Hello,

We've been entering this new system and have a bunch of the kinks worked out but one thing that I don't think I understand is magic. It feels like it really isn't worth the effort and I think I may be misinterpreting something and if anyone can correct how we are doing things that would be great.

Currently I have a grey wizard but I think this applies to all the orders and to some extent priests (although healers have a job only they can do so this does not apply to them). I don't have the cards in front of me so I'm going off memory but I believe I have the general idea of what each card does. In order to cast Blade in the Dark I have to either channel magic or have done so in the previous round which can fail. If I quick cast it will end up being two challenge dice and if my intelligence is a 5 and my sword is weapon damage 5, 10 damage and maybe a little more depending on boons or criticals. If I don't want that extra dice I can wait a turn to cast it. Then it is on a 3 turn cool down. Now my friend the wood elf scout has a long bow that he can fire every turn without having to channel power. His agility is 5 and long bow is weapon damage 5 with pierce 1. So he rolls on challenge dice for attacking instead of the two I am required to (if I quick cast) and his damage if he hits is 10 pierce 1 and then bonuses for boons and criticals (and I believe there are more bonus chances on the ranged attack card than on my spells). So every turn he can do more damage from farther away with less chance for failure and without themed stipulations like "Both caster and target must be in shadows."

That's just one example; most spells seem to be that way where a lot of effort has to be taken in order to cast them for little benefit. The pool of shadows spell makes an area covered in shadow but I don't want to cast it since if the monsters are ranged, they'll just walk off the terrain I've cast the spell on and it affects my party and me so I can't use it to help close combats. I guess there's the occasional story even where it could be used to avoid hostile people, but that would be rare. Looking through a lot of the priest and wizard abilities they seem neat but by the time I've got them working, melee and ranged characters have simply mopped the floor with the opposing monsters since their cards along with weapons do better damage. Even fire spells that do 6+Int aren't that great since they do slightly more damage but require the same high chance of failure due to extra quick casting challenge dice or waiting to channel and slowing down damage. The shadow spell that knocks over all surrounding monsters is useless since they can just take wounds to fatigue, step right up and then pummel the wizard who has 2-3 soak value and will last two hits (maybe one if the monster rolls well). Very high willpower and intelligence are required to do anything with the class so all other stats are typicalls 2s and 3s which makes combats very hard at closer ranges. Monsters don't care if they take damage if it means killing a player.

To top it off I have to spend specializations on learning magic (Rank 1 magic, Rank 2 magic, Channeling, etc) while once a person learns how to use a bow, they are good to go and can get other stuff that can be used for more varied story uses (such as pick pocketing, languages, athletics, etc). The end result seems that it's a lot of effort for little payoff, or when there is a good result (like the shadow storm spell), it can be done quicker and easier by simply hitting stuff and there's no danger of being one shot by monsters if the spell fails. Interesting things like cantrip or the spell where you change form are cool but would be used so rarely in a story segment that they don't really ofset the amount of things you have to give up for them and other classes have actions cards that function in similar ways (fear me!, winning smile, etc).

Please let me know if we are doing this part of the game incorrectly. We were screwing up a lot of the rules before being corrected before and I hope that we're missing something here since a lot of the spells have cool flavor but don't seem to be worth the time and danger in comparison to bows and axes.

I don't see much you are doing "wrong" in your descriptions, although you do mention "having" to buy specialisations to cast spells, when you don't actually need specialisations, they can help, as can specialisation in bows for the archer...you can cast a rank 1 spell without the rank 1 specialisation. Having the specialisation just makes you better at rank 1 spells.

You do need to buy some advanced skills, granted, so perhaps that was what you meant?

It also does seem that you aren't really comparing like for like, wizards may not do as much damage in combat when compared with a ranged specialist or a melee specialist, but what the wizard has going for him is versatility, they have more than one string to their bow and can normally approach a given situation in many more diverse ways than a combat monkey, who will simply try to "kill it", whatever "it" may be.

We also have seen much yet in the way of advanced spells, which may readdress the balance of power, provided the wizard can get to the lofty heights of power to cast them!

Wizards have always been more of a lifestyle choice than per gaming mechanics super stardom in combat anyway. If you are only interested in dealing as much damage as possible, then wizard isn't neccessarily the right way to go...

