100 accumulated kismet requirement for wizard

[Isolrem]

Consider Bob

Bob has played MUDs before. Bob has played pen and paper DnD before. Bob is pretty much our ideal target audience.

Bob recently got tired of World of Warcraft and wanted to go back to his text based gaming roots. He found FK on TMC and was intrigued by the FR setting that he recalls from his college day DnD sessions. Bob creates a character. He chooses wizard because they were by far the most interesting class to him in DnD. He assigns his own stats and doesn't bother putting any in STR and CON because that's how his friend played her enchantress.

Compared to the average gamer, Bob shows a great deal of patience. He wasn't turned away from being initially stuck in a temple bashing dummies. He learned the most basic commands of the game and ventured into Waterdeep. He even interacted with a few PCs, though they had few words to say to him.

Now, Bob is lvl 5. Dummies no longer do anything for him. Even bashing rats in the sewers would take a day for him to gain a single level. If he dares challenge a beetle he is instantly shredded and loses all his exp on respawn. Bob has a job, he plays 3-4 hours in the evening to relax, but after all this initial commitment he has found no rewards from the game, only frustration. Bob is about as perfect a newcomer as I can imagine, and if I were Bob I would never touch FK again.

For years I have said wizard training for newbies is way too frustrating and lacking in motivation. However in recent times it has only been made even harder with the exp requirement increase. I'm not privy to the exact numbers in our adoption rate and dropoff points, but certainly I cannot recall any new players in recent memory who have stayed on after choosing wizard as a starting class.

At this point I just say restrict it. Force them to play a fighting class that at least stands a chance at reaching lvl 10 before the burn off point. At least it will save Bob some grief.

[Harroghty]

I certainly don't dispute that you're correct, but I wonder what Bob's reaction would be if he could not play his favorite class.

My plan to update the newbie area (again) includes a path for each base class because right now it has been difficult to balance challenge rating and reward in a common path for all classes. (e.g. gibberlings are a joke for a warrior, but deadly to a wizard). A PC has the potential to make level 3 by the time they depart Waterdeep's newbie area. I will sustain that for the next design (which is nothing more than sketches on my white board at present). So what would make a brand new wizard's life easier from square one?

[Timaeus]

I agree that wizards should not have a kismet requirement. Some players only play 1 character and would be put off by having to play a different class for x amount of hours just so they can play a wizard eventually which may be their favorite class/type of character.

1.) Meditation given at low skill level right from the start.

2.) Ability to buy/get some sort of pet/familiar to help in combat and possibly carry things to help with carry weight. Can even tie it to some sort of quest that outlines the expected behavior of having/using pets in a in-character appropriate fashion.

3.) More beginning spells and those spells at apprentice rather than amateur skill level, along with component availability for those spells. (armor component is not available until you leave newbie area currently for example) One way to give components would be a small quest that gives them a generic spell pouch with one component for each spell wizards are given at the start, again, using the quest to explain how spell pouches work in FK.

4.) Explain in an OOC fashion the difficulties facing low level wizards so that new players are made very aware that wizards in FK take more effort, patience, and time than other classes at low levels.

[Isolrem]

I like number 4 especially. Even with much more accessibility to early level spells, they still aren't going to do as much damage as a warrior with a sword, and are still much much squishier. If we are not going to restrict it, at least make it clear how much of a challenge they are undertaking compared to other classes, emphatically and repeatedly.

[Hrosskell]

I really, really like Timaeus's post. The ideas, the simple and straight forward lay-out, everything about it sums up the additions I think would make wizards enjoyable and cool right off the bat. I would love to see more done with familiars, but I think just getting access to one early (I did some investigating for a possible tabletop game and snakes can be -really- deadly even at level 1) would be awesome. I think we forget that fighters get their base weapon off the bat--to them "a plain long sword" is worth a spell pouch and then some.

[Isolrem]

Familiars might be cool, but unfortunately unless you also tweak the way exp gain works for groups with NPCs, you are not going to get any levels if they bear the weight in combat. Anyways, there have been past threads about this, which have brought up lots and lots of very good ideas, unfortunately seeing them implemented is another thing entirely. I do not think a single, easy change is going to fix low level wizards. That is why I feel presently helping newbies avoid the pitfall is the highest concern.

[Blarc]

I agree that wizards should not have a kismet requirement. Some players only play 1 character and would be put off by having to play a different class for x amount of hours just so they can play a wizard eventually which may be their favorite class/type of character.

Yet I had to play fighter until level twelve to get that goblin rogue.

Just saying that if you think it that way, all races and classes should be avaible right from the start. Not that I'm saying wizards should cost kismet, it's always nice to have something to choose from, expecially when starting the game, so maybe make rogues awaible as starting class as well, since they aren't any more difficult than wizards.

Just my thoughts

[Tortus]

Rogues are available as a starting class. It's the goblin race you had to pay for.

[Nylo]

Last I checked, rogues did indeed have a kismet requirement. But my information could be out of date. This is not because they are harder to play, it's because they can be abused and have been in the past. The kismet requirement lets people get familiar with the rules before they play one.

[Tortus]

Oh, right. You're correct, and I'm a fool... Actually, it's 200 kismet. And this thread's about putting wizards at 100. So if it works for rogues, why not for wizards?

Of course, someone might be put off by being unable to play a wizard, but the same goes for rogues as far as I can see. Granted, rogues provide more opportunity for bothering others with abuse and like that.

