Update #17: Prototype Wizard Character Sheet

Update #17 has a prototype 1st-level wizard character sheet and four wizard spell previews (here is a direct link to the full-size character sheet). The next update will have the rogue character sheet preview and the example-of-play-video!

(You may want to compare this character sheet to the warrior’s character sheet from an earlier post.)

If you like this post and where these ideas are going, please check out the kickstarter for my Five Moons RPG, which uses these ideas. Thanks!

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Update #17: Prototype Wizard Character Sheet

  1. You read my mind, I totally had wanted to compare the two (and had put up the Warrior PDF before I had saw that post linking it).

    Looks like Warriors have overall good skill numbers, while Wizards have more specific skill spec, possibly getting a spec per skill. Combined with that they both seem to have the same Resolve Value, that would actually in turn make the Warrior, the better Diplomat funnily enough (huzzah!).

    When I did my Projection of the Warrior back in the other thread, It looks like my guess that you are indeed going to do a 3/4/5HP per level paradigm for the other classes (The “4” for Rogue/betweener types is my guess I would assume). Given what I have so far, I would gravely caution in doing this, as while Five works fairly well, the other numbers start to fall behind rather quickly, most of all the “3/HP per level”. I think ye might actually be better off with a 4/5/6, or even a 5/6/7! HP /level paradigm

    I noticed with Icebolt you put a particular sentence for how they can make snowballs. While Nifty, I think ye should include more of this with Rogue powers as well, in this case Smokebombs should have a mention of how Rogues can craft them (including an expiration date if that matters), as well possibly how other characters of the gameworld can interact with it.

    Also, looks like wizards either get the same skill points per level (3+int) as warrior, or INT no longer applies to SP. I intend to do a projection of this, as well with the Rogue when its previewed (I look forward to the process). Lastly, I’m noticing a…chilling theme here, wondering if SKR likes Cold energy, or is it just cold up where you live? (winks)

    Like

  2. This is my second projected attempt, NOW for Octavius The Wizard!**
    (Assuming every 5 lvs gives +1 to two stats, Spell Attack bonus is result of +5 class, +1 INT and possibly BaB is 1/2 level?. I’m also guessing Saves are like 3rd’s, but slightly faster, HP is 3/level +CON added to each level of course, and possibly BaB is 1/2 level?)

    Octavius at 5th may look like:

    (Con 2, Dex 0, Int 2, Psy 0 Str 0), HP 25 , Resolve 10, Spell atk +7-9. Fort +3, Ref +0, Will +6-7 (+4-5 base, +2 stat)
    Skills: Know +7 (+5 base, +2 stat), Move +5 (+5 base), Sense +5 (+5 base), Sneak +5 (+5 Base).
    Frost Bolt +9 (1d6+2), Staff +2? (1d6)

    At 10th level:

    (Con 3, Dex 0, Int 3, Psy 0 Str 0), HP 60 , Resolve 20, Spell atk +8-13. Fort +6, Ref +3, Will +10-11 (+7-8 base, +2 stat)
    Skills: Know +13 (+10 base, +3 stat), Move +10 (+10 base), Sense +10 (+10 base), Sneak +10 (+10 Base).
    Frost Bolt +13 (1d6+3), Staff +5? (1d6)

    At 15th level:

    (Con 4, Dex 0, Int 4, Psy 0 Str 0), HP 105 , Resolve 30, Spell atk +9-16. Fort +9, Ref +5, Will +13-14 (+9-10 base, +4 stat),
    Skills: Know +19 (+15 base, +4stat), Move +15 (+15 base), Sense +15 (+15 base), Sneak +15 (+15 Base).
    Frost Bolt +16 (1d6+4), Staff +7? (1d6)

    At 20th level

    (Con 5, Dex 0, Int 5, Psy 0 Str 0), HP 160 , Resolve 40, Spell atk +10-20. Fort +11, Ref +6, Will +17(+12 base, +5 stat),
    Skills: Know +25 (+20 base, +5 stat), Move +20 (+20 base), Sense +20 (+20 base), Sneak 20 (+20 Base).
    Frost Bolt +20 (1d6+5), Staff +10? (1d6)

    At 25th level

    (Con 6, Dex 0, Int 6, Psy 0 Str 0), HP 225 , Resolve 50, Spell atk +11-23. Fort +8, Ref +8, Will 20 (+14 base, +6 stat),
    Skills: Know +25 (+20 base, +5 stat), Move +20 (+20 base), Sense +20 (+20 base), Sneak 20 (+20 Base).
    Frost Bolt +23 (1d6+6), Staff +10? (1d6)

    Looks like the wizard missing most of the type of spells he’d have for his respective levels makes it harder for me to judge things. So this time around, no facing the Stone giant “just for kicks” (unfortunately…). The saves are also harder to judge for the fact that I don’t know how they scale just quite yet, just they’re three numbers apart from the Good/Bad respectively.

    **=Anyone who wants to see my last one for Akiko the warrior I’ll link here: https://fivemoonsrpg.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/prototype-five-moons-rpg-character-sheet/comment-page-1/#comment-2836)

    Like

  3. It took me awhile to comment on this because I have many thoughts about it.

    I really love the direction of magic here. Even my friends who never had interest in spellcasters beyond cool magic items really like the way you designed the example spells. There’s also an interesting point about the ice spells. Since they do more than deal damage, you aren’t crippled by specializing. You can still do useful things for your party even up against ice immune creatures. I’m suspecting other elemental spells will work similarly?

    The spells listed here got me really excited. I write and illustrate characters for personal stories and non-gaming roleplay. One such character is basically a mute rogueish cryomancer who creates weapons out of ice and covers himself with a light-refracting magical ice barrier to camouflage and protect himself while sneaking around (his enemies grow very paranoid when they suddenly feel a chill in the air). When I saw these example spells, my first reaction was “this is perfect for that character!” Pick up a stealth/invisibility spell and I’m good to go.

    I do like Vancian magic. However, I have grown more disenchanted with it lately due to fairly uncommon reasons. While many dislike it simply because of preparation mechanics. Vancian magic creates a framework with a high opportunity cost for the spells you know and learn. You feel like you have to choose the most powerful, most versatile spell for your spell slots/spells known. Anything less feels like a wasted choice. It punishes you for making a choice on flavor. You’re not allowed to be the cryomancer that stabs people with blades made out of ice, because why would you waste a valuable spell slot on a spell that makes an 5 gold piece item for a few minutes when your party and the entire game counts on you to prepare combat enders? Like you mentioned in other articles, there’s also the problem where spell lists don’t offer enough to build thematic spellcasters (despite there being tons of spells), and the baffling issue where spellcasters are punished for specializing whereas martials are punished for NOT specializing.

    I understand and respect that you won’t have material components for abilities. However, will some abilities require foci? I really like foci for mechanics and flavor. They make sense for effects that require a tool. They don’t require as much book keeping that material components have, and they have a one-time cost. They add flavor and creates real-world parallels. I could see foci working for martial abilities, too. The rogue might need an alchemy kit that stores their prepared bombs, and fighter slashing special attacks might require a slashing weapon as a focus. I could see your wand ideas hooking onto this, too.

    I once saw something in a setting book where plane shift works by having a tuning fork vibrate at the proper frequency associated with the destination plane, and how some wizards spend lifetimes trying to find the frequency for a desired demiplane of lore. This struck me as a really cool flavor that does not impede the mechanics of the spell.

    Overall, I’m really excited at what I’m seeing.

    Also, I love Gerald Lee’s character designs for the iconics, especially for this one. I like the stylish look with the hash shading that gives it a gritty feel.

    Like

    • “and fighter slashing special attacks might require a slashing weapon as a focus.”
      How about a Karate Chop? Fighter doesn’t need no puny WEAPONS, only his FISTS. Though I can agree to Alchemy kit.

      ” issue where spellcasters are punished for specializing whereas martials are punished for NOT specializing.”
      Thing is about a spellcaster, they can recreate their specialization with each morning. So you can certainly play a “themed” caster in addition to your SoD’s, just they’ve given casters “everything”. Such that no casters in respective fiction have, and new Fantasy game definitely needs to pair down the “Wizard” to set of classes or such. Martial types are definitely punished for their specialization, takes far more resources to get into it, and the net effect isn’t even worth the investment a spellcaster can do with a spell (though maybe meant the reverse?)

      I do want to say, I’m concerned Rogues will end up being the weakest class in this game. Likely due to the conceptual space problem, resulting in their powers not being as rad as the other archetypes.

      Lastly, huzzah! good to see another poster on this blog thread that wasn’t just me!

      Like

      • {I do want to say, I’m concerned Rogues will end up being the weakest class in this game. Likely due to the conceptual space problem, resulting in their powers not being as rad as the other archetypes.}

        I believe quite opposite. Loosening classes into basic, customizable frameworks means a more variety of abilities will become available for any given character concept. I also anticipate versatile characters being pretty decent, because all archetypes will scale mostly same — they simply have different base values.

        Like

      • ” Loosening classes into basic, customizable frameworks means a more variety of abilities will become available for any given character concept.”

        Right, but considering what’s been seen with the Rogue so far, and SKR admittance that he’s had to “buff” the Rogue powers (indicating difficulty w/ensuring their conceptual space stays relevant), is what has led to my concern. If the Main “Skill” class is put under such concern, that I’m even more worried for the Hybrid combinations of “Spell/Skill”, and “Martial/Skill” respectively. So while conceptually they all should have cool superpowers at appropriate levels, and their numbers scale to stay relevant, I feel in execution it may inadvertently have them turn out not as good.

        Like

      • {I do want to say, I’m concerned Rogues will end up being the weakest class in this game. Likely due to the conceptual space problem, resulting in their powers not being as rad as the other archetypes.]

        Fortunately, rogues can draw on combat, skill, and magic, in whatever combination they want, so you could create a warrior-like rogue, a wizard-like rogue, a magus-like rogue, or one who focuses entirely on doing really cool things with skills.

        (I think in another thread you had said something about the stunt boosts being something anyone with that skill ought to be able to do, like run up a wall; the balancing point is finding a way for all characters to be able to do enough of those things to have cool stunt options, but still give the stunt-focused rogue even more options that aren’t available to other characters.)

        Like

      • {Right, but considering what’s been seen with the Rogue so far, and SKR admittance that he’s had to “buff” the Rogue powers (indicating difficulty w/ensuring their conceptual space stays relevant), is what has led to my concern.}

        I personally think one of the problems with rogues stems from many people having different opinions of defining the archetype. Some think they should be a martial that trades defense for skill expertise. Many see them as simply mobile, Dexterity-based fighters. Others see them as assassins or glass-canon fighters. More people prefer to think of rogues as jack-of-all-trades like a bard that trades support abilities for more utility and combat prowess. The Pathfinder rogue didn’t seem well designed because the class didn’t really do any of these well, and you were better off playing another class like a rogue rather than a rogue played like another class. If you wanted to be a magical-rogue or ninja, you were better off playing a magus with a few stealth and obscuring mist spells. If you wanted to be a skill-rogue, you were better off playing a bard.

        I don’t see this a problem with Five Moons because the class system seems specifically designed to help you build a PC that matches the vision of your character concept.

        {{ I think in another thread you had said something about the stunt boosts being something anyone with that skill ought to be able to do, like run up a wall; the balancing point is finding a way for all characters to be able to do enough of those things to have cool stunt options, but still give the stunt-focused rogue even more options that aren’t available to other characters. }}

        Have you considered something like your Power Attack idea? Where you can take a penalty on your skill check to do something really cool if you succeed? Since the skill-focused skeleton will have higher skills and more +5 skill specializations, they can utilize those abilities better than other skeletons.

        Like

      • {The Pathfinder rogue didn’t seem well designed because the class didn’t really do any of these well}
        Part of that was them getting nerfed to fight a certain way, so certain (albeit magical) effects they would’ve relied on to stay relevant over time got changed. In 3E, they stayed fairly relevant as Burst-damage characters who contributed via their volume of skills, and Use Magic Device for a situation. The Rogue in general, I think carves a place in something like that, but take this further in what I’ll address below.

        {I personally think one of the problems with rogues stems from many people having different opinions of defining the archetype.}
        Fair enough, I think that can be part of the problem. What a Rogue does, a warrior type character must be somewhat capable as well. Conan, the famous warrior example, is often considered a Rogue simply because he was stealthy, multi-talented, and often leap unexpectedly upon his foes (even in middle of a fight, deal a deadly blow foe didn’t expect). So there is the problem how Rogue/Warriors always kinda straddled in that conceptual conflict.

        Anyway, I think the Rogue is someone who goes into battle to inflict Status effects, put conflicts into their favor. Be it to deal more damage (Sneak Attack), Even their odds against multiple opponents (Concealment, the Night!), perform actions more undetected (stealing baubles or sneak by), and even harming Morale/Fear-itself. Batman definite example capitalizes on these, especially playing on fears to overwhelm his opponents. Whereas if he’s (batman/Rogue) caught out of his element, then has to recreate a situation to his advantage, Flee, or deal with being at such disadvantage which may lose.

        {Since the skill-focused skeleton will have higher skills and more +5 skill specializations, they can utilize those abilities better than other skeletons.}
        I was initially thinking this isn’t much more different than just having a “if you succeed by 5/10/etc)” sort of method, but I realize its value in theme w/Five Moons that it might actually be a good idea. So where Fighters skeleton is better sack of combat numbers, the Rogue’s skeleton is better sack of Skill numbers, so I think that’s workable basic idea. That said, I do think the powers themselves will have to go farther than that.

        {I don’t see this a problem with Five Moons because the class system seems specifically designed to help you build a PC that matches the vision of your character concept.}
        I think the Classes themselves should be solid, but the [b]Powers[/b] they give, will what help define how relevant each class may be, in respect to others. If the Rogue Powers end up not being as good in general, then may mean the entire Skill concept is in danger, but the pure Skill class would suffer the most in this case. Regardless, I think it’s a good idea to put this concern forward, to get people to keep an eye out for this potential problem, to best ensure it gets smoothed out on release (if a problem), or proof to its relevance (if not a problem).

        {(I think in another thread you had said something about the stunt boosts being something anyone with that skill ought to be able to do, }
        Unsure if relegated to me or other, though I do indeed recall making these mentions (I thought it was on KS, but actually here:https://fivemoonsrpg.wordpress.com/2014/10/03/five-moons-rpg-update-9-orc-roosackgamers-interview-rules-prototype-preview-silly-internet-stunts/comment-page-1/#comment-2755).

        Part of helping with the “tells” of something should be universal, is when the effect itself is minor in its granularity. With the Climbing Example, climbing w/one hand, no progress on fail, Double speed “maybe” (low lv prob fine, though I’d totally reward PC’s w/that if they rolled really high) and other caveats we’ve taken for granted in 3E’s climbing system minor enough shouldn’t warrant a Boost. There were options in there more unique to Climbing, like catching yourself/someone, Wall-run, and even Auto-succeeds, that would carve out a heroic climber. I do definitely think they should have higher level versions later on, with some of the powers updated to the level, better, or no longer available as something simply better is available. Eventually, unfortunately, certain skills won’t be as relevant, when constant flight will be an expected thing (20th+ in 5M, but that’s near endgame so understandable).

        Like

    • {You can still do useful things for your party even up against ice immune creatures. I’m suspecting other elemental spells will work similarly?}

      Yes.

      {I do like Vancian magic.}

      It certainly is easy to play, especially for a new player: “you have X charges of Y spells, once they’re gone, they’re gone.”

      {Vancian magic creates a framework with a high opportunity cost for the spells you know and learn. You feel like you have to choose the most powerful, most versatile spell for your spell slots/spells known. Anything less feels like a wasted choice. It punishes you for making a choice on flavor.}

      True.

      {I understand and respect that you won’t have material components for abilities. However, will some abilities require foci?}

      Yes.

      {I once saw something in a setting book where plane shift works by having a tuning fork vibrate at the proper frequency associated with the destination plane, and how some wizards spend lifetimes trying to find the frequency for a desired demiplane of lore. This struck me as a really cool flavor that does not impede the mechanics of the spell.}

      The tuning fork bit is actually in the Plane Shift spell. I like that “demiplane of lore” idea. Or the “demiplane of chocolate” would work, too…

      Like

      • I’m happy to hear foci will play a role in Five Moons. I’m especially excited to see how it plays in junction with the wand ideas you had.

        {The tuning fork bit is actually in the Plane Shift spell.}

        I should have looked that up prior to my comment. I remember it had a tuning fork as a focus, but the lore bit in the book really fascinated me. Plane shift strikes me as a great example of a spell with an item cost to it. It adds a bit of risk (need an item to get back home) to a spell to keep planar travel feeling adventurous. At the same time, the rules don’t make the spell annoying or unfun to use (it has no indicated gold cost). It has great flavor allowing you to build stories off of. And finally, it provides a hook for the GM to insert their own setting/houserules to make planar travel as difficult or trivial as they wish based on the availability of proper tuning forks.

        {I like that “demiplane of lore” idea.}

        “Poor Willie the Whitebeard. He slaved his life away in academia when all he wanted was a good story.”

        {Or the “demiplane of chocolate” would work, too…}

        Oh gosh, that adventure would write itself. A noble hires the party to search for his lost uncle, an old conjurer who’s a child at heart that went missing months ago. When they search his cabin, the party discovers the wizard dabbles with planar magic and spent a lifetime researching the frequency for the demiplane of chocolate and sugary delights. However, the engorged uncle refuses to leave his sugary heaven, and the party senses something amiss when they notice that the lollipop trees seem to be watching them…

        Like

    • {{Anyway, I think the Rogue is someone who goes into battle to inflict Status effects, put conflicts into their favor. Be it to deal more damage (Sneak Attack),}}

      I used to envision the rogue as more like the Spy from Team Fortress 2. A sneaky saboteur and infiltrator that uses their skills to disable traps and defenses. Their contribution to a battle lies with what they do at the start of the combat with abilities that disable a priority target. Perhaps with abilities that work like the Pathfinder ninja/slayer’s assassinate talent or abilities that do special things in surprise rounds.

      However, I see that the rogue can be many things now.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s