would be an improvement over the D&D default.

This doesn't actually help OPs question at all, though.

It's not about the nature of magic in general, it's about wizards in specific, and how they don't really have an identity beyond 'do magic'. Changing how magic works doesn't really change that.

It's a vancian system just like you're familiar with, but a little different. Wizards still have to prepare spells, but they aren't automatically lost when they're cast. See, they have to roll to cast shit. If they botch it, they could lose the spell, and if they REALLY botch it, then something bad might happen. Mutations, wild magic, etc. But if they roll high, then the spell has different and better effects. Your basic Sleep spell might make one dude fall asleep for a few rounds at low level, but the same spell might make everything within a few miles fall asleep for a hundred years once you're higher level and can make the higher rolls. There's also the spellburn mechanic, where you can lower your ability scores to influence your roll, mercurial magic which makes spells act different depending on who is using them, and rules for spell duels. Seriously, just read the book, it'll explain things better than I ever could.

>Changing how magic works doesn't really change that.

It does though. If combat is uninteresting, then the guy who does combat is going to be uninteresting, no matter how many archetypes or specializations you try to give him.

While that's true, even with the best combat system, a generic dude who just hits things isn't going to be that interesting.

Likewise, even with a really cool magic system, the generic wizard archetype will still be lacking a real identity in itself.

False.

And your evidence or argument?

The fact that if the core concept is interesting then anything deeply involved with that core concept will also be interesting.

And that's relevant how, exactly? The whole point is that a wizard doesn't have anything to it other than 'do magic' and mild academic flavouring.

Making magic more interesting is great. But it doesn't mean the archetype isn't lacking in definition compared to other themes of magic user, who all benefit from a more interesting magic system in exactly the same way, or even more so in how it interacts with their already present themes and elements.

My games put a lot of focus on the academic factor of wizards. Arcane institutions are the only locations where wizards are able to progress and acquire knowledge without endangering themselves through pilfering ruins. If they gain scrolls without looting them during adventures, it's almost definitely through various magical universities. If they want access to more esoteric artifacts, they require higher prestige among their colleagues that practice the arcane arts. A lot of being a wizard is comparing notes, attending and hosting lectures, kissing ass in exchange for scraps of knowledge from your superiors and going through all of the hoops and hurdles of academia in order to be a truly powerful wizard. If anything, the adventuring is usually just a means to an end used to advance one's position in the character's chosen college or university.

I'm not going to argue with you if you're just going to willfully miss the point. The guy who does magic will be interesting if the magic system he's interacting with is interesting.

The Wizard isn't the only guy who does magic, and all of the other guys who do are already interesting. How does improving the magic system change this dynamic?

>The Wizard isn't the only guy who does magic
He is though. At least, he's the only one where magic is his entire gimmick.

And that's the problem

No it's not. I don't know how many times I can say it. If magic is interesting, the guy who does magic will be interesting.

And yet they will still be less interesting than every other magic user, who not only has the same interesting magic, but also has their own theme, unique capabilities and interactions that give them a strong identity.

I think that's the point the others are getting at. The Wizard should have something going on in addition to magic to make it more interesting.

Also, what does the Sorcerer have going on besides magic? I know nothing about the class and always just assumed they were charisma wizards.

Sorcerers can be just as bad if done wrong, but they have more to work with. The idea of magical bloodlines and carrying the traits of one magical creature or another, with those manifesting in various ways, gives you a good place to start for adding some fun extra stuff to a magic user.

I really miss the 5e playtest sorceror. They were such a cool take on the concept.

>who not only has the same interesting magic
False.
Sorcerers have draconic/demonic/fae bloodlines going on.

Why is it false? You've provided no evidence or argument as to why wizards benefit more from an interesting magic system than anyone else who interacts with it.

>>who not only has the same interesting magic
>False.
Literally what are you on about? Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and Sorcerers all cast spells in the same way. They all have magic that functions identically, but the non-wizards have additional things on top of that.

Your statement is just wrong. The other classes don't have the same magic, plain and simple. I also like how I'm the only one presenting evidence for my claims while you continue to just sit back and refuse to read anything. How about you provide some evidence for your claim? Why aren't wizards interesting?

What the fuck are you talking about?

>Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and Sorcerers all cast spells in the same way.
No they don't.

Oh, so you're going to feign ignorance instead of answering anything. Good to know that we're officially done here.

This is going to become a 4e vs all other editions of D&D thread again, isn't it?