Currently both Melee and Ranged are far better damage dealers than Wizards.

Bright Wizard's just got a boost via an Errata'ed Order card. But essentially, you need to look outside combat for a Wizard's role. However, this will change at Rank 3.

It's not just the damage. I don't want to be nuking enemies which is why I chose Shadow magic but a lot of the spells have effects that really don't impact the game very much. Like I said previously shrouding an area in darkness isn't useful when I can't see in it either unless I get lucky and roll a comet. Casting fear on myself isn't great when it really doesn't do terribly much to stop the monster from punching the wizard which may kill him; in addition there's a regular ability that causes fear and doesn't require channeling magic power. Thinking outside the box (which I have been trying to do) typically results in very little bonus other than watching the rest of the party ignore my bonuses and kill things by themselves with little effort.

That's good to hear that rank 3 will add more stuff but it's sad that it's currently working as intended.

pumpkin said:

I have seen this argument advanced a few times. However, I am not sure this meme has any solidity. It seems to me 'combat monkeys' can have a lot of versatility too. A character with Reckless Cleave and Trollfeller Strike, can have social action cards too. A Thief/Mercenary is pretty versatile. Everyone gets 'Perform a Stunt'. and not every melee dude is 'Thrud the Barbarian'.

A Wizard can do Cantrips, he has Magic Sight. Very useful, sometimes critical to success, but this is a specialism.

Radish said:

Considering that the spell in question only costs 3 power, you shouldn't always have to channel magic immediately before casting it. I'm wondering if maybe you missed the part where Wizards start every encounter with Power equal to their Willpower. Have you been using the Equilibrium rules?

Radish said:

I'm not sure why you feel Wizards have to spend specializations that the fighter-types don't. There's nothing that forces you to have a specialization to use spells. All a specialization does is give you a bonus white die.

Cantrip allows you to use the Spellcraft skill to perform stunts that would normally take various other skills. Let's say a character wants to pick pockets or locks - a soldier would have to buy skullduggery at 2 xp, a thug could buy it for 1 xp, and a wizard would just roll Spellcraft via Cantrip. That's a strong factor in the "Wizards are more versatile" argument, but it is subject to the whims and tastes of the GM. Some GMs will definitely let you get away with more via cantrip than others would.

Here's a few other things you might have missed because they're scattered through-out the books, any of which would alter the starting power level of a wizard character.

• Starting wizards begin with Channeling and Spellcraft acquired, this is in addition to the normal skill allotment. (Per Tome of Mysteries, page 42)
• Channel Power, Counterspell, Cantrip, and Magic Dart are all Basic Actions, so all Wizards start with them for free. (Per main rulebook, page 31)
• Most PC wizards should start with a free item with the "Attuned 1" quality, granting them 1 bonus fortune die on channeling rolls. This attuned item can be a free melee weapon, such as a sword or staff. (All per the Tome of Mysteries, page 11)

r_b_bergstrom said:

Well, actually Skullduggery is a basic skill - so the agile elf with Agility 5 and fortune dice is going to be quite good a picking pockets even without.

Also, it's not entirely clear if Cantrips need to be themed to the wizard's order or not. GMs that want themed Cantrips will very much limit their potential.

I really hope we get more guidance on this in the new Magic book.

You've kind of run stuff together, so it was a bit hard to parse out, but I'll try to answer some things:

In order to cast Blade in the Dark I have to either channel magic or have done so in the previous round which can fail.

This depends on the cost of the spell. If you're below your Equilibrium, you gain 1 power at the end of every turn. So, a low-cost spell could possibly be cast for a couple rounds without needing to channel. In general, though, you are correct. Most times a wizard will want to quick-cast.

If I quick cast it will end up being two challenge dice

Not having that particular spell in front of me. Keep in mind that most spells are a default difficulty of 0, thus quickcasting puts them at a difficulty of 1.

and if my intelligence is a 5 and my sword is weapon damage 5, 10 damage and maybe a little more depending on boons or criticals.

This is on par with most attack actions.

That's just one example; most spells seem to be that way where a lot of effort has to be taken in order to cast them for little benefit.

