Revising Wizards

Well, you know I am going to have something to say on this topic! :)

It doesn't quite feel like there's enough to support three separate wizard classes and have any one of them be appealing/effective/survivable enough on its own while still being unique. I can see two (boom and crowd control) working very nicely though. Boom wizards would get the big elemental damage, buffing, and big takedowns; crowd control would get and effects like critter forms, repels, freezes, compels, etc.

I can also see each wizard subclass potentially getting a summons, but the type of creature and/or its abilities could depend on which subclass was doing the summoning. Likewise for some of the conceal/teleport/protection type effects - I think there are enough to distribute sensibly between two thematic subclasses. Overall I think distributing the latter between the two subclasses would be more important on both a thematic and mechanics level.

Or if you think three wizard classes is an absolute must, you could always go "generalist" wizard and then two "specialist" subclasses (again, boom wizard and crowd control). A generalist would get a balance of the two subclass options, but various spells might kick in at a higher level or not max out as high as a specialist. But then again, if you wanted that you probably might as well just multiclass, since the system allows it.

Overall I am still in favor of getting rid of a few abilities from wizards altogether and/or giving them to a more thematically appropriate class, but that is probably a topic for another thread.

On restricting item creation by subclass: my impression on tying item creation to a particular class is that it defeats the whole purpose of the current magic item creation system and doesn't really make sense. It's already expensive to learn the necessary trades for magic item creation, and as far as I can tell the effects of the items are already limited to what the enchanter himself can throw into them (unless my idea about the caster acting as a "channel" to embed other classes' available abilities into an item ever happens...hint hint). So far the item system overall has been developed to be largely classless, and I think it works really well that way. Well, in theory, since I haven't gotten to practice it yet. ;)

-C-

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

You? Care about wizards? Perish the thought! :P

If I were just dividing up the wizard class, I'd agree with you; as it stands now, there's not enough for three separate classes. However, there's been a lot I've wanted to add to wizards (e.g., retorts, Repair, etc.) that I haven't because they already had too much. By branching off like this, those ideas can make it into the game in a balanced way.

As for how to divide the abilities, it's ultimately arbitrary. We could divide them into different elements, by damage and crowd control as you say, or along any other criteria we might think up. There are plenty of other possibilities in addition to the three I created, any of which could be proposed by an enterprising player. ;)

It comes down to goals for the system. My goal here is to allow wizards to have the breadth they deserve without any one character being overpowered. My goal is to also create very distinctive, flavorful character classes that are fun to play. On that note, what would you call your "boom" and "crowd control" classes? What would be their MO? What ties their magic together and makes it truly thematic? (In case there's any confusion, the tone here is curious, not facetious.)

For the record, I don't think three classes is an absolute must, but I did feel we were doing the "battle mage" archetype a disservice, which is why I created the artificer. And I'm sure there's more than enough to make a class out of it; heck, I'm considering respending Thalenir as an artificer if it lives up to expectations. "Wizard with a shield" FTW. At least, if I can make a shield that holds up for longer than one day. :P

As for the generalist, the idea here is that "generalist" spells are built into every wizard class in the same way that common combat maneuvers are built into every fighter class. There's no need to have a generalist class except to serve the indecisive crowd. And, as you pointed out, you can multiclass, so someone who wanted it all could potentially have it all by picking up several wizard classes. All this really does is allow/force specialization right from the start, which is both a good thing and a bad thing. It's also much, much simpler from a logistical standpoint.

To clarify, the magic item creation system is a multi-step process. Anyone can have any trade, which allows them to create the necessary items and components. However, it was always my intention that specific classes had the ability to perform specific enchantments along the lines of their abilities. This isn't limited to just wizards. Only healers can make healing items, for example, even though they arguably need them the least. It makes thematic sense and creates inter-class dependency, which is another one of my unspoken design goals (maybe I should make a list).

At any rate, let's keep the thought process going. So far, I think splitting the wizard up is the way to go, although I'm open to suggestions on how it gets divided.

P.S. The item system is coming, just more slowly than I would like.

"You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!"
- Bureaucrat 1.0, Futurama

Hmm, thematics...