Explain the difference that doesn't exist

In the context of the OPs question, Wizards aren't really better off in 4e than anywhere else. Their spell list is still overly broad and unfocused, and they lack a real identity in how they work.

>I also like how I'm the only one presenting evidence for my claims
You haven't presented a single goddamn shred of evidence. You've just said "no" and "false" over and over again.

>Wizards? It's just 'dudes who do magic'.
Shit, dude, even in blandest edition wizards get a few unique mechanics and a niche. What trash are you playing?

Can you describe that niche? I've played and looked at most of the famous ones, and they always seem really weak compared to other flavours of magic user, IMO because the themes of the archetype itself are very broad and vague.

They're the only caster (in 5e, as said) that's a scholarly, studied sort. Mechanically, this means they're the only Int casters (and so the only class likely to have high Int), and their reliance on a spell book. Their use of a spell book does offer the advantage that they can use any ritual they have copied in it, while other casters need to prepare it, and they're able to learn more spells than their normal progression, while classes like Bard are stuck with the default number no matter what.

Basically, they're lore-hogs and ritualists.

You weren't using "wizard" to refer to literally any spellcaster in fiction, were you, user?

The flavor of a spellbook that contains the sum of all of their knowledge, an arcane assistant that takes the form of an animal, of acquiring their knowledge through hard word and study at a magical university, of increasing their power by learning an ever increasing amount of spells and of being capable of both a ridiculous degree of specialization in the forms of school and a ridiculous degree of versatility in the form of the infinite spells that their spellbooks can contain.

That's bullshit because it's exactly that, an RPG. If your RPG group is making their character choices based more on the crunch than the fluff than your group a shit and the necessary drawbacks for magic are working as intended.

I never knew there was so much diversity between all of the spellcasting classes!

Nope. Crunch and fluff are connected and should be considered together, not as if they're somehow disconnected.

Even then, fluffwise it makes sense too. If you want magic to be an element of a setting that is actually used and has a place, then it requires a base level of reliability and practical function, or nobody but crazy fuckers off in the woods would ever touch it.

This really does nail down the issue. The other class features all have some interesting theme and flavour. In that respect, the wizard is fucking barren.

And that's a good start, but it rarely seems to actually be that important or add much to the character beyond 'do more magic' or 'do this kind of magic a bit better'

'Smart guy who learns magic' is so broad as to lack any real definition in itself.

You have just proven that we can state as many things that make the wizard unique as we like and you will boil it down to its most base level, as if that proves you right.

If a wizard is just a smart guy who learns magic, a fighter is just a strong guy who hits people, a paladin is just a holy guy who hits people, a rogue is just a sneaky guy who hits people and a ranger is just a hippy guy who hits people. A bard is a musical guy who learns magic, a cleric is a holy guy who learns magic, a druid is a hippy guy who learns magic and so on.

The difference is that other fantasy archetypes add depth and other elements, although I'd agree that Fighter is just as weak in most cases.

Generic fightguy and generic magicguy are both dull and require more work, but it's a bit easier to fix Fighters than it is to fix Wizards in my experience.

No, it's just that you don't acknowledge spellbook management unavailable of other classes or specialized schools of magic unavailable to other classes as a form of depth unique to wizards.

It's also how the Wizard is the only class capable of learning every single spell in the game.

That's kind of the problem, yes. Restrictions are what make things interesting.

In some cases, possibly, but that's not how the D&D Wizard works. He seeks out knowledge of magic, so it makes sense that he has access to greater amounts of it.

Well I'd say the incredible amount of study required to even begin on the path of a wizard is pretty significant. A wizard is a nobody who's not as strong as the warrior, not as nimble or quick witted as the thief archetype, not as charismatic or persuasive as the bard archetype and most of all not as naturally gifted as the sorcerer. All they have is an autistic interest in the arcane and spend every waking moment either studying or being reminded that they're not as good as others.

I believe OP's been stumped or something.

Was actually just having some food.

Also realising at this point it's a case of agreeing to disagree. The magic user who magics and learns to learn more magic is dull as dishwater to me, and I think restricting and narrowing their focus would improve the archetype immensely, as well as make them easier to design for. Clearly, others disagree.

Did you forget how you can pick which Arcane College you can join? Y'know, one for each type of magic accessible to magic-wielders?

Also just the Elven Bladesingers who are a Wizard subclass?

That kinda leads into one of the first suggestions in the thread though, that you only make them interesting when you force them to specialise. It's an option, but I was pondering whether there was anything that could be done with the idea of the generalist wizard to make them actually interesting.

