Wizard specialists / Circle of Eight - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Wizard specialists / Circle of Eight

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
zombiegleemax
Sep 11, 2003 7:50:45 Hello Greyhawkers,

Contiuning my relentless quest for knowledge:

The LGG often mentions the Wiz class for stats of the NPCs but does not mention if any of those wizards are specialist wizards.
I would have thought at least some of them must be. I personally think that specialisation works out better than not specialising, but in any case some of them must be specialists.

Lets look at the Circle of Eight from LGJ #1. Based on their spells from the greyhawk hardcover, I must guess that they have the following specialisations (includes former members):

Bigby - got to be an Evoker, surely (dont call me shirley)
Drawmij - possibly a Transmuter (with no Necro or Enchant)
Mordenkainen - according to Epic HB, just a normal wizard
Nystul - probably an Evoker?
Otiluke - got to be an Evoker?
Otto - possibly an Enchanter?
Rary - anyone know? was this is LGJ recently?
Tenser - definitely a Transmuter?

Okay what about other famous wizards of the Flanaess?

Elaine Mystica? Diviner?

What are your thoughts about the guesses above?
Do you have material that clarifies any of these?
Have you made some up for your campaign?
Dont you agree the Circle of Eight should have some specialists?

Any other thoughts on wizard specialists in Greyhawk?
#2
zombiegleemax
Sep 11, 2003 8:03:37 this is the most up to date listing of the circle i could find

Bigby Wiz19
Drawmij Wiz18
Jallarzi Sallavarian Wiz15
Mordenkainen Wiz20+
Nystul Wiz17
Otto Clr3(Boccob)/Wiz15
Teodain Eriason Wiz17
Warnes Starcoat Wiz20

This info was found in an artical called "wheels within wheels"
by Erik Mona and Gary Holian, check for it in the archives.
It gives history and other details of what has happened to the
other members.

Sorry i cant give you a link to it , Eddy
#3
rilem
Sep 11, 2003 10:47:33 Here's a link to the downloads page. "Wheels Within Wheels" is in both PDF and word format, though I haven't checked the Word doc.

RPGA downloads

Edit: fixed bad link. apologies
#4
samwise
Sep 11, 2003 11:06:13 I forget where it was noted, but there is a statement that while those members of the Circle have certain preferences in spell, none of them are specialists.
Overall, very few NPC wizards in GH canon have been specialists. They just aren't as flexible, particularly for adversaries, as regular wizards.
#5
zombiegleemax
Sep 11, 2003 11:09:16 Let's not forget Alhamazad the Wise.

Can't find the LGJ with his info at the moment...
#6
zombiegleemax
Sep 11, 2003 11:42:53 Anyone know if there are stats/backgrounds for any of the Boneheart or Lesser Boneheart that serve Iuz?
#7
ghent
Sep 11, 2003 11:48:56 I dont know of any 3e stats for the Boneheart, but if you just want to read background story and such for some of the major ones, you can try to find the old "Iuz the evil" supplement. It details quite a few of the boneheart as well as their magic items, and of course Iuz.

J
#8
rilem
Sep 11, 2003 15:23:16 Sorry about bad "wheels within wheels" link -- fixed it.

I'd agree that most of the Eight aren't made out as true specialists. School specialization, as a game mechanic, seems to be mostly a way for low-level players to survive their first few levels — and that's not exactly a problem with this crew.
#9
zombiegleemax
Sep 11, 2003 16:30:26 Thanks for the info ghent. I'll do some digging and see if I can find it.
#10
grodog
Sep 12, 2003 0:11:57
Originally posted by Jagermeister
Anyone know if there are stats/backgrounds for any of the Boneheart or Lesser Boneheart that serve Iuz?

Not yet, no, but if I ever get off my duff and write the rest of the Boneheart article, it should appear in LGJ sometime....
#11
zombiegleemax
Sep 12, 2003 10:23:01 Here's the real story how I see it: Most of the major Greyhawk personages grew out of the campaigns of Gary Gygax and his players in the original D&D/AD&D 1st era. During this time, "specialist wizards" the way they're now known in the post AD&D 2nd era didn't exist, with the rare exception of the occasional illusionist.

So that's why Bigby, Mordenkainen, Tenser, etc are all normal wizards and not diviners or evokers or what have you.

Of course, that can be in your campaign if you want. Nobody's stopping you.
#12
zombiegleemax
Sep 13, 2003 3:12:24 I think it's a shame that a few more of the NPCs mentioned in LGG aren't wizard specialists. Yes normal wizards are more flexible, but I think the real reason (as one of you mentioned above) is likely to be that many were around from 1st edition days and nobody decided to "convert" them - or that they needed converting.

In any case in my campaign, a few them are specialist. I have LGJ #0 but it is not real detailed.

What about Tenser? What level is he at these days? Anyone know?

