Spellbook, memorized spells... tell me how you justify playing a mage.
Deefje
Member Posts: 110
I was wondering. The way D&D(at least in videogames) handles the mage (and cleric) class has always stumped me. That's why I always only play Sorcerers and Favored souls.
I just can't get over the idea of a Mage being:
#1 completely reliant on their spellbook to 'remember' spells every day
#2 when using a 'memorized' spell, they forget it?
I can understand the sorcerer, being able to learn a couple of spells but not too many and being able to dish out so many spells a day because they 'run out of energy'. I consider Sorcerers not to have too many different kind of spells because they have to be used perfectly to get a desired result and learning too many will soften the edge of others.
On the other hand, I can't imagine why a mage would wake up in the morning and remember 2 magic missile spells and an armor spell and forget them when they're cast. Then when in a sticky situation can't cast a third magic missile because 'oh shucks, I forgot those other two, can only cast an armor spell'
Also would the scenario be, that if the mage left his spellbook in his other pants, he couldn't memorize new spells over night?
Anyhow other people must have thought about this issue and have justified it in some awesome way.
So please, give me a cool interpretation so I can finally go through the game as a cheesy Fighter/Mage and not feel like 'meh this doesn't feel right' after an hour.
I just can't get over the idea of a Mage being:
#1 completely reliant on their spellbook to 'remember' spells every day
#2 when using a 'memorized' spell, they forget it?
I can understand the sorcerer, being able to learn a couple of spells but not too many and being able to dish out so many spells a day because they 'run out of energy'. I consider Sorcerers not to have too many different kind of spells because they have to be used perfectly to get a desired result and learning too many will soften the edge of others.
On the other hand, I can't imagine why a mage would wake up in the morning and remember 2 magic missile spells and an armor spell and forget them when they're cast. Then when in a sticky situation can't cast a third magic missile because 'oh shucks, I forgot those other two, can only cast an armor spell'
Also would the scenario be, that if the mage left his spellbook in his other pants, he couldn't memorize new spells over night?
Anyhow other people must have thought about this issue and have justified it in some awesome way.
So please, give me a cool interpretation so I can finally go through the game as a cheesy Fighter/Mage and not feel like 'meh this doesn't feel right' after an hour.
0
Comments
Why don't I prepare more in the first place? I'm not a high enough level for my tiny mind to compute casting 3 MMs!
Yeah, good luck with that.
I guess it makes more sense if you think of a wizard "loading his wand" or something.
Part of the underlying explanation has to do with how wizards (as opposed to sorcerers) of most mortal races don't have any actual innate talent for magic, but rather tap into it by achieving a logical understanding of it.
@Shin dude, you don't just link to tvtropes without a warning! People could lose days in there!
That's what I was looking for.
Anyhow I read this while googleing the issue and sniffed some forum posts. From a certain guy called Zeran. I don't know if that's a 100% accurate and I know it'll never be implemented in the game, though it still soothes my mind.
"How can a thief hide in shadows when there are none?
Maybe s/he doesn't actually hide, perhaps a thief is able to exist on multiple planes. S/he's is never in the one place and so cannot be fully seen. Unfortunately s/he can't keep this up for ever and those with exceptional perception can see a thief in more than one plane."
I think OP is perfectly entitled to ask the question. Just because something is set in a fantasy realm, doesn't mean it isn't nice for it to 'make sense'. I get pretty frustrated with lazy logic in games/movies/TV where somehow the heroes just 'find a way' because they are the heroes... like the Harry Potter series got annoying when JK Rowling introduced time travel, prophecies and new spells that changed the rules of the game at will, how Harry keeps beating the bad guy cos of lucky flukes, and cos his parents loved him. Cos u know... all the other victims of Voldemorte didn't have loving parents to inadvertently cast the most powerful protective magic on them... 'love'!
Anyway basically, even in a fantasy setting, I want my world and its stories to make sense and be believable.
In this specific case. I am not a PnP D&D player, so I don't know the background that well, and I have wondered about the magic system, and prefer the lore for sorcerers. I just choose to ignore the literal description of mages, and I guess interpret my understanding of Faerun based on the limited information I get from the BG games and whatever extra reading I've done. In a way, I guess we all create our own unique versions of these fantasy worlds whenever we play these games, which is why some people love righteous paladins, and others love devious thieves.
.... (gameplay mechanics speak) ....
Ultimately, it is daily spell memorization that is most important. Every day, the Mage must memorize spells from his spellbook. To draw on magical energy, the Mage must shape spesific mental patterns in his mind. He uses his spellbook to force his mind through mental exercises, preparing it to hold the final twisted patterns. This process is called memorization. Once a Mage memorizes a spell, it remains in his memory as potential energy until he uses the prescribed words, motions, and components to trigger its release. Upon casting, the energy of the spell is spent, wiped clean from the wizard's mind - lost until the Mage studies and memorizes the spell again.
