Wizards without Staves

[Kieddicus]

Has anyone here every played (or GM'd for) an effective wizard who didn't know the staff spell using the legacy edition? If so what was that wizards play style and spell list like?

[hcobb]

Calen, Elf wizard, age 20
ST 6, DX 12, IQ 14, MA 12
Talents include: Literacy, Unarmed Combat III
Spells include: Acid Touch, Drain Strength, 3-Hex Fire, 4-Hex Illusion
Languages: Common, Elvish
Attacks and Damage: Punch (1d-1), Kick (2d-4, -1 DX)
Armor: UC III stops 2 hits and is -2 to be hit.

She shall learn Staff II or higher, once she has the spare XP for Mana. She is already maxed out on plausible advancement in unarmed combat other than building up DX to improve shield rush and aimed shots.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Kieddicus

Has anyone here every played (or GM'd for) an effective wizard who didn't know the staff spell using the legacy edition? If so what was that wizards play style and spell list like?

That's the problem, though... why would any player forego the new STAFF spells? They are simply too good to pass up. A wizard w/o a staff (or more specifically, the mana they provide) is at a distinct disadvantage under the Legacy rules.

[Kieddicus]

Originally Posted by hcobb

She shall learn Staff II or higher, once she has the spare XP for Mana. She is already maxed out on plausible advancement in unarmed combat other than building up DX to improve shield rush and aimed shots.

That is a cool set up but I am looking for characters that have no intention of ever learning Staff or at least not till they are well past 50-points.

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

That's the problem, though... why would any player forego the new STAFF spells? They are simply too good to pass up. A wizard w/o a staff (or more specifically, the mana they provide) is at a distinct disadvantage under the Legacy rules.

That is why I was asking. I do plan on making a full discussion post about solutions to the topic in the House-Rules board.

[JohnPaulB]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

That's the problem, though... why would any player forego the new STAFF spells? They are simply too good to pass up. A wizard w/o a staff (or more specifically, the mana they provide) is at a distinct disadvantage under the Legacy rules.

If you envision your wizard character to be a wizard that doesn't use a staff, then they don't use a staff, even if it seems too good to pass up or not. Simple really.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

A wizard w/o a staff (or more specifically, the mana they provide) is at a distinct disadvantage under the Legacy rules.

A wizard needs maybe a thousand experience points before it's worth even contemplating buying mana. (If power stones are available it might be a lot later than that.) A 32-point character generated without a staff could have a substantial career and die of unrelated causes long before needing to get the staff for mana purposes.

In combat the staff isn't that great. It's nice to know you can Defend if you must, and you might occasionally help to finish off a helpless victim by thwacking it. I don't find the occult zap very useful, there's just usually more useful things to do with a spare fatigue point.

One downside of a combat (i.e. club) staff is that you look like a wizard even before you cast, which simplifies enemy threat assessment and tactics and can turn you into a first turn missile magnet.

I normally take a staff, it's probably a good idea, but I wouldn't call it a must have.

[hcobb]

Big downside of going into combat with a big stick is that you become the top target for HTH attacks. If you carry a silver dagger instead then you shall be sniped. (Carrying a brand in the off-hand keeps animals from jumping on top of your wizard.)

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Carrying a brand in the off-hand keeps animals from jumping on top of your wizard.

Technically this only applies to "ordinary animals", an undefined but presumably narrower category than animals generally. How much narrower varies between campaigns. But in my experience most parties get over fighting ordinary wolves and their ilk pretty fast, and have more combats against humanoids, fantasticals, etc.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

Technically this only applies to "ordinary animals", an undefined but presumably narrower category than animals generally. How much narrower varies between campaigns. But in my experience most parties get over fighting ordinary wolves and their ilk pretty fast, and have more combats against humanoids, fantasticals, etc.

I find that wolves are a challenge for anyone without serious armor. A fencer, for instance, loses all his advantages in HTH (but may have a readied main-gauche for that). If the wolves outnumber the party, they're a real threat. Two wolves on one character is tough.

[Axly Suregrip]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

... but I wouldn't call it a must have.

Exactly. With the new staff rules there are both reasons to have or skip getting the staff.

- Biggest reasons to have a staff: magical attack and eventually mana

- Biggest reason to skip it: attacks cost 1 ST. And wizards are best avoiding combat, so anything that can be used to defend with is good enough.