"Crowd Control" (Arcanist?) would specialize in drawing his power from the arcane energies that fuel all magic, manipulating them in their raw form to bend the natural order in ways only a master of magic could. This would include things like teleports, "untagged" magical damage (pretty much a "spell blast magic"), transformation, mind control, invisibility, magical shields and perception, etc. Much less "direct damage" and more incapacitating/detection and nonspecific magical protections. I personally define "crowd control" as anything that can keep your opponent from being an immediate threat, short of killing him outright, so repels and fumbles and slows and the like could also fall into that category for the most part.

"Boom" (most likely "Elementalist" or something similar that doesn't sound so cliched, if such a thing can be found) would be a caster who has devoted his studies to drawing raw power from the natural elements themselves and shaping that power to alter the physical properties of things around him including his enemies, his weapons, and himself. That would mean the elemental magical damage of course, along with buffs to weapons and allies, repairs/destroys, and big killing spells which is basically anything that a caster might consider a "front line, blow 'em up or burn 'em down" type of attack.

Now there's obviously a fairly good list of things that would make sense with both groups and would round out the list and tie both the classes to make them explicitly wizardy overall. For example I don't see any reason why there could not be both elemental seal and an arcane seal. If I were not feeling lazy and full of dinner I would go through the example pages and make a detailed list, but...mmm, food yum.

-C-

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Just to reiterate what I said last Sunday, I think that the Shaman and Wizard classes already create the division needed; you just have to shuffle the actions a bit. Shamans are built to be elemental based so give them all the elemental actions and discarnate. Leave the Wizard with all the 'effect' based actions like freeze, vanish and teleport.

But I agree with Casey, creating a third division does nothing but take away from the other classes. If someone wants to have a roguish wizard they can multiclass but giving evades, feigns, and retorts to wizards just destroys the appeal of the rogue and disciple classes.

The point on multiclassing is taken, and has always been one of the major stumbling blocks of the system. With so much potential for flexibility, what deserves its own class and what should be relegated to multiclass combinations (note that this is a rhetorical question)? It's for this very reason that I never introduced a paladin class, since paladins are essentially warrior/disciple hybrids, with more healing or combat ability depending on how you balance the mix.

As for shamans, my major concern is that we're envisioning a WoW-like shaman rather than a pure elementalist. Make no mistake; if we give the shaman the full breadth and power of elemental abilities, they won't be able to heal as well, and will possess inferior combat skill affinities compared to the fighting classes. In other words, they turn out much like the sorcerer I designed. If I'm not mistaken, the idea that no class should have it all is what spawned this debate, so it's a principle we should stick to in designing the shaman.

That being said, if we truly want shamans to be the elementalists of Orn, how should they differ from the sorcerer presented above? Anyone care to put together an action skeleton for approval?

"You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!"
- Bureaucrat 1.0, Futurama

Hey guys. I dont normally get into rules discussions, but I'm pretty interested in this topic considering I am a wizard. Here are some general opinions to enrich the flavor of the topic from another wizard in the game.

First, I like the idea of dividing the wizard class. I would prefer having maybe two wizard classes instead of three. Getting rid of the rogue-wizard stuff completely would probably improve balance. As stated, multiclassing, which is THE most unique and interesting aspect of the game, should take care of the desire to play that sort of character.

Next, the Damage-Dealer subclass and Widgety-Confining subclasses. Great ideas! I also enjoy the idea of the magic items created being specific to one particular subclass.

Name suggestions:

Damage Dealer class - Evoker/Evocationist
The elementalist/damage dealer class summons forth raw power in the form of elemental might to conquer his enemies.

Widgety Confining class - Artificer (my favorite name)
This bender of the laws of nature uses his arcane intellect to immobilize his foes for the purposes of protecting and acquiring sources of arcane power.

Thanks for weighing in, Chris. Other perspectives are always welcome; Casey, Jessi, and I just happen to the most vocal on... well, everything, but that doesn't mean our opinions are any more or less valid. ;)

The division will be as others have described. The wizard will have a more arcane orientation, with lots of general "magicky" things like Teleport, Critter Form, and respectable packet-delivered Spell damage (assuming the poll stands as it does currently). The sorcerer (still open to a different name, but I like this one the most so far) will be much heavier on the offense, with multi-packet-delivered elemental damage, Repels, and a yet-to-be-playtested area of effect method called Spray. Sorcerers will be more blastery and wizards will be more utility, with some overlap.

As for Bind effects, as it stands in my notes, they'll be going to the sorcerer, whereas Compel effects will be going to the wizard, so both classes will have crowd control abilities. The differences will really come out in breadth versus depth. Wizards have many more different kinds of effects, like Perceive, Hone, Vanish, etc., that make them versatile and useful in a party. Sorcerers don't have that sort of versatility, but they make up for it with sheer depth and variety of damage output. A sorcerer will probably win in a fight, but a wizard will be reasonably effective both in and out of combat. Unless you've got a specific character concept in mind, I think you'll have a hard time choosing between the two.

Of course, I should probably stop talking and actually build the things, huh? :P

"You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!"
- Bureaucrat 1.0, Futurama

I've finished building out the sorcerer class and, with Nick's endorsement, approved it for general play.

I did my best to make the sorcerer embody the "elementalist" archetype discussed above. Again, I didn't name it "shaman" because I didn't want people to have the wrong expectation; in order for this class to have the full depth of blastery goodness, it would have been unbalanced to give it combat affinities and healing as well, as you might expect of a WoW-type shaman. Besides, a mix of abilities like that triggers the same argument against hybrid classes. Want a blaster/healer/fighter? Play a sorcerer/disciple/warrior.

As far as fluff, the sorcerer might best be thought of as a "destruction caster." They conjure up the elemental chaos of the Maelstrom to perform their effects. This gives them one of the strongest offenses in the game, but limits their utility and defense, making them glass cannons extraordinaire.

Take a look and give us your thoughts. Also keep your eyes peeled for major revisions to the wizard class in the near future. PCs who want to respend their wizard levels as sorcerers, in part or in full, will be able to after both classes are ready.

"You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!"
- Bureaucrat 1.0, Futurama

Sorcerer looks ok for the most part. This class should be able to stand in the second line or near the front and do some great damage with the combination of Retort damage/repels, repel-spellblasts, and big boom damage.

The Retorts seems a little much when you compare it to Retorts that Disciples get.

While Disciple's only method of defense seem to be the retorts they get, the Sorcerer has MUCH better retorts.

So yeah, I would suggest giving disciple better retorts or reducing or eliminating sorcerer retorts.

If I respend sorcerer I will definitely abuse the heck out of them whenever possible.

As a mechanic, retorts are meant to deter enemies from attacking combatants less able to defend themselves. In the case of disciples, they have next to nothing in the way of offense. In the case of sorcerers, they have next to nothing in the way of defense. Keep in mind that you have to survive the attack to use a retort, and sorcerers have a scant 3 health per level and no nifty Unseen Armor spells like the wizard. ;)

Personally, I feel like their Strike/Repel retorts are comparabable to the disciple's Fumble/Ruin/Sleep retorts. I know, as a monster, those Retort Fumbles tore me up, whereas Retort 10 Fire or Retort Repel 5 (same rating) would barely have slowed me down.

That being said, I'm open to the idea of nerfing the sorcerer retorts a bit if they prove to be overpowered. Thanks very much for the feedback.

"You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!"
- Bureaucrat 1.0, Futurama

If you want to argue offense versus defense with disciples and sorcerers, sorcerers win hands down. I realize that disciple shouldn't be an offensive class, but since it's being brought up...

Rating both classes on a 1 to 10 scale with offense and defense: Sorcerer gets a 10 and maybe a 5 or 6 respectively, while Disciple gets a 1 and 5 or 6.

For Sorcerer, you get retorts and armored combat for cheap. 16 build gets you 2 levels of armed and 2 levels of armored combat if you're a human. You get decent bip damage and can effectively more than double your HP. That's just way too cheap for a class that should be a glass cannon. On top of now surviving hits, they have retort repels/elemental damage.

Disciples get nothing for offense and buy two levels of armed and armored combat for 14 build. It does the same for me and I have similar retorts, but next to no offensive abilities whatsoever. I have a mace. I don't lump healing in either offense or defense, because you can't cast it while getting hit and it usually goes to someone else anyway.

What I'm trying to argue is that, in my opinion, both of the wizard classes should be mostly offensive casters or magical toolboxes with very little as far as defensive abilities go. Disciples should be a defense oriented caster; not much in the powerhouse department, but can survive nuclear holocaust.

Very well put and I have been swayed to agree. What if the so sought after retorts for the sorcerer were at twice the rating for them to cast. Making them harder to cast and lowering their damage. Not to a ridiculous degree to make them useless but just a harder choice for the caster to prepare it.

As for the skill point cost of the armed and armored combat we will need to look into that. It does seem a little low to me. If we don't want monks in full plate then perhaps a cap on armored combat that can be bought is relevant as well. Even a multi-classed sorcerer would run into this restriction. Max ability in armored combat is 2. Limiting the amount of armor they can wear to 25.

I'm not the programmer here so I don't know if this is even feasible for the magic website, but it may be a start. Maybe we just remove the affinity and make them pay through the nose. Long live the glass cannons! er.....wait.

For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Im glad you agree. Im for most of what mitch said as well. Being a wizard ingame I would want things for my class to be awesome, but I definitely dont want to be thought of as cheap for playing something overpowered.

As for increasing the AR of the retorts for sorcerer im torn. On one hand I would say that would be a good idea, but on the other hand im not sure how that would play out at low levels or later on down the road. Would sorcerers just decide to not ever use them because theyre too expensive then? In that case throw out the retorts all together and let disciple be unique.

You could always replace it with other stuff (Example: Replace Retorts with something else offensive like an "Elemental Strike" that you could add to a weapon for a couple of swings to increase damage and call an elemental tagline, which I dont think we even have in the game yet. Im sure you could think of something). I guess its just a game mechanic thing that im not exactly an expert in. Thats why you guys are in charge, and why you make the big bucks :D

As for the armored combat and armed combat question as an unbias person I think they need to be way more expensive. As a human wizard im only paying 4 skill points for a rank in armored combat. That more than doubles my HP (and refreshes)right now.

I can tell you for certain that in a level or two I would absolutely pick up Armed/Armored Combat and then start carrying a sword and shield. I would be unstoppable when you combo that with retorts and the already awesome damage I can do now as a sorcerer. So many options there.

Anyway, good times. Keep us posted. :)

Re: Mitch

"I don't lump healing in either offense or defense, because you can't cast it while getting hit and it usually goes to someone else anyway."

If you want to throw healing out of the debate, you're right, disciples are gimped. However, the sorcerer can't cast spells while being hit either, and the sorcerer's damage also goes toward someone else. I feel that healing, particularly as an ability vital to party effectiveness, is well worth considering when it comes to discussing disciples.

Re: Nick

"As for the skill point cost of the armed and armored combat we will need to look into that. It does seem a little low to me."

If you're playing a human, yes, a sorcerer will pay 16 skill points (4 apiece) for two ranks in both Armed and Armored Combat. However, Mitch was off on his calculations; a human disciple will only pay 10 for those (3 apiece for Armed Combat, 2 apiece for Armored Combat), not 14. Whether 6 skill points is a sizable enough difference is open to debate, but I can think of a dozen useful things to do with 6 skill points. I don't think it's an insignificant difference.

Likewise, a sorcerer who isn't human may end up paying 20, putting the difference at 10. Again, that's a fairly sizable difference in cost. Considering the relative lower cost-to-effectiveness of Spell Blast or Specialty Action, I wouldn't expect to see a lot of pure non-human sorcerers dumping two levels worth of skill points on Armed or Armored Combat. Remember, cheaper skills are effectively the racial advantage of the human, the benefit they get for no racial actions. (As a side note, I'm open to suggestions on which races should have an affinity for sorcerer.)

Re: Chris

"As a human wizard im only paying 4 skill points for a rank in armored combat. That more than doubles my HP (and refreshes)right now."

Again, the cost reduction is a racial advantage. As far as the low initial cost of the skill, it's a design decision. Nick and I think armor makes the game look great, so we want to mechanically reward those who wear it. So far, I'm quite pleased with the outcome. Once we get our home-buying out of the way, Jennifer and I plan to be sporting some chain mail of our own.

"Thats why you guys are in charge, and why you make the big bucks"

Heh, thanks for reminding me that I need to help Jennifer set up the accounting page on the site. That way, you guys can see that we not only don't make a cent, but are, in fact, pretty far in the hole creating this game. ;)

All that being said, if we truly think sorcerer retorts are overpowered as is, here is my suggestion: Let's nix the sorcerer's damaging retorts but retain the Repel retorts. What do you guys think about that? Still overpowered?

"You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!"
- Bureaucrat 1.0, Futurama

"If you want to throw healing out of the debate, you're right, disciples are gimped. However, the sorcerer can't cast spells while being hit either," Retort Repel 20 and unload while they run back.

Retort Fumble/Ruin/Sleep, heal, and bip. I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm just trying to say they're comparable. The retorts are different, but comparable from an effectiveness standpoint, as are the damage and heals.

Apples and oranges may taste different, but they both taste good. ;)

"You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!"
- Bureaucrat 1.0, Futurama

They're comparable, but shouldn't be. They shouldn't even have retorts in my opinion. If you want retorts, spend a few levels in Disciple. That was the point of my first post.

Chris had a good idea in his post about using an action to convert the elemental damage into a weaponstrike and call that element's tagline. That might be a good replacement action in place of retorts.

Just to speak to a trend I'm seeing in this debate, it's my understanding that retorts are commonly perceived as "disciple only." To clarify, this was never intended to be the case. Early design discussions on retorts had always slated them as something wizards would have as well. The only reason they hadn't been built before now is because the wizard class was built hastily in preparation for the first game, and hasn't received the attention it deserved until the recent feedback.

That's not to say that sorcerers and wizards are absolutely going to get them. I'd just like to change the expectation. Disciples just happened to be the only class who had retorts up until now, but they were never supposed to be limited to disciples.

"You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!"
- Bureaucrat 1.0, Futurama

As for the retort being strictly disciple, Thad and I were even talking about warriors getting some sort of retort blunt for a shield bash style attack. Recently in an e-mail from Jessi she proposed that retorts be effective against attacks that don't do damage to a disciple. What if we have a mechanic that says sorcerers must take damage for them to use a retort but disciples don't have that restriction?

The inspiration for the ability was the retribution aura of the paladin on world of warcraft. I also like the thorns aura of the paladin in diablo 2. In warcraft there is retribution aura, molten armor and thorns. Multiple classes have the kind of ability but at different levels of power. None of them do anything more than damage anyone attacking your character.

Thad really wants retort repels. It's been in the concept of the class all along. Like a wind armor. I say let them have the retort repels but that's all. And give disciple the ability to block attacks and still call retorts. Call them shield retorts and make them call damage. Retort 20 blunt. But all of the current retorts remain unchanged. Then we can give the shield retorts to warriors too.

For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

I actually see some room for clarification of retorts. Does a retort work if an attack is blocked or parried? Right now, the answer is no, but there could be room for a version that does. Likewise, does a retort work against ranged attacks? Right now, the answer is yes, but there could be a version that only works in melee.

Here's one way to do it. Retort remains as it is: You have to take the hit, but it can work at range. Then, we add a second method component named Riposte that works a little differently: You can block or parry as well, but it only works in melee. Ripostes go to disciples and warriors; retorts go to sorcerers and wizards. Same rating (3), but a slightly different mechanic that's better suited to the combat style of each class.

What does everyone think?

"You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!"
- Bureaucrat 1.0, Futurama

Perhaps we could stick with retort as the single mechanic, but put a range limitation on a given retort. For example if your retort would normally only be melee range, then you must be within melee range of the target for it to work. If your retort is derived from a ranged skill, then it can apply to a target outside of melee range.

I realize such a suggestion would require some tweaking on the part of the verbal delivery of a mechanic, or at least a specification of the range of a given retort, and some thought as to what is actually happening "in play" when a given retort is delivered. A disciple's "Disarming Rebuke" for example - is it a spell-type (ranged) or a weapon-delivered (melee) effect?

"Retort [effect] ranged" for the verbal delivery maybe? I just think it is rather hard to swallow that, for example, a wizard or rogue can hurl something at a warrior from 20 feet away and then get "retort slayed" by her target who is armed with only a melee-range weapon. (Of course it's also hard to swallow that some of us would manage to hit ANYTHING from 20 feet away...unless it's a party member who got in the way...but I digress! ^_^ )

Anyway, not to derail but I would also like to request that once the changes to the wizard class are finalized, those of us who are still spending wizard for our PCs also be allowed a chance for a respend along with sorcerer respends, as our specialty actions and general focus of the character may change with the class changes. This represents a major change to the class and it would be useful to be able to rebuild the PC appropriately.