Anyone know much about the origin of Philidor the Blue? According to something I read I think he is Wiz24? These are the soughts of people I think need to be fully detailed in a setting hardcover. It gives us some examples of people in Greyhawk.

Anyway, current Tenser details anyone?
#13
zombiegleemax
Sep 15, 2003 0:00:22 Hey good people,

I think that in the CoG boxed set, it is explained that the Circle of Eight mages are not specialists and in fact disdain such magic users as lacking access to all the schools of magic. IIRC, the claim is justified by citing earlier published spells (in the GA hardcover), where named spells utilize "opposing" schools of magic.

Hasta la proxima!
#14
chatdemon
Sep 16, 2003 2:42:21 The lack of variety in the Wizards in the LDD and LGJ0 are probably also due in no small part to the authors not having access to full versions of the rules when putting those two documents together. Both were written before 3e was released, so it's likely that some of that was done to avoid conflicting with any last minute changes to the rules.
#15
erik_mona
Sep 17, 2003 19:57:09 Alan said:
>>>
Not yet, no, but if I ever get off my duff and write the rest of the Boneheart article, it should appear in LGJ sometime....
>>>

Heh. I'd nearly forgotten about that. . .

Get cracking!

--Erik
#16
erik_mona
Sep 17, 2003 20:02:00 >>>
The lack of variety in the Wizards in the LDD and LGJ0 are probably also due in no small part to the authors not having access to full versions of the rules when putting those two documents together. Both were written before 3e was released, so it's likely that some of that was done to avoid conflicting with any last minute changes to the rules.
>>>

While what Rich says is true, we ultimately decided to keep the wizards generalists to honor their longstanding status as generalists, which has now endured three editions. That's also why we resisted the urge to make any of them sorcerers.

I strongly agree that Greyhawk needs more specialist wizards, but I don't think the Circle of Eight is the right place for them. Nor do I think it's a good place for fighters and thieves and things, even if that's how the Circle looked in Gary's original campaign. Since then, the Circle has become sort of the "definitive" organization of D&D wizards, so it'll remain that way as long as I have any say in the matter.

--Erik Mona
#17
zombiegleemax
Sep 20, 2003 2:31:58 Okay.

Can accept keeping the Circle of Eight as all wizards, and even keeping them all generalist wizards.

Glad you agree that we are missing specialists wizards a bit in the setting. Some prominent specialists would be nice.

Glad you didn't make any of the Circle into sorcerers, but I do wish more was said about sorcerers in LGG. They do kind of change things a bit and it would be nice to have some guidance of fitting them into Greyhawk.

