I am a long time Warhammer Fantasy fan, and I expected the Bright Wizard to be a dangerous individual, doing high damage but having only an orange bathrobe for defense. A traditional "glass cannon".

I expected to dance with death and madness, channeling the winds of magic through my body and unleashing fiery death upon my foes. And then fall down with an arrow in the stomach and nurglings building a sand castle of my brain.

The falling down bit worked according to plan. The fiery death part not so much.

I am seriously planning to buy a pistol as soon as possible and train Ballistic Skill. It shoots every turn, it does more damage than spells and it can be used with armor. My character is pragmatic - to become a master wizard, the first step is to stay alive.

As a player I am disappointed though. This is not at all the vision I had of the infamous Bright Wizard.

Unless I missed something in the rules and cards, which is why I am making this post.

Can a Bright Mage consistently exceed (or even just equal) the damage output of a warrior or archer of equal experience? How do you do it?

Regards,
Magnus the Red

Fire of U'Zhul and/or Quickcast

That vision of a Bright Wizard is really that of a Battle Mage. A Battle Mage is the wizard dedicated to bringing down death and destruction on the battlefield. Given the derth of fluff material available for 3e I'm going to refer back to 2e, where Battle Mages were purposely excluded because they were too powerful and did not fit in with the setting and intended power levels for player characters.

In 3e Player characters start off as acolytes, which are the equivalent of a college student doing an internship. They're hardly forces to be reckoned with. They're still under the supervision of their Magister, who in his best interest will keep tabs on the character. They're not even independent and have to tithe the Colleges. Until they're Magisters they can't even legally teach or practice their magic without a controlling party's permission. (Article 6 of the Articles of Magic).

For best effect in WFRP you need to put aside the destructive potential and bring to the forefront the impact, violence and sheer anomaly that magic truly is. It's not so much the fact that you can do x dmg / round, but rather that you're weaving, crafting and dealing with chaos on a primal level. You're directly shaping and forcing the most dreaded force in the world to your will.

It's not just a fireball, it's a conflagration of energy rending everything within its vicinity cold and giving people chills (sucking out it's Aqshy). Then all of a sudden erupting viciously on a foe with a loud bang that echos and can be felt across the room / battlefield. Every time a wizard channels its an uncomfortable or strange experience.

You're not so much D&D's "glass cannon", but rather a mad scientist bent on tapping and controlling primal energies of the world. A quest that might eventually lead you to end up like Dr. Jekyll, split apart by the forces he tried to control.

At least that's how I described it to my PC's Bright Wizard.

Only, the system does not create that image either - you either have enough power or you do not; there is no real danger involved, no 'pact with the devil'-type stuff that v2 had. It needs a simple mechanic to make spells more powerful/better fueled at the expense of more going wrong.

As it stands, magic is a bit of a flaccid lettuce...

If you've got a player who thinks a wizard's apprentice should be throwing down comets..that's a bit munchkin for a Rank 1 character. Apprentices shouldn't do much damage..otherwise they'd be called something other than "apprentice"

jh

Lexicanum said:

Beginning Wizards actually start as "Apprentices" but, technicality aside, Lexicanum is pretty spot-on in terms of putting the character into the context of the setting and relative power level.

One thing that a lot of people also seem to forget or neglect in all these discussions about Bright Wizards and their "nerfed" damage potential is this: it's freakin' FIRE !!!

Sure, a black powder pistol does more "damage" when you shoot someone in the gut with it but then, the pistol shot doesn't proceed to ignite the target's combustables and warp their flesh with searing pain!* Likewise, you can shoot a barn with a pistol a dozen times and all you'll accomplish are a few squirrel holes but one good huff of flame from even an apprentice Bright Wizard can set the whole thing (and, consequently, its inhabitants if carefully staged) ablaze.

A bullet is good for putting holes in something...and that's about it. Fire has so many other (sometimes unintentional) uses.

*Yes, as a GM I would apply additional damage to targets in following rounds if it can be reasonably argued that they would catch fire not to mention that any susceptible carried items would be slowly incinerated. Common sense prevails.

alakazam said:

Sure, in 3e, there's not a whole lot of explicit effects that the rules require you to enforce. But by now it should be apparent 3e requires the GM step up and fill in these gaps.

For me, part of the danger is acquiring the power required for spells, that is Channeling. Channeling is not some private activity, some quick and instant effect that can go easily unnoticed. It affects people around you, it causes visible signals and draws attention to the Bright Wizard. Surely, in 3e Tzeentch isn't as eager to stamp you down as in 2e. But the effect on the party, allies, commoners and other NPCs can be just as devastating as any Mark of Tzeentch.

Also, venting power isn't just like farting, unpleasant but inconsequential. Aside from the fatigue and stress, the wizard is releasing a massive amount of magic into his surrounding area. Magic affects any material, and most mundane substances are not capable of absorbing much magic without acquiring magical or fantastic properties.

