Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zangi]

Sounds like 'true' Wizards are actually Jedi.

[Doomblade187]

Sounds like 'true' Wizards are actually Jedi.

#GeorgeLucasDidNothingWrong

[MrRoboto75]

I don't know how much life is left in this topic but I'm happy to keep it open (partly in the hopes that someone will come along with some better explanation to the original question still). Besides being somewhat dissatisfied with the origin of fireballs, there's an issue I have with the rest of the "overt" magic, specifically in game context, which led me to make this thread. For DnD in particular, people often say that wizards are the most powerful class, outright. If they choose the right magic, they can do what any class does, and better. There's spells that can make them better defended than a fighter or other martial character, more damaging than a rogue (often to multiple enemies at once), sneakier (turn invisible and fly) etc. It always bothered me that a wizard could essentially fight better than a fighter. I mean, fighting's what he does, it's in the name! A wizard should stick to wizzing. (May need to work on the terminology.) MMO-type games balance this out with the "holy trinity" where at least wizards are squishy so they can't survive without someone else to absorb enemy attacks for them, but it still feels wrong to me, a sword should be good at killing things dammit! This usually leads to games where bladed weapons, which are deadly in real life, feel like they're made of cardboard.

Wizards became a lot stronger in later editions of D&D.  Originally only fighters got multiple weapon attacks per round, and their to-hit numbers were a lot stronger relatively.  Some of the easy "do anything" spells like Polymorph were a lot weaker and a lot more risky to use.  Polymorph required a system shock roll to not die from shape changing, while Haste rapidly aged you.  Classes used to level up at different rates, and wizard was the slowest.

Wizards also over time got more spells at early levels.  Cantrips left the optional rules and also became stronger.  1st ed cantrips replaced 1st level spells 4 to 1 and were damn near useless.  Wizards also didn't gain bonus spells per day for having high intelligence.  Cantrips also became infinite use in PF and maybe 5th ed as well.

[scriver]

By 5th ed cantrips are not just infinite use but the damage ones act more like Long Bows that do increasing amounts of damage with level up. At level 12 or 15 or sonrthing a Fire Bolt cantrip is like 4d10 with the same range as a long bow.

[Criptfeind]

In 5e the cantrips increasing in damage at certain levels is part of giving them something to do without really casting spells (something they struggle with at low levels in previous editions) Cantrips scale at roughly the same rate as everyone else basic attacks, because they are spellcasters basic attacks.

Past that spells in 5e are actually probably overall a lot weaker then they were previous editions. Concentration means you can't just buff yourself up to hell anymore, which was how spell casters (especially clerics) became better fighters then fighters, it also means that a lot of spells that used to be fire and forget now take constant attention and can be canceled by enemies. A lot of save or suck/die spells are less harsh and deadly. Spell DCs in general are lower, both actually starting 2 lower then in previous editions and with a lot less ways to stack them higher. And in general there's less broken interactions and things you can do that are absolutely ridiculous.

In 5e spellcasters are a lot closer in power level too everyone else. Arguably not even the best at everything anymore. It's generally a lot more balanced (although also having less options) game then 3.5e (the previous edition of D&D)

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Haven't read the WHOLE thread, but a few points.

DISCLAIMER: This a hyperbolic, drunk, and probably skewed version of Middle Earth history and facts.

In LOTR, most of the flashy magic comes from imbuing power into things. I.E. Ring, Swords, Maces, Whips, et al. (sometimes people, but that generally turns them into Orcs and/or Balrogs--afer a whole bunch of torture and suffering ofc) and generally, in the Third Age of Middle Earth, the only beings who have access to the power to make/wield these things are evil as heck. In the Silmarillion this shit is widespread. You have Elven and Dwarven smiths measuring peens over who can create the coolest and magic-est items. Dwarven armor is so good in that age, Dragonfire can't melt it. There is a Tiara of ultimate power (leading to pretty much everything that fucks over the world). After a while, considering how destructive and easy-to-acquire all the blatantly magic stuff is the Gods start to think about gun control and basically take all the cool people aside and say "Hey listen, we appreciate your baller weapons and items of power, but uh... it's starting to kind of mess up this awesome world."

[insert tales of Morgoth, a bunch of evil biz, and the forging of the rings of power]

Later, Gandalf is actually a pretty beast guy. If he wanted to, I have no doubt he could have just fireballed Denethor in the face and taken control of Gondor himself, BUT, not only was he under orders from the Godlier Gods (I mean, technically, Gandalf is the ME equivalent of an angel or minor god, right?) not to show his full power to the peoples of Middle Earth, and thanks to good ole Saruman, the average Gondorian mistrusted and hated wizards, so I doubt Gandalf doing anything flashy would have helped. You might ask, but what about when he was with the fellowship or Thorin's party? Well first of all Dwarves are even more distrustful of magic than uneducated peasants. Secondly, he's still under orders, and Gandalf pretty much takes everything to an extreme. Finally, I'm certain he would have attracted too much attention to either party if he just went full wizard and start turning people into red mist or charred corpses.

So that is that.

But as a couple of people pointed out, in gaming systems, whether it's P&P or video games, Wizards basically suck dick at low levels, and to make up for it, they become gods when they start maxing out. Also, it's probably not super fun, in a gaming context, to do what Gandalf did, which is basically just snoop around and subtly influence events for millennia.

I know we're using fireballs as an example, but it's really all overt magic, right? There was a time when Wizards were universally viewed with fear and suspicion. Mostly because of the uncertainty of their character. What COULD they do? Is their magic subtle and unseen? Are they slowly driving us insane? I think that stuff is pretty difficult quantize for gaming systems, and while less-difficult to portray on screen (given many famous wizards with highly political personalities), it just doesn't provide a lot of visual evidence. It's just easier to show a huge fireball or whatever and go WOW. That dude can do magic.

tl;dr the demands of easily-understood visual appearance are what led to the modern concept of the wizard.