You are only looking at damage spells. Apprentice wizards are *not* intended to be powerful damage-dealing characters. Yes, the elf with bow should do slightly more damage normally. Think about these things: The elf needs to use a bow, and have arrows available. The Wizard does not need anything but his brain (and power). The elf can be disarmed or unarmed in a situation, but the wizard always has his weapon available (with enough power). The wizard can cast a variety of spells, combat and non-combat. A Grey wizard can create an area of darkness, or throw illusions to distract or even use in non-combat situations. The wizard has versatility with their spells.

To top it off I have to spend specializations on learning magic (Rank 1 magic, Rank 2 magic, Channeling, etc) while once a person learns how to use a bow, they are good to go and can get other stuff that can be used for more varied story uses (such as pick pocketing, languages, athletics, etc).

Specializations are "nice to have", and the Elf is in a similar situation. They can get specializations in Longbow, Handgun, etc, or "trick shooting", "shooting into melee", and so on. Nothing requires you to take specializations. You can cast just fine without them.

In essence, what you are doing wrong is thinking that apprentice wizards (especially a Grey Wizard) are powerhouse damage dealers. It's like complaining in D&D that a 1st level mage doesn't do as much damage as a 1st level barbarian. A single cast of Magic missile at 1d3+1 does way less than a blow with a greataxe that does 1d12+4. It's similar here, except that in WFRP the wizard damage is, usually, much closer than the D&D example I gave. So, stop thinking (and comparing) wizards based solely on damage numbers. Think about all the spell available to a wizard and what they bring to the table BESIDES trying to do damage.

Like I said previously shrouding an area in darkness isn't useful when I can't see in it either unless I get lucky and roll a comet.

There are lots of occasions where casting darkness is great. You can use it to cover your retreat. You can use it to 'blind' a human sentry. Keep in mind that if you have elves or dwarfs in the party, *they* can still see, but your enemies can't. If your party's trollslayer is engaged with a group of enemies, popping darkness on him just might save his life. also, don't always think about combat. Fool a vampire into thinking it's night outside, make an area appear more forbidding so people will avoid going there, use it so you can slip a drug into the punch bowl, etc.

Casting fear on myself isn't great when it really doesn't do terribly much to stop the monster from punching the wizard which may kill him;

Fear is excellent to make enemies pause if they fail their test, as well as cause fatigue/stress. That = wounds on non-Nemesis NPCs. IIRC, a failed Fear test forces the affected target to leave the engagement containing the person that they fear, for example.

...and so on. I have not found wizards to be useless. Do not try to make them into combat monsters, at least at low-ranks. They can help (assuming a combat spell or two was chosen), but by no means should they be expected to compete with a Slayer/Ironbreaker/Mercenary, who has primarily focused on combat. Again, keep in mind that non-wizards need to use equipment, where wizards don't. So, angry zombie mutants hungry for brains show up at a fancy party where no weapons are allowed? That trollslayer will be forced to wield an improvised weapon, like a chair, while the wizard is still using his magic undiminished.

r_b_bergstrom said:

You do not get a free Attuned 1 item as a wizard apprentice. Normally you would be given such an item when you pass from apprenticeship (from ToM), but it's really not specified in the rules (it's basically just fluff, the GM is of course free to give one out if he wants to).

About wizards and power. As many others have written, wizards are not necessarily the most powerful career in a combat situation. But there is no denying that they are the most flexible career in the game. This does of course depend on the GM making good calls, but cantrips can be used to do soo much cool stuff. Others careers can become flexible as well, but you need to buy a lot more actions/talents in order to become so.

As to the spells given as examples. How much damage will the archer do when his bow is lying broken on the ground? How will the archer be able to overcome his captors without any weapons? Lucky for him he's got a Shadow wizard friend who can whip out his Blade in the dark and skewer the guards.

Pool of shadows might not look too useful at a first glance, but I think it's very important that the GM tries to consider how wierd and terrifying magic will be to most opponents in the warhammer world. A bunch of thugs will probably be running like maniacs if they suddenly find themselves in darkness. At very least they will have to make morale checks.

Making wizards shine relies a lot on the GM allowing them to do so. Most GM's have no problems allowing Troll slayers or Mercenaries to shine by throwing stupid brutes at the party, but I think it's the responsibility of the GM to also create situations where the versatility of a wizard will make a difference.

gruntl said:

Did you check the page reference I listed? From the large sidebar on page 11 of the Tome of Mysteries:

"When an apprentice enters a College, he acquires the raw materials for making his own arcane focus. ... The apprentice creates the object ... With your GM's permission, an Apprentice Wizard may begin the game with a single item with the Attuned 1 quality."