Each wind transforms the area around the wizard, infusing it with the power the wizard was previously holding. A tree could talk, move and walk if infused with the appropriate winds. So a release of power could cause gunpowder to voluntarily ignite, items heat up, the wizards robes come to life, liquids nearby start to boil, wood bursts on fire, tools refusing to work or working too eagerly (infused with passion), etc... Not all of the results have to be detrimental to the character, but they do add color and tension, and this is reflected mechanically in some of the party tension rules.

Thanks for the correction Bloody Sun Boy. I was thinking about Dark Heresy as I wrote that post and acolytes was on my mind.

Thank you all for your responses, I will respond to each below.

monkeylite said:

To even get the "damage to multiple targets" effect you have to have more boons than banes. Firing into an enemy group of lets say five targets is five additional black die. Not to mention the additional purple die from quick casting.

If you target a smaller number of targets the damage goes down below what the physical classes can do in the same time.

Lexicanum said:

I would totally love to be forced to carefully channel over 2-4 rounds, juggling unfathomable powers at the edge of my control or beyond, being protected by the rest of the party to keep me alive and to get the spell off safely. And then achieve more in raw effect than a swordsman could in the same time.

alakazam said:

Emirikol said:

If you've got a player who thinks a wizard's apprentice should be throwing down comets..that's a bit munchkin for a Rank 1 character. Apprentices shouldn't do much damage..otherwise they'd be called something other than "apprentice"

Bloody Sun Boy said:

As for fire, anyone can carry torches (and even oil) and achieve FIRE!! with little preparation. I don't think that utility aspect in any way balances it out.

Thank you again for your replies.

Regards,
Magnus the Red

Magnus the Red said:

Well, as we've only seen Rank 1 and 2 wizards, I'd say that you'll have to wait until a magic supplement comes out and gives us ranks 3+. So yes, the answer is 'not in this game'... yet.

You could make some house rules along the lines of those we use.

• Quick casting is just +1 misfortune die
• Bright wizard ads +1 damage for each extra power he uses (this can only be used with bright order spells of course and not petty magic).
• Each extra damage he decides to do force him to roll a misfortune die... each bane rolled with that dice pool gives him a wound.

Magnus the Red said:

You're right, I don't think it gets any better as far as a wizard becoming a high DPR (damage / round) class. I won't even try to argue otherwise, as I don't think that's the intent with the wizard career. Like I tried to state in my first post, I believe high DPR wizard careers, like Battle Mages, are not part of WFRP. They weren't within the scope of 2e and hence I don't have much hope for them appearing in 3e. I might be mistaken, though, who knows what the future may bring.

From what I've seen it seems to me that WFRP is a bit like Dark Heresy in terms of the expected power level of the player characters. I think we'll have to wait for an Ascension type release for the really powerful characters and features, like High Magic, Battle Mages, Thegonists, Generals, etc...

But I would like to argue in favor of the Wizard career, as it clearly has many benefits aside from being a damage dealer.

What differentiates a Wizard from a Warrior class is versatility. Sure, a warrior can bring a lamp, but that warrior can't make a lamp at will. A warrior can't make a Noble's cloak spontaneously catch on fire. A warrior can't summon a sword from the ether. These are all things that are easily within the grasp of a neophyte wizard, and some are actually cantrips.

All the Warrior is really capable of is hitting someone with his weapon, and as such they're pretty good at it.

A Bright Wizard can make your blood boil, both literally and figuratively, causing an opponent to move into a more Reckless stance for example. A Bright Wizard can detect hidden powers, artifacts and other hidden information by using his Magic Sight, knowledge that will forever remain outside of the reach of a Warrior. A Bright Wizard can make a suicide bomber out of any character wearing a gun powder bag. A Bright Wizard can create fire works, artificial lighting and heat, and are extensively used in lavish theater productions. A Bright Wizard could cause Fear with an appropriately violent explosion (even if it's a mere illusion).

So I'm sorry you came into the career expecting him to be a death dealing warlock as portrayed in the WAR MMOG, but I think there's a lot to like and use in the Bright Wizard career should you stick with it, both on the battlefield and outside it.

I see Wardancer being a basic profession, and you tell me a Bright Wizard actually able to fulfill the role all the fluff from previous games assign to him is "out of the scope" ?

First, yeah, mages are "apprentices", but how this is supposed to be an argument of not having characters of equal power.

If a mage's player tell me I wants to traing with ballistics and use firearm because is mage's powers aren't good enough, well all I hear is : there's a problem here.

But watch out, you have to consider every aspects of a class, not just the damage input. Mages have also "utility" spells that trollslayers haven't.