The Silent Ones article in LGJ does provide some insight into wizards in Greyhawk. Okay I'm going to start a thread on sorcerers.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Sep 11, 2003 7:50:45	Hello Greyhawkers, Contiuning my relentless quest for knowledge: The LGG often mentions the Wiz class for stats of the NPCs but does not mention if any of those wizards are specialist wizards. I would have thought at least some of them must be. I personally think that specialisation works out better than not specialising, but in any case some of them must be specialists. Lets look at the Circle of Eight from LGJ #1. Based on their spells from the greyhawk hardcover, I must guess that they have the following specialisations (includes former members): Bigby - got to be an Evoker, surely (dont call me shirley) Drawmij - possibly a Transmuter (with no Necro or Enchant) Mordenkainen - according to Epic HB, just a normal wizard Nystul - probably an Evoker? Otiluke - got to be an Evoker? Otto - possibly an Enchanter? Rary - anyone know? was this is LGJ recently? Tenser - definitely a Transmuter? Okay what about other famous wizards of the Flanaess? Elaine Mystica? Diviner? What are your thoughts about the guesses above? Do you have material that clarifies any of these? Have you made some up for your campaign? Dont you agree the Circle of Eight should have some specialists? Any other thoughts on wizard specialists in Greyhawk?
#2 zombiegleemax Sep 11, 2003 8:03:37	this is the most up to date listing of the circle i could find Bigby Wiz19 Drawmij Wiz18 Jallarzi Sallavarian Wiz15 Mordenkainen Wiz20+ Nystul Wiz17 Otto Clr3(Boccob)/Wiz15 Teodain Eriason Wiz17 Warnes Starcoat Wiz20 This info was found in an artical called "wheels within wheels" by Erik Mona and Gary Holian, check for it in the archives. It gives history and other details of what has happened to the other members. Sorry i cant give you a link to it , Eddy
#3 rilem Sep 11, 2003 10:47:33	Here's a link to the downloads page. "Wheels Within Wheels" is in both PDF and word format, though I haven't checked the Word doc. RPGA downloads Edit: fixed bad link. apologies
#4 samwise Sep 11, 2003 11:06:13	I forget where it was noted, but there is a statement that while those members of the Circle have certain preferences in spell, none of them are specialists. Overall, very few NPC wizards in GH canon have been specialists. They just aren't as flexible, particularly for adversaries, as regular wizards.
#5 zombiegleemax Sep 11, 2003 11:09:16	Let's not forget Alhamazad the Wise. Can't find the LGJ with his info at the moment...
#6 zombiegleemax Sep 11, 2003 11:42:53	Anyone know if there are stats/backgrounds for any of the Boneheart or Lesser Boneheart that serve Iuz?
#7 ghent Sep 11, 2003 11:48:56	I dont know of any 3e stats for the Boneheart, but if you just want to read background story and such for some of the major ones, you can try to find the old "Iuz the evil" supplement. It details quite a few of the boneheart as well as their magic items, and of course Iuz. J
#8 rilem Sep 11, 2003 15:23:16	Sorry about bad "wheels within wheels" link -- fixed it. I'd agree that most of the Eight aren't made out as true specialists. School specialization, as a game mechanic, seems to be mostly a way for low-level players to survive their first few levels — and that's not exactly a problem with this crew.
#9 zombiegleemax Sep 11, 2003 16:30:26	Thanks for the info ghent. I'll do some digging and see if I can find it.
#10 grodog Sep 12, 2003 0:11:57	Originally posted by Jagermeister Anyone know if there are stats/backgrounds for any of the Boneheart or Lesser Boneheart that serve Iuz? Not yet, no, but if I ever get off my duff and write the rest of the Boneheart article, it should appear in LGJ sometime....
#11 zombiegleemax Sep 12, 2003 10:23:01	Here's the real story how I see it: Most of the major Greyhawk personages grew out of the campaigns of Gary Gygax and his players in the original D&D/AD&D 1st era. During this time, "specialist wizards" the way they're now known in the post AD&D 2nd era didn't exist, with the rare exception of the occasional illusionist. So that's why Bigby, Mordenkainen, Tenser, etc are all normal wizards and not diviners or evokers or what have you. Of course, that can be in your campaign if you want. Nobody's stopping you.
#12 zombiegleemax Sep 13, 2003 3:12:24	I think it's a shame that a few more of the NPCs mentioned in LGG aren't wizard specialists. Yes normal wizards are more flexible, but I think the real reason (as one of you mentioned above) is likely to be that many were around from 1st edition days and nobody decided to "convert" them - or that they needed converting. In any case in my campaign, a few them are specialist. I have LGJ #0 but it is not real detailed. What about Tenser? What level is he at these days? Anyone know? Anyone know much about the origin of Philidor the Blue? According to something I read I think he is Wiz24? These are the soughts of people I think need to be fully detailed in a setting hardcover. It gives us some examples of people in Greyhawk. Anyway, current Tenser details anyone?
#13 zombiegleemax Sep 15, 2003 0:00:22	Hey good people, I think that in the CoG boxed set, it is explained that the Circle of Eight mages are not specialists and in fact disdain such magic users as lacking access to all the schools of magic. IIRC, the claim is justified by citing earlier published spells (in the GA hardcover), where named spells utilize "opposing" schools of magic. Hasta la proxima!
#14 chatdemon Sep 16, 2003 2:42:21	The lack of variety in the Wizards in the LDD and LGJ0 are probably also due in no small part to the authors not having access to full versions of the rules when putting those two documents together. Both were written before 3e was released, so it's likely that some of that was done to avoid conflicting with any last minute changes to the rules.
#15 erik_mona Sep 17, 2003 19:57:09	Alan said: >>> Not yet, no, but if I ever get off my duff and write the rest of the Boneheart article, it should appear in LGJ sometime.... >>> Heh. I'd nearly forgotten about that. . . Get cracking! --Erik
#16 erik_mona Sep 17, 2003 20:02:00	>>> The lack of variety in the Wizards in the LDD and LGJ0 are probably also due in no small part to the authors not having access to full versions of the rules when putting those two documents together. Both were written before 3e was released, so it's likely that some of that was done to avoid conflicting with any last minute changes to the rules. >>> While what Rich says is true, we ultimately decided to keep the wizards generalists to honor their longstanding status as generalists, which has now endured three editions. That's also why we resisted the urge to make any of them sorcerers. I strongly agree that Greyhawk needs more specialist wizards, but I don't think the Circle of Eight is the right place for them. Nor do I think it's a good place for fighters and thieves and things, even if that's how the Circle looked in Gary's original campaign. Since then, the Circle has become sort of the "definitive" organization of D&D wizards, so it'll remain that way as long as I have any say in the matter. --Erik Mona
#17 zombiegleemax Sep 20, 2003 2:31:58	Okay. Can accept keeping the Circle of Eight as all wizards, and even keeping them all generalist wizards. Glad you agree that we are missing specialists wizards a bit in the setting. Some prominent specialists would be nice. Glad you didn't make any of the Circle into sorcerers, but I do wish more was said about sorcerers in LGG. They do kind of change things a bit and it would be nice to have some guidance of fitting them into Greyhawk. The Silent Ones article in LGJ does provide some insight into wizards in Greyhawk. Okay I'm going to start a thread on sorcerers.