A generalist wizard can certainly be interesting. Lots of famous people in real life were generalist scholars. Isaac Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci, and lots of other famous smart people were just generally smart and researched a lot of things. Polymath is a role for a reason.

A generalist wizard, as they are flavored in something like DnD, should be like that. They have an intense desire to learn all kinds of magic, and so players should be playing that. If they aren't, that's a player problem.

Players can easily make Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers, or other casting archetypal roles boring if they don't add some personality to their character.

A Druid is just someone who can't wear metal and likes nature. No more interesting than someone who likes books and magic and is smart. If a character doesn't have a personality, then that is the player's fault.

A druid still has more implicit theme than a wizard though. Their powers and how they function fluffily gives you a place to start in giving them interesting mechanics and a fun playstyle for the class.

The wizards only thing is versatility, which ends up designwise making the class an overly broad mess. The ability to do everything isn't interesting.

Change wizard to be a blanket term for a broad range of spellcasters instead of the D&D bullshit where it's all one class that can do almost everything magical.
An illusionist, enchanted, and necromancer are all wizards, but a illusionist cannot learn enchantments and necromancy for example.
Wizards are only boring because wizards have too many options so they can always choose the optimal spells for a given situation.

How is "polymath" not an implicit theme? Wizards are required to be incredibly intelligent in most games that have a "wizard" archetype for players, meaning that implicitly a wizard is meant to be a smart, inquisitive researcher.

I can play a Druid just like a wizard, there's nothing that mechanically separates their casting from a Wizard (save for things in DnD that have component differences). And if you ignore wizard schools in DnD, then you have to ignore Domains for Druids, leaving the two classes as pretty similar save the Druid's animal is better at fighting and the wizard's animal is smarter.

Are scientists in the real world not an interesting concept? Someone that devotes their life to studying how reality works? In most fantasy games, that person gets powers from their inquisitive nature, rather than just a PhD and published articles like in the real world.

I do agree the versatility makes the class too broad. I don't think someone that wants to learn to do everything is boring, that's something most humans would love to be able to do, but I do agree for mechanics and balance that can be a problem.

The Thassilonian Schools of Magic in Pathfinder are like this. It's a cool idea. Two opposed schools of magic you can't cast, but you cast your chosen skill better than even normal wizards that specialize in that school but not the Thassilonian version.

Basically this. If Wizards take up too much of the design space, then break them up. Don't give them "all the magic," don't let them be the class that has "all the magic". Simple as that.

None of this "magic is wacky" bullshit; that's an excuse for the DM to fuck players if they get uppity.

The main schtick of Wizards and magic users in general is how fragile but dangerous they are.

They are easily killed and near useless at the beginning of their career but if they are lucky they attain power.
Lots of power.

Wizards "do magic" the same way Fighters "do martial arts".
You have different people who specialise in different things, in the case of a Wizard one might spend his life dedicated to the arts of necromancy or Conjuration.
The reason they can do it all is so players don't sperg out about being too restricted so it is an example of "fun > fluff".

I like how Elona handled "Wish" in that even a great caster would struggle to cast it due to how world shatteringly powerful it is.

I agree at high levels it seems Wizards do everything, because they are meant to have mastered their art.
They can attain the power to permanently change something's form and literally wish things into existence so of course they are going to be able to do a lot.
The problem is that nowadays DMs are scared to kill characters or actually make the campaigns lethal.
In 1 edition and 2 edition, getting to a high level as a Wizard was an accomplishment since you died to an Orc's sneeze.

Early on in the adventure you are very much grounded into the mortal realm.
Weapons are normal weapons, fighters are powerful, you wouldn't dream of fighting a dragon or lich and your Wizards were academics not mortal gods.

But later on it takes a turn into the metaphysical and magical.
Weapons are enchanted, fighters NEED magic enchanted items and buffs to survive, you will have killed a lich (maybe) or a dragon and your Wizards are in their prime (if they survived).

The problem isn't Wizards, the problem is the lack of difficulty and DMs placating retards who can't stand their waifus or self-inserts to die.

Because GMs are 100% universally (the only time I'll ever make such a claim) shit at making that flavor matter mechanically.

>Oh you levelled up
>Yeah this population 13 hamlet has a Magic College that's perfectly willing to let you copy every new spell for free
>Spell book limits? That's just pointless bookkeeping, go ahead and put down whatever you want

>Veeky Forums why are wizards so overpowered

Make spellbooks matter. Make learning spells matter. Make "they're the guys who have to actually study and learn magic" more than a single line of flavor text compared to pages and pages of spells and rules.