[Maximum Spin]

Wizards throwing fireballs and that kind of nonsense (what D&D calls 'evocation', basically) definitely exists, copiously, in the post-Tolkien fantasy adventure, swords-and-sorcery literary genre D&D evolved out of. I would characterise that broad setting as "take Tolkien, Lewis, and Howard, and remove everything that could be described as 'subtle'". For a more thorough characterisation please see Diana Wynne Jones, The Tough Guide to Fantasyland.

[Reelya]

So what the hell happened? This transition seems to have happened in the blink of an eye, compared to the history of the supernatural as depicted in literature. Is it all down to Dungeons and Dragons

Probably. Fireball and Lightning Bolt were the first real named magical attack-types you come across in D&D dating from 1974 onwards. Later D&D editions were pretty much irrelevant since the tropes were already established by the early 1980s at most. It's interesting to see the evolution if you read around:

https://merricb.com/2017/07/16/original-dungeons-dragons-the-magic-user/
OD&D: originally, magic users didn't get even a single magic missile at 1st level: they only had support spells, plus Charm and Sleep. Magic Missile eventually came in with a supplement. Low-level wizards were therefore focused on support and not damage-dealing.

Here's a history of the "fire ball" spell for reference:
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/271708/A_brief_history_of_the_fireball_in_fantasy_games.php

I'm interested here however, since it mentions off-handedly that there were plenty of "fireballs" in film and literature before 1970. But does someone have some examples. And not James Bond style fireballs / exploding cars, actual magic ones?

[Sensei]

As someone said earlier, the Wicked Witch of the West throws a fireball in the Wizard of Oz (where the wizard is secretly a rogue lol), and although it's not kill-20-goblins powerful, it's a direct application of flashy magic for violent purposes. I read somewhere else that the DnD fireballs may have taken some inspiration from Jack Vance's Dying Earth novel(s)? I've not read those but I'm pretty sure the original DnD fireball stems more from a desire to use the cannon rules in a fantasy game rather than any thematic origin, despite how much Vance's stuff has apparently influenced DnD.

It IS very interesting to see that Magic Missile came with a supplement. This supports my notion that the idea of magic which DnD originally drew from was much less visually obvious and direct, but I'm still surprised that it wasn't in the original publication, it seems like such a staple now.

Also speaking of Jedi, that's another interesting example. In the original series, we see it go through three pretty distinct stages, as each movie reveals some new thing the Force is capable of. In the first movie it only influences people's minds or allows them to sense emotions and communicate. In the second, it's revealed that it can move objects. Still on pretty old school magic that might not seem out of place in a much older story, middle english/renaissance depictions of magic mostly stop at ghosts, curses, and floating objects. Then in the third movie, that's the first time you see flashy special effects and it only happens once (to the shock of audiences no doubt, but I can hardly remember watching it for the first time) when the Emperor shoots lightning out of his fingertips.

Now I'm rambling a bit, but I do think I've sort of stumbled on what seems so strange to me. Gods throw lightning around, cause floods and set things on fire all the time in the stories of pantheistic religions, such as the Norse or Greek gods. But aside from the notable exception of the bible itself, this sort of thing is absent from stories in christian culture. They're a little more grounded (I think) in that no big crazy stuff happens that can be attributed to the supernatural, but the supernatural tends to have an influence in less visible ways, or at most someone might see a ghost or something- it seems like that might be a lot more believable to your average person, who must at some point start to wonder why they nor anyone they know has seen fireballs thrown around. Oh, but there ARE dragons, that's probably the most extreme thing. This sort of setting seems to be what DnD takes much of it's "default setting" from, or at least a pop-cultural interpretation of what these stories were like, so perhaps that's why it seems so out of place to me.

Of course if I'm wrong and there's a story where somebody tries to explode King Arthur or the like, I'd love to hear of it.

[MrRoboto75]

Of course if I'm wrong and there's a story where somebody tries to explode King Arthur or the like, I'd love to hear of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZJZK6rzjns

[Reelya]

Also speaking of Jedi, that's another interesting example. In the original series, we see it go through three pretty distinct stages, as each movie reveals some new thing the Force is capable of. In the first movie it only influences people's minds or allows them to sense emotions and communicate. In the second, it's revealed that it can move objects. Still on pretty old school magic that might not seem out of place in a much older story, middle english/renaissance depictions of magic mostly stop at ghosts, curses, and floating objects. Then in the third movie, that's the first time you see flashy special effects and it only happens once (to the shock of audiences no doubt, but I can hardly remember watching it for the first time) when the Emperor shoots lightning out of his fingertips.

Telekinesis was there from the start: Vader force-throttling the general is the original movie's first example of Force powers (the scene occurs right after Obi Wan mentions "The Force" for the first time, so that scene sets the scope for understanding the type of powers it could conceivably allow). Lightning powers were obviously a big step up, but still make sense in context since they make the baddies, who are supposed to be much more experienced and powerful than the heroes more believable.

One cool thing most people miss (including me until recently) is that much Luke's training in the early parts is actually referenced in the Death Star scene: the blind fighting with the helmet and "reaching out with your feelings" thing is actually what he used to make the shot on the Death Star. Even though Luke never stabs anyone with a lightsaber for the first movie, the saber training still got referenced.

[Sensei]

Oof, just take away my star wars fan license. Perhaps I've not had enough sleep. 

[Reelya]

Also, Luke did in fact use force magic in the first movie to create a fireball - about a billion D6 worth of damage, too.