All that said, maybe a temporary solution would be to ignore soak when dealing spell damage? (an idea that popped just now)

People are absolutely convinced that there is no possible chance for FFG to ever release any additional Rank 2 spells, or any Rank 3+ spells?

Or convinced that there is no way they will be any better than the Rank 1 spells?

As for risk, spell failure cards abound. And don't forget that rolling ANY chaos star on a spellcasting check means drawing one.

Silverwave said:

There's a much better thread from earlier this year on the whole concept of "balance" and how once you bring that up you're forced to establish a standard against which you'll balance. In this thread the only aspect being considered is damage, while ignoring the many areas in which a Wizard can effectively participate. Hence establishing balance on only one axis is misrepresentative of the real power of a character.

Say you equalize the damage potential of the Wizard to the Warrior, or even go so far as to make him into a Battle Mage. So we end up with a character that can dish out as much or more damage than a Warrior.

Let's consider that in addition to having the same damage potential we've now eliminated the need for that character to increase his physical stats. Current Bright Wizards would still benefit from increasing STR to use their flaming sword spell or AGI to make use of a crossbow.

A "balanced" wizard would be better served just dumping everything on INT or WP. He'll be able to increase his damage and all INT related rolls while ignoring strength completely and not receiving any considerable drawback. Encumbrance is of no concern to a "balanced" wizard, no need for weapons or armor. He'll also be able to read & write, a skill which will be costly for a Warrior yet is very useful in an adventure.

The wizard won't have to worry about weapons, armor and their associated upkeep. A 3e wizard doesn't even have to worry about ingredients and reagents. Per the RAW a wizard doesn't even have to be able to speak or make gestures.

Disarming a wizard will require the GM knock them unconscious or Pacify him which would be the equivalent of killing the PC. Disabling a Warrior on the other hand merely requires depriving him of his weapons (a socially accepted custom) or binding his arms (doesn't remove the character from play). That's a huge difference in an actual campaign, a wizard is almost always deadly. Even if unconscious he might have casted a spell or protective barrier to save his ass.

And as for ignoring soak, there are already wizards spells that ignore armor on boons.

So is the damage balanced Wizard really balanced? If a campaign consists of nothing but battles then you'll probably be okay. But I feel all that in a more varied campaign the "balanced" Bright Wizard will be so overpowered that there's no reason to play a Warrior. But that's just my take on it.

When my player feels that their wizard is weak in combat and I have to agree based on the simple facts of his damage output... I want to balance it. We have a small group (2-3 players) and it's important that the wizard can contribute in combat as well on equal terms with the warrior. He will still be weaker because his soak and armor is lower. The wizard rules we made also involves risk if the wizard wants to do more damage, which we find is much more interesting.

The warrior can also buy mental characteristics and skills based of those characteristics if he wants.

You should also note that spells hit more often than common missiles. While shooting with bow is BS vs defence, casting is only Spellcraft check with simple difficulty. For example, bandit(s) are lurking in the shadows behind cover aiming to fight Mercenary and Wizaard PCs. Mercenary aims a bandit with crossbow and GM assigns difficulty level as follows: +1 challenge (default), +1 challenge (cover), +1 misfortune (shadows), +2 misfortune (armour), +2 misfortune (dodge and block). Wizard throws his magic darts. GM will not throw in any additional challenge or misfortune dice (because darts magically find their ways to the target) and thus the Spellcraft check is only modified by 1 misfortune dice from action card.

To me it seems that in these kind of situations(GM should always play npc characters smart and give challenge to the players) wizard's average damage output is better than archer's.

Also, in the above example in my previous post, the psychological consequenses are important. The bandit(s) trusted in their cunning and superior tactics. They were supposed to be safe in shadows and behind cover. They were supposed to defeat their exposed opponents easily. Now they face unexpected situation. Opponents can hit them by mystical means. Possessed by panic they ignore their leader's orders and rush in the open. Now the wizard's fellow mercenary can pick his easy targets.

In my last game session the party bright wizard used Great Fires of U'zhul to kill 5 or 10 cultist henchmen. I do think that spells are weak compared to melee and ranged attacks but in my campaign the party's bright wizard is the only major fighter because the other character in the party is a social focused gambler. I have also found that some bright wizard spell are great for doing critical damage against enemies. I hope that helps.

For me, it is NOT about 'damage' (I would argue the same point for non-damage spells) - it is about the mechanics supporting the setting.

Warhammer magic is about a 'Faustian pact' - its a trade off of power for consequence. v1 had this in the form of ingredients - the more powerful the spell the harder (and more wierd) the ingredient needed. But v2 did this the best, in my opinion, because there was a direct trade of power for consequence - you rolled more dice with more chance of something going wrong (and the thing going wrong also getting potentially worse with more dice), on top of that you had the 'dhar die' for those wizards that wanted even more power (the Dark Magic talent).