-C-

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

If retorts at range strain believability, I'd rather just nix them altogether. This was more of a suggestion to better distinguish class abilities and play styles. Ultimately, I think we're arguing for the same thing (i.e., two separate mechanics); we're just debating the names to give them.

Funny you mention respending. Nick and I talked about it this afternoon, and we're in agreement. If your PC is a wizard, you'll be able to respend your wizard levels, actions, and skills as you like (within reason, of course). This is a major class change; if you decide the class is no longer for you, I'm not about to force you to play it. Likewise, if you want to take your character in a different direction based on new options that have become available, you're welcome to do so.

To be clear, this is an option only because of the extent of the change and its impact on specific PCs. The system is built to grow; not every change in the future will be occasion for major respends. ;)

"You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!"
- Bureaucrat 1.0, Futurama

Okay, the major wizard overhaul has finally been pushed live. For future reference, I've documented all of the changes below. All PC, NPC, and Monster wizards have had actions removed and replaced accordingly.

Nick and Jessi, you'll want to go through your important wizard monsters; I'm guessing you'll want to rebuild many of them as sorcerers now. Players of PC wizards, do me a favor and review the changes to your character. Because this involved several hundred updates, I did many of them in a semi-automatic fashion, so small mistakes are possible. If there's an issue, I can fix it. More importantly, you're all entitled to fairly large-scale respends due to the change. Just let me know what you'd like changed and I'll make it happen.

Here are the changes that occurred.

New Wizard Spells Added

Aether Missile
Arcane Bolt
Bedazzle
Break Enchantment
Greater Arcane Bolt
Lesser Arcane Bolt
Magic Weapon
Major Arcane Bolt
Mass Confusion
Mass Invisibility
Mass Shroud
Mass Slumber
Minor Arcane Bolt
Phase Step
Shroud
True Form

Existing Wizard Spells Retained

Adept's Arsenal
Adept's Edge
Adept's Lock
Apprentice's Arsenal
Apprentice's Edge
Apprentice's Lock
Arcane Beacon
Arcane Torch
Beguile
Blink
Charm Gaze
Confusion
Create Charm of Clear Thought
Create Charm of Freedom
Create Charm of Reversion
Death Gaze
Death Spell
Detect Concealment
Disarming Gaze
Disrupt
Fade
Greater Unseen Armor
Invisibility
Journeyman's Arsenal
Journeyman's Edge
Journeyman's Lock
Lesser Unseen Armor
Levitate
Light of Truth
Maddening Gaze
Master's Arsenal
Master's Edge
Master's Lock
Minor Unseen Armor
Rodent's Curse
Sage's Arsenal
Sage's Edge
Sage's Lock
Scholar's Arsenal
Scholar's Edge
Scholar's Lock
See the Unseen
Shatter
Shepherd's Call (Change to Spray)
Shock
Silence
Silencing Gaze
Sleep Gaze
Slumber
Telepathy
Tongues
True Seeing
Unseen Armor
Unveil
Wizard's Chess

Existing Actions Removed from Wizards

Fear Gaze
Frostbite
Gale
Gust
Mist Form
Petrify
Squall
Summon Desert Wind
Wind

Wizard Actions Replaced by Arcane Bolt

Chain Lightning
Chilling Blast
Chilling Burst
Chilling Ray
Ember Dart
Fiery Blast
Fiery Burst
Fiery Ray
Fire Blast
Freezing Blast
Freezing Burst
Freezing Ray
Hailstone
Icy Blast
Icy Burst
Icy Ray
Jolt
Lightning Arc
Lightning Bolt
Meteor
Meteor Shower
Scorching Blast
Scorching Burst
Scorching Ray
Searing Blast
Searing Burst
Searing Ray
Shocking Blast
Shocking Burst
Shocking Ray
Sparking Blast
Sparking Burst
Sparking Ray
Winter's Blight

Wizard Actions that Were Deleted Entirely

Burning Hands
Claws of the Dragon
Create Potion of Invisibility
Elemental Storm
Empower Cloak of Protection (I'd like to give out enchantments all at once later on)
Empower Greater Cloak of Protection
Empower Lesser Cloak of Protection
Fire Brand
Fists of Stone
Flame Wreath
Ice Brand
Lightning Brand
Medusa's Glare
Prescience
Repulse
Shackle

"You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!"
- Bureaucrat 1.0, Futurama