There's the in-world mechanics reason for memorization apparently. It's described in some interesting detail in Torment as well when you learn to become a mage there from that hag.
I can think of no good reason to play a Mage over a Sorcerer though, but that's my personal preference. I stick to using select spells anyway and having a higher number of castings of them available is neat.
That's my own viewpoint and yours or the OPs is just as valid.
But I suspect that you are more of a (for lack of an appropriate and neutral term) power gamer than a concept gamer. And that’s fine. I don’t mean it in a negative term. Just most of your arguments are around making the character most efficient and effective. From that perspective, I have this to say:
Wizards are almost infinitely (depending on the number of spells implemented in the game system) more flexible than sorcerers. Once a sorcerer picks a spell, they are pretty much locked into that spell. A wizard can literally learn every single spell in the game and then memorize the appropriate one for the situation. There were unique and limited use spells that no sorcerer would ever choose. But a Wizard has that option and choice. They sacrifice number of uses of spells for a wider choice of spells at any given time.
In short, if you want a one hit wonder - power cannon, you play a sorcerer. If you want to fully explore magic in all of its various wonders, you play a Wizard.
And Wizards learn spells by going out and finding the proper incantation written down in some ancient tome. That ‘To me’ is the true essence of being a wizard. I personally can not envision any reason why an arcane caster would ever leave his tower if he had immediate, unlimited and absolute knowledge of the spells he/she can and will ever cast. There are so many better and safer ways to accumulate gold and magic items than to go spelunking in dank and dirty dungeons.
To quote Bilbo Baggins:
“We ... have no use for adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner!”
What Arcane caster would ever choose that over scholarly pursuits?
The answer is they wouldn't. But a Wizard HAS to do that so that they can find the obscure spells and powerful incantations that make them one of the most powerful classes in the game (eventually). In PnP, spells like Bigby’s, Tensers’ and Melf’s were unique spells and could never be bought or found in a town or a city. You had to find some ancient tome or scroll somewhere hoarded by some wizard, either long dead, or simply consolidating their power. This doesn't translate into BG, but it is yet another reason why PnP Wizards would be superior (subjectively and situationally) to Sorcerers. Theoretically (unless the DM didn’t use that rule) no sorcerer would ever be able to cast Bigby’s or Melf's or Tenser's line of spells. You can't intuit something that some wizard slaved over and sweated over and discovered.
As for the whole “I left my spell book in my other pants” comment, what if a Fighter left their sword in their other armor? They are just as useless. A Wizard would never forget their spell book in the same way that you would never forget to breath. It is so integral to their being that they don’t go to the toilet without it. They don’t forget it, because they know how weak they are without it. But it is no different than a thief forgetting his soft souled shoes and his lock picks. It is the tool of their trade and therefore never gets left behind. This isn’t any more of a weakness than anything else. And (in PnP) both Favored souls and Sorcerers still need spell components. Their lack makes them just as useless.
As an aside, My DM once played a campaign where some thief stole my wizard’s spell book. We had to go find the offending thief, and then track down the guy who he sold it too, etc… my wizard picked up new spells along the way so he wasn't completely useless, but it was challenging. But it was also FUN.
Something I think some of the newer gamers (playing 3E and beyond) forget is that in 2E and before, all of the characters are supposed to have strengths and weaknesses. That was the entire point of the game and the way it was designed. Unlike in 3.5E where everyone could do everything, in 2E you were supposed to have a strength that you could add to the group, BUT you had weakness as well. As such, you had to be part of that group, not a power tank who stands on your own. Not to say that didn't end up happening with some builds, just saying that wasn't the major focus.
All subjectively my opinion. no statement above is intended to say objectively one class (sorcerer or wizard) is superior. I just like wizards better for personal conceptual reasons.
What happens is a somewhat time consuming complex mental ritual that the mage goes through and then stops at the very last moment, just before the final activation sequence of words, gestures and component manipulation. The ritual then remains pending in relation to Mystra's weave and the mage, untill the final elements are thrown in, at which point the spell is actually cast.
A sorcerer is different, because he is born with magic. He incorporates it, and can thus cast his spells without going through any ritual, instead simply consentrating and invoking his inner powers.
For sorcerers its more like those patterns are permanently etched into their minds but their innate magic can only fuel so many castings per day and they must rest to regain their strength. They lack the ability to change the patterns in their minds but do not require study to replenish the patterns just rest to replenish the power for the patterns they innately know.
I think that Rincewind is THE PERFECT Wizard. Spells? I only need ONE!