In my experience, though, it's true that wizards are damn hard to play, and there might be decent cause to give a fair warning, or some help in the beginning, for the benefit of newer players, or those inexperienced with the class.

[Sithiel]

I for one would not mind the 100 kismet for wizards. When I first started playing, I started a wizard. A gnome wizard for that. But it was so hard for a starting player that by the level 10 I was so frustrated I deleted and stopped playing for awhile. Then I remembered how fun it was to play, so I created a warrior and came back. I can easily see how a new player might easily quit for ever and start playing some lame mud, where he can play a wizard in much less cool environment

However I would much more like to see some of Timaeus's ideas implemented, so we would not have to limit the freedom of choice.

[Rhangalas]

So what would make a brand new wizard's life easier from square one?

The ability to meditate would help, but I think it's already been decided that meditate will stay level 10.

Other than that, more level 1-2 spell trainers would help. The cantrips you get automatically aren't really effective when you hit level 5-6. It's been a while since I rolled a new wizard, so I don't remember what spells you can get from the start, but these would help - maybe even add some of the other level 2 buffs:

Cat's Grace
Bull's Strength
Bear's Endurance
Armor
Shield
Magic Missile

And probably a merchant that sells the components you need for the low level spells.

[Grenwyn]

Rhangalas, I think wizards do get those level 1 spells automatically (plus a few others), but they don't have access to any lvl 2 spells (including stat spells) until being guilded.

[Rhangalas]

Ah, that's right. It was the ability to cast up to level 5 spells that were from an opposing school... told you it has been a while. I don't remember getting any level 1 spells for free beyond the one you pick in creation, must be new.

Anyways, if wizards are already getting a handful of free spells (seemingly the majority of castable ones at level 1), then I'm at a loss. There should be no problem with them as is... wizards are supposed to be difficult, it's part of the trade-off for being insanely powerful later on.

[Isolrem]

Rhangalas, are you aware of the recent changes to exp requirement?
Getting to level 20 feels like it takes 5 to 10 times as much exp as before - the point of which baffles me, and having to grind so much more per level just makes it all the more likely that a stray crit to the head or chest 1hkos and resets all progress for that level, particularly for low hp/con chars.

Yes you do get Armor and Shield right off the bat, which is very nice and at least puts your AC on par with more combat oriented classes, but low level spell recovery rate is a joke if you want to use it for combat or short lasting buffs.

And the discussion at hand is not about whether it's alright for wizards to be hard to play early to balance the massive power level late game (increasingly arguable with recent adjustments), but how to not have the difficulty turn away new players entirely. In fact there are plenty of other measures in place that checks wizards' potence in the late game, and a lot of effort must be spent well after getting to lvl 50 to actually enjoy some of that so called power. There is no need for a crippled early game to do so, and I've never felt that to be the case in standard DnD with familiars and working lvl 1 summons (both of which actually share full exp, mind you), not to mention guaranteed group play.

[Rhangalas]

Rhangalas, are you aware of the recent changes to exp requirement?

Yes.

Getting to level 20 feels like it takes 5 to 10 times as much exp as before...

It's a good thing. The old system was creating weak, speed-leveled PCs.

[Isolrem]

I honestly fail to see the harm of speed leveled PCs, when higher levels only opens up more of the game world to the player: do we have features targeted towards low and medium level characters only that demand they be confined to those levels for an extended period of time? It seems to me that most of leveling is still just grinding on the same mobs, so why enforce doing so for ten hours instead of one?

I made this thread originally just to address wizards because they were hit hardest by the changes, but honestly overall the game in its present state is not one I would have gotten into, if I'd started playing now. We put such heavy emphasis on advertising ourselves and attracting new blood on these boards, should we not consider whether our course of action is making starting out in the game prohibitively slow and lacking in reward for the sentiment of most modern gamers?

[Rhangalas]

I get what you are saying, but you always have to crawl before you walk. The just of it - in my opinion - is to have PCs better prepared for the higher level areas. The more EXP it takes to level, the more you use your skills and advance them. So, in the long run, your wizard's killing-power will more adequately reflect their level without having to level-sit and grind...

I have 8 wizard PCs that have all ran the 15 level gamut, spread out over various versions of the game and the grind never bothered me as a new player, my only complaint was the School of Wonder being a requirement to guild.

About the only thing I can think of to help new wizards would be:

- Open up brew, meditate, and scribe at level 1 for wizards. (They would still have to find a trainer.)

- Bring back the coded Familiars.

- Allow specialization at creation. (You would be able to learn without a guild, but to access trainers for the higher level spells, you would either have to join a guild, learn from scrolls, or apprentice to another wizard.) This would give a lot more substance to teacher-PCs and scribes.

In any case, I don't think restricting wizards with a kismet req. would help draw new players. Especially if it was their plan to play a wizard.

[Orplar]

Well said Rhang

[Gwain]

- Open up brew, meditate, and scribe at level 1 for wizards. (They would still have to find a trainer.)

I would agree with brew and meditate, but I've seen enough evidence to not open scribe to anyone beyond special peer-to-peer training. The only way I could see otherwise would be to remove the ability to learn from scrolls. There's been a lot of abuse and continues to be some contention with learned content. I'm all for more instances of trainers for rarer spells and prayers or quest rewards being these, but no, I don't want wizards to have a scribable way to teach on the outset, everything else sounds good though.