This sort of thing is almost totally missing in v3 - the only real consequence to a wizards actions is the extra purple for quick-cast - and that weakens the spell , so it is not any real 'more power for consequence'- type stuff. The wizard does not even have a real choice about how much power he tries to tap into with a channel roll, because it is a random roll, meaning that the 'venting power' rule is not really the wizards choice (ok, so he can use less successes on his channel - but again, that is the reverse of what magic should be about).

They have sort of chosen bits of v1 (magic points) and v2 (channel) magic and gelled them together and came up with said flaccid lettuce...

I would like to see a really simple, elegant mechanic that gives the wizard a proper choice of more power for more consequence.

Off the top of my head, I have this (without totally changing the way magic works):

A wizard may swop power tokens for successes and boons on his spellcraft roll (thus fueling more spell effects), however, for each token he uses he must roll a purple die and apply the results of chaos stars to his spellcraft roll (ignore other results).

Something like this would achieve my criteria of a 'faustian pact' (though, I would rather the system was different). Also, it would further differentiate Priests from Wizards.

Thug said:

A spell like flamestrike or Fires of U'zhul and requires 6 or 7 power. So the wizard either casts every other round (situation A) or he channels and casts in the same round (situation B). The tests needed are:

A) Wizard needs to pass a 1d test to channel enough power. Channeling 6 or 7 points requires three success and some boons -so sometimes he needs to channel twice. The following round he casts at 1d. Result - the wizard fires at less then half the rate of the archer and needs to pass two or even three tests.

B) The wizard needs to pass a 1d test to channel enough power. He than needs to pass a 2d test to cast the spell.

Also your premise that situational effects don't apply to spellcasting is GM dependent. A GM would be perfectly inside the spirit of the rules if he loaded the wizard with similar purple and black dice for hitting people in darkness and cover.

Fires of U'zhul is a great spell against low toughness/soak targets. It owns rat swarms and packs of snotlings. Against targets like Rat Orges it sucks. This is a Rank 2 spell and as a multi-target spell I think it's fine. Flameblast isn't too bad for a Rank 1. However, I think there should be a Rank 2 single target spell which packs a respectable punch. It is currently a very limited spell-list and so I reserve judgement.

Fresnel said:

You are right, it is a GM discretion. But, I think my example is in the spirit of the rules in the sense that non magical ranged attacks are vs Defence. I see that shields, armours, covers, guarded positions, darkness, etc. are defences. If fighting takes place in open field, wizard is more of an show-off. But when situation demands unearthly skills (in my example hitting almost impossible target) wizard should shine. This is good GM discretion because, as others have noticed, wizards need a little boost and it is good for the story!

alakazam said:

That's not a faustian pact, it's just a risk reward system. V1 didn't have faustian pacts in the system, and the v2 magic system isn't one either. They are just different risk reward systems. V3 has risk reward systems too. If you don't like them, fine, but they're there. And to call some faustian and others not is just arbitrary. I can't think of anything faustian-pact-like about any system that applies to the WW in all its forms, not the battle game, or blood bowl, etc. But it does crop up a lot in the WW setting stuff, novels and fluff etc.

The faustian thing was used to promote v2 after a playtester (Whymme iirc) mentioned that he wanted a faustian system. That doesn't mean v2's is one, though. Of course GMs are free to negotiate their own faustian pacts with their players, and a lot about all the various WFRP versions support that sort of thing, and I'm sure a lot of GMs do. But there's nothing hard-coded into any of the systems, afaik.

monkeylite said:

Yeah, you are probably right because there are no long term consequences to the actions of the wizard (there was a little in v2 in RoS though, with the 'turning more like the wind' system, but that was also quite random so does not create a true pact). Ok, we will stick to the risk-reward label, it changes little.

v1 did have it in kind with evil magic and the effects of it (bad smells, animal aversion, necrotic appearence and the like - with the eventual decline and death, causing some to find their way into lich-hood).

What, in your opinion, is the risk-reward in v3? Because I cannot see it.

The only choice the wizard really has (a hard choice, not randomly determined by rolls) is wether or not to quick-cast.

Magnus the Red said:

I will still be playing my wizard, for the RP aspects of being a wizard.

I do not think that the effectiveness of current spells is worth the sacrifices made (zero armor, multi-round actions, miscasts etc), so I will probably side-train ballistic skill and save coin for a good pistol and some armor.

My wizard apprentice is not stupid, if his skills are too weak to handle the situation, then the intelligent path is to adapt.

There will be time for spectacular pyrotecnics once he graduates as a War Wizard. If he can stay alive and gain enough resources and favor.

Whether or not FFG chooses to release more powerful spells is really beside the point, as far as my character knows those spells exist and it is only a matter of hard work and time until he can learn them.

Thank you all for your input.

Regards,
Magnus the Red