So, per the RAW, it's suggested, but not required, that a PC apprentice wizard start with an attuned item.

Fresnel said:

You are of course correct that Skullduggery is a basic skill, and my phrasing of "a soldier would have to buy skullduggery" was a poor choice of wording on my part. My post was in response to the OP saying that wizards had to spend all their points on spells, whereas an archer could afford to spend his points on other interesting things, such as lockpicking. Maybe I could have made my point more clearly.

I was just trying to say that thanks to Cantrip, the wizard's points spent on spellcraft could do most of the things skullduggery does, as well as powering flashier spells. If you just want to talk about dice pools, the Wizard's likely Int 4 + Spellcraft 1 will be a comparable dicepool to the archer's Agility 5 (Skullduggery 0). In fact, it's a percentage point or two in the Wizard's favor, because Expertise dice are better than Characteristics dice.

r_b_bergstrom said:

I am not entirely disagreeing with you here, but I am not entirely sold that cantrips = skullduggery. When I read the card I see very minor effects. Additionally, as I wrote previously, I am unsure that the scope of cantrips is really meant to be unlimited by the wizard's Order.

Actually you can 'Perform a Stunt' with cantrips, so you can have a little more power - but again is this meant to be the 'do anything' magic of WFRP2 Petty and Lesser magic or not?

For example, if my bright wizard is running over rooftops can I 'Perform a Stunt' cantrip to jump 30 feet to the next roof? Or can I featherfall to the ground?

If yes, than the case is closed - wizards are the most versitile people in the game - but it is not clear to me this is 'true'.

Fresnel said:

Jumping 30 feet? Probably not.

Featherfall? Maybe. Seems similar in power to the two dice difficulty examples in the books. Probably depends on Order, and character description. I doubt I'd allow it as a reaction to falling, but I'd be most likely be cool with it as a prepared descent, especially for a Celestial Wizard.

My thoughts that Cantrips are as good as Skullduggery all stem from page 38 of the Tome of Mysteries.

That page lists "making an object the size of a book vanish while being observed" as 1-die difficulty and "pulling a small object into your hand from across the room before your rival can get it" as 2-die difficulty. Pick pocketing seems pretty comparable to those.

It also lists "shattering a bottle" and "causing someone else to 'just happen' to open a book to the page containing a vital clue" as being 1 die of difficulty and "pulling a rabbit from a hat" as 2 dice of difficulty. Given all these examples, I'd be surprised if it couldn't turn a couple tumblers or slip the bar on the other side of a door.

r_b_bergstrom said:

Ah ok (I was away from my books before), could have sworn I read that the apprentice get an attuned item at the end of his apprenticeship in ToM, but I can't seem to find it now.

edit: found it, it's on page 43. But it's suitably vague to not qualify as a typo

r_b_bergstrom said:

Well a human has jumped 29' without magic... But you are saying that Order matters, which is fine, but it does have implications. The utility of cantrip is going to vary greatly with Order.

r_b_bergstrom said:

"making an object the size of a book vanish while being observed" : Illusion (Grey) or teleport (Celestial)

"pulling a small object into your hand from across the room before your rival can get it" : Celestial or Gold

Picking a pocket involves teleporting an unseen object, which imo should be far more difficult. In any case, if we are to be Order restricted then what utility will an Amethyst wizard's cantrips have? If not, where are the guidelines - we simply don't have any.

Fresnel said:

IMO, casting a spell which influences on an invisible target is impossible. I'd say that a wizard simply cannot do anything with the object he can't see.

For the spell difficulty, wich often seems harder to pass compared to the standard 1<p> for melee attack, IMHO it would be better to always use opposed rolls rule in combat, so that spellcaster will not be the only to possibly gets additional challenge dices...

Yeah people have brought some good points about the versatility of magic outside combat which is good to know. However I still think for wizards in combat you end up throwing large amounts of challenge dice for little effect while melee kills dude after dude with only one challenge dice and the occasional misfortune dice. It's hard for wizards to set up the cool stuff they want to do when physical classes kill everything too fast.