Wow it's fun how we play the opposite side of the coin. I don't consider myself a powergamer in offline games (though I'm a real mathlete and min maxer when it comes to competitive games and mmo's). But in bg I even did an 'Avarage Joe' run once, with all 8's.
Going to respond to a few parts of your posts, which doesn't mean I didn't read it all it was very intriguing.
As I said I'm not a powergamer, but I do always like my characters to have innate power, not to be too reliant on gear and trinkets. Fair enough about a fighter being useless without a sword, but that's not how I imagine it. At the end of BG my fighter would have 19 strength, all that strength in a human or smaller sized nody? I believe I read somewhere that a horse in D&D would have 17 strength.... I imagine my fighter to be able to bend prison bars with his hands and/or to be able to jump on top of a small house with that kind of strength. (And this is how I imagine the battles in my head)
19 Constitution? An epitome of health and vitality like wolverine(well maybe wolverine when he had his regeneration taken away) but after soa, pretty much wolverine.
What does a mage without a spellbook have to offer against that? A sorcerer on the other had would at least leave him deeply scarred... if not incinerate/disintegrate or otherwise horribly mutilate him on some bad saves.
I think we have distinctly different gaming personalities.
@Demented I totally agree, yet in this case I was stuck on an interpretation that wasn't fun and was looking for different views.
also the way I viewed 'hide in shadows' has changed over the years. Back in the day I'd only use it indoors or outside when it was dark.
Later I accepted it as some kind of near magical ability, no idea why or when that happened though now that I think on it.
I get your point, but...
(a) in BG it is impossible for a wizard's spell book to be taken away, therefore the argument is moot. However, if you are talking PnP, sorcerers need spell components just as much as wizards do. Therefore, they are limited in the same manner. No components, the sorcerer is just as helpless as the wizard. The only difference is that the wizard, once having cast a spell, couldn't cast it AGAIN given available components. Agreed this is a weakness, but considering what else the Wizard gets for that, I think it is a reasonable one.
I tell you, when my DM told me that my spell book was missing, I was pissed and afraid. He made it fun and enjoyable. it's a weakness, but absolutely in PnP (more so than most CRPG games) the object isn't the player VERSUS the game environment. It is the player adventuring IN the environment. A good DM will often use your weaknesses against you, but sometimes that is the fun of it.
(b) True enough a fighter (and not all fighters have 19 Strengths/Cons) has other things to fall back upon such that the loss of a weapon would not be 'As bad' as a wizard losing his spell book. But, there are enemies in BG/BG2 for which a fighter without a weapon has zero chance at all due to immunity to normal weapons (fists, clubs, etc...). Also, with the spell book, the wizard is much stronger in many, MANY situations than the fighter is with his sword. So higher highs and lower lows, if you get my meaning.
As for your original question about how to justify playing a Wizard or more specifically a fighter wizard, I'd suggest trying it. As a fighter/wizard you may find less of a demand for as many spells (though I could be wrong) simply because you have additional means to play with. You also get to higher level spells sooner, so that might actually be quite nice. And the flexibility to play around with spells you wouldn't otherwise use might very well make the experience. Just my own opinion on that.
Edit: I would add that nothing prevents a Wizard from having that 19 STR. They wouldn't hit as often, but they would hit as hard. And they are more likely to be proficient in Staff (basically any old piece of wood) than a fighter. So they could still do it. The 19 CON is a different matter as anything above 16 for a non-fighter type and you gain no benefit. but again, you could still have that as a wizard. Imagine a Pugilist wizard. What a concept.
Now if that 19 INT allowed the caster to cast a few spells 'Anyway' even without a spell book, there would be an argument. But not really otherwise.
Again, from a strictly computer game mechanics perspective.
Honestly I don't want to turn this into something like who wins against who. Just in general how I perceive my PC's. It always comes down to 'ifs' and 'when's' anyway.
Also I'm not really considering game mechanics or pnp. It's just the feeling the character gives me... the feeling the mage gave me was kind of daft but I must say after taking in some other point of views I find them less so.
I guess all in all I should be grateful there's so many kinds of awesome to play with.
The Mage dedicates a measurable portion of their time each day to memorizing various spells, from a multitude of schools. They do not so much possess an innate power, but rather have a learned understanding of magic that allows them to manipulate it in such a way as to prepare a select amount of spells per day, ready to be triggered by the necessary commands. Both memorizing the spell, and casting the spell, take a toll on the Mage, such a toll that they must rest so to prepare once again.
Whether that is D&D accurate, or close to what the class description alludes to, I can't be sure. It fit the bill for me when drawing a distinction between the classes, and that was enough.
TV Tropes link is http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VancianMagic (warning, loss of spare time may result).
Also I never play a pure mage, they are gimps. Try playing a Kensai > Mage, or Swashbuckler > Mage.
Video: