Talk:Wizard (Dungeons & Dragons)

message: Where are the rules for wizards becoming delusional if they go too long without resting? -- Raveled
:It was probably a house rule.--SeizureDog (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am confident it was a house rule. I am quite familiar with all editions, and there was never a rule along these lines in any of the core books. Turlo Lomon (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delusional Mages? 

message: I think the influence of The Compleat Enchanter stories should be included, as it's clear the sympathetic magic-style spell component system is drawn from those stories.  Kakashi64 (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that The Compleat Enchanter was published a year after Dungeons & Dragons was published. Not sure how you can say it was the inspiration for something before that date. Turlo Lomon (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Additional thoughts. The Compleat Enchanter was based on works from 1940s and 50s. However, Dungeons & Dragons clearly stated The Dying Earth as the origin of the magic system. If you read that book, you would clearly see how exact the magic system is to that particuliar book. I haven't read The Compleat Enchanter, so I can't give a accurate comparison. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other literary influences 

message: - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future refs 

message: IMO this section could use some major cleanup.
*The Beguiler section describes an alternate class from 3.5e's PHBII. IMO they're far closer to rogues with magic than specialist wizards (also, they're sponteneous casters like bards and sorcerers). Maybe we could shoehorn it into the rogue or bard article in some sort of "similar classes" section.
*The Duskblade is another class from 3.5e's PHBII. IMO they're closer to spellcasting fighters than specialist wizards (also, they're spontaneous casters like sorcerers and bards). I don't know where to put this info. Maybe a separate article for swordmages, hexblades, duskblades and other miscellaneous fighter-wizard hybrid classes? Maybe shoehorn it into the bard article because bards are a jack of all trades class, or shoehorn it into the sorcerer article because 3.5e sorcerers are spontaneous casters and 4e sorcerers have some melee builds?
*The Necromancer section describes specific traits of the Dread Necromancer class from 3.5e's Heroes of Horror (such as spontenous casting, the secondary focus on divination magic and the looser armour restrictions) as if they were common traits of D&D necromancers.
*Summoners are wizards who specialize in the Conjuration / Summoning school, I don't know where this stuff about Transmutation magic is coming from.
*The Warmage section describes the traits of a specific 3.5e alternate class as if they were universal traits of a broader character achetype. Maybe we could move it to the sorcerer article in some kind of "similar classes" or "related classes" section or something.
It could also use some more info on common / prominent types of specialist wizards and wizard variants besides necromancers and summoners, such as illusionists, evokers and elementalists. -- Gordon Ecker, WikiSloth (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That section should probably be removed entirely as WP:OR unless we can get some sources that specifically tie them as subclasses of one class or another, or what have you. Looking at the section immediately above this one, I wonder if we could make some use of those refs to improve this article the way the DnD Dwarf was improved not long ago. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Duskblade itself does not even have that many Abjuration spells (only 8, he does have 20 Trasmutation spells and 17 Evocation spells). At most we could create a Classes(D&D 3.0/3.5) or a Casters(D&D 3.0/3.5) article that list the casters variants.--2.38.153.8 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common specialist-archetypes? 

message: Why are there two sections in the article both labeled D&D,both before and after AD&D. As well the second section dosent really provide any information that isn't already in the article or couldn't be added under another section. 204.116.209.29 (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone removed the publication dates several years ago, and it made a bit more sense when those were included. See what I mean here: BOZ (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why havent they been returned yet? 204.116.209.29 (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two D&D?