I think that combat should be an opposed check against agility or something since the 1d difficulty doesn't make sense when a slow orc is better at hitting an elf than a fast scaven just because he is stronger (which is the stat weapon skill uses).

I guess as people have said it's up to the GM to make interesting encounters for the wizard, but at the same time if shadows and magic is supposed to be scary I think that should be reflected in the card or a general rule. As it is magic is weaker than everything (we have a pit fighter that has only 3 advances that regularly does over 15 damage per hit) and more difficult to perform and can be done every turn without cooldowns or having to charge mana. It just doesn't feel balanced. You can say that creating shadows or fire out of nothing would freak out random thugs, but likewise skewering two dudes with one arrow or chopping down a cut with a single swing would be equally terrorizing so I could see other players getting annoyed that the GM is constantly making the mage's abilities do more than what the game cards say.

An idea I have been toying with is to use opposed rolls when fighting henchmen and possibly when fighting a nemesis.

Using them with henchmen offsets (potentially) the problem with henchmen, that they are a bit weak and easy to kill. I like the idea of henchmen being a good way of dealing with groups of NPCs, but I am less enamored with the idea that it makes them weaker than individuals of that race.

If you are surrounded by loads of them, it should be more difficult to hit any single creature successfully, as you aren't able to concentrate solely on hitting one of them but must keep your guard up against all of them..

The idea behind using them against a nemesis speaks for itself.

Radish said:

There are a few action cards that allow AG to be used as the base stat for a WS skill test instead of strength. Simply given the Skaven access to one of those if you are concerned, You need not change the underlying system to get the results you want, the system already allows you to do it.

pumpkin said:

Yes, but the basic melee card is still a 1d strength test so no matter how fast you are that orc is still going to crush you if he gets close enough and there's only so many defense points you have access to and when there are groups of henchmen you can only use so many dodge and improved dodge (which you don't have early on) cards .

Radish said:

Ah, so the issue is more that the quick, agile person can still be hit by the slower stronger person, when the slower stronger person gets to have their go.

I do think there is a slight mis-match between going all out on armour and getting a high soak compared to remaining lightly armoured and hoping to avoid damage by not getting hit; i think the rules do currently provide more chance of success for the heavily armoured person compared to the lightly armoured agile person. Its not easy to fix though as I think possibly adding agility into melee combat means agility is then important for ranged and melee and potentially makes that stat more important than others (STR).

If you were going to do something with agility and avoiding melee attacks, to keeps the Stats balanced, I think you'd need to also consider changing ranged damage to be figured using strength rather than melee.

Otherise melee specialist would need to concentrate on both STR (to hit and cause damage) and AG (to avoid being hit), whereas a ranged specialist would only need to concentrate on AG for hitting, damage and avoiding being hit themselves.

If ranged damaged was calcualted using STR then a ranged attacker still needs to concentrate on both STR and AG to be effective, rather than just concentrating on AG.

Agility affecting Defense and chance to be hit is already factored into combat using the Active Defense action card called Dodge. Ag 3+ for basic, Ag 4+ for improved.

Honestly, a gymnast (high Ag) probably isn't much more difficult to hit in melee than a tuba player (low-mid Ag) for a skilled opponent, unless the gymnast makes a special effort (read: uses Dodge) to avoid that particular attack.

As an optional rule, allow a high Ag character to be able to use the Dodge card more than once, instead of another Active Defense perhaps. So that Skaven can activate his Block card, but treat it like a Dodge card.

Even in combat, without dealing damage, Wizards bring some versatility that would be very hard to mimic with any other kind of class.

For example, at the end of rank 1, our party of 4 fought a small group of greenskins (2 orcs, 2 stronger goblins and some henchmen goblins) and a troll.

At some point the troll dropped his club from a fumble/chaos star. Well, luckily, our group had a Bright Wizard, he used his powers to incinerate the troll's club, effectively disarming the troll for the rest of the encounter. That's 2-3 off his damage potential for the rest of the fight, giving our melee fighters a much needed break.

Try doing that with an elven hunter, even if you do use flaming arrows. Not gonna happen.

ZexionII said:

I haven't played with wizards yet and don't have WoM. I'm curious about themechanics of this. Was it with a spell, cantrip or stunt?