We have moved to Warcraft Wiki. Click here for information and the new URL.



Primary (Ranged Magic) Damage Dealer[]

In the beginning, it was Blizzard's intent that magi should be the Primary Damage Dealers. Later, this changed into Primary Ranged Magic Damage Dealer when Blizzard decided that 'damage should be comparable’ until Blizzard finally removed the label. I think this should be included in the article for historical reasons. Teabingh

These guys can do damage !

I once went into the stockades with a lvl 60 Mage who simply ran from cell to cell doing arcane explosions to attract (and damage) all the occupants - then led his pursuers into the first cell where he froze them all in place. Once the room was full, he simply ran in and killed them all with arcane explosion! Very impressive !

One feature of the mage that appears broken to me is the Mana Shield - on several occasions, I've cast it then it disappears with the first attack at a much lower level than the shield is rated.

I always like the speed boosts and mages get two kinds: Blink and Teleport. Blink simply jumps you forward 20 yards or so and Teleport only takes you to the big cities but any speed boost is good.

I've been asked where is the best place to spend your talent points: personally, I'm Arcane all the way as arcane missiles attack at all ranges and a fully amped arcane explosion is very impressive as an AOE weapon. Having said that, the fire spells do the most damage (which is your job) and give you the most range, while the frost spells help you stay alive by slowing or freezing your opponents - not too effective against other casters but then you have counterspell...

Mages are the best at farming cloth from NPCs one third their level.

  • In response to the above:
    • I'm sorry, but I disagree with the above poster and I believe that it gives an incorrect impression. Saying that a class can do great damage because it decimates mobs 50 levels lower than it is very, very misleading. You cannot judge a class like this, you need to form a comparison to how the class plays against players and mobs of its own level, which, in the above case, is level 60. I assure you, if that mage tried to go on an AoE frenzy at level 60 against level 60 mobs, he would have died before he could get the second AoE off.
    • Furthermore, saying that mages can farm cloth of mobs 1/3rd their level is hardly something to be impressed about. All classes can completely destroy things 1/3rd their level.
    • I have 3 level 60 mages, with various builds, and since you say you have an arcane mage, you will know that mages' arcane spells are some of the buggiest in the game. Furthermore, the blink spell is not a speed boost, it is an escape spell and cannot be spammed.
    • I only type this since I wish to clear misinformation about the class. Sorry if I seem slightly blunt.
    • I would advise budding mages to visit the forums, they are a great place for discussion.

--Obsidian Rage 04:42, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

Obsidian, as much as I agree with the gist of your post, I would point out that mages do have one ability that other classes must admire to some extent and that is the magnitude of our AoE capacity, which is made blissfully clear in SM:Arms, when all the acolytes run in. I usually position myself by the stairs on the back side so I can get the rush of seeing them come at me. Most other classes see that many mobs and have a second of doubt. Mage, it's just boom-BOoomBOOMBOOMBOOM, dead (either WE'RE dead, or they're dead, but one way or another the blasts stop when one side dies). However, as hardcore mages know, our lack of armor and thus suceptibility to white damage means that, a 60 mage could still die pretty expediently from mobs 1/3rd his/her level if they let all those mobs get some hits in. Piroko 10:21, 14 August 2006 (EDT)


Hopefully some day mages will get Elementals to summon. much like some NPCs already can.....

  • Well, we already do a TON of damage. This has been talked about many a time. I would rather them fix things that are already broken with mages than adding things like that. Not that it wouldnt be cool or helpful, but we just dont need them right now. purrdeta 20:24, 25 April 2006 (EDT)
    • Indeed. Giving Mages familiars isn't really necessary at the moment. The situation is like this: Mages are competent in two combat styles: AoE, and ranged DD. No class, at all, can beat a mage in ranged DD. Just won't happen. Shot for shot, a mage does more damage at range then any other class. And Mages are unquestionably the champions of AoE; they have the only spamable AoE attack in the game. This comes at the cost of pets. Hunters and Warlocks do not have the AoE capacity that mages do; instead they have pets. A mage can decimate a pet class if they can get both the pet and the master into AoE range and keep them there (assuming the mage has a burst damage build). Pets, however, diminish a mage's ability to win in a DD battle. The damage from the pet reduces the mage's DD dps by interruption, and because mages have the least life and no combat healing abilities, Hunters and Warlocks beat them in single combat because of the pet factor. Piroko 10:55, 7 August 2006 (EDT)
      • It should be noted that mages now have the spell Summon Water Elemental in their Frost Tree, the thing is pretty handy at giving extra damege in raiding or just soloing

I'd Just like to add, the definition for "Decimate" is to kill one in ten, I don't know if that's what your looking for or not, but anyway. xD I'd suggest "Slaughter"? =P CrazyBunyip

  • Piroko, while I do agree that Mages are excellent at AoEs (the best of all), and that they are awesome for DD, they aren't as superior to other classes in DD as you make them out to be. Moonkin Form has some pretty good nukes, and the 5% crit bonus means that their spells are going to be getting crits more often than a Mage will. Balance Druids are more than capable of rivaling a Mage in DD.
    • That said, Mages seem superior to Moonkin Form for DD because there are so few of them. Felindre

Mage Twinks[]

What is the best build for a mage twink (19)? I've been looking around, and I can't find anything. I'd just fool around with some, but I don't feel like putting any more gold into it than I already have... haha. Ledivin, 12:16 am EST March 17

Class Wants/Needs[]

I'm starting my second mage now after reaching 60 on Azgalor, and I have to say: overall, mages are fun to play, particularly in battlegrounds where the AoE translates to lots of HKs (whether you actuallly kill them or not).

However, one thing that particularly cheeses me about the class is that Amplify and Dampen magic can't be used offensively, and that our anti-debuff only works on curses, not magic. Which makes it pretty much only useful against warlocks. The priest spell Dispel Magic would be much more useful.

If Amplify and Dampen magic could be used offensively... Piroko 10:14, 7 August 2006 (EDT)


Well, the word is in that mages will get a form of invisibility in the burning crusade update, and I for one must say I'm pleased. Mages were, are, and will be the snipers of the game. We don't have guns, but we have the most powerful dd spells of any class (fully equipped and speced hunters have some pretty impressive dd too but you won't see me rerolling...). The idea appeals to me, to the point that I might actually consider PvP servers again. Blood elves, with their mana draining ability, combined with invisibility and improved resistances... by the gods man, will the alliance even have mages after burning crusade? Piroko 10:30, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

It is nothing save an aggro wipe. I suggest that we re-name it. Teabingh 01:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Frost Mages[]

When trying out my new Level 60 Frost mage they really are DPS people.

They can do over 600 damage non-crit and over 1,110 Crit. Learning the Frozen Talents increased my crit chance against Frozen Targets by 50%. My DamageMeters say over 17% Criticals only on Frost. Frost Mages take out Fire but I do not know about Arcane quite yet.

Before I tried my mage on Arcane/Fire Talents but all that did was continuing to kill me. It was madness until mid Aug. 2006 was when I changed from Arcane/Fire Talents to Fire/Frost Talents because it loosens Mana by about 100. Fireball requires 385 mana while Frostbolt requires only 265. It is better just to switch to the Frost Tier after I tried it out on level 48 Elites and always succeeded because of the Ice Barrier Talent which really comes in handy when casting Evocation (now a Level 20 Arcane via Trainer spell). That can help once combined to regenerate Mana at a rate of +1500%. On my mage that equals 1,056+ mana every 2 seconds.

Of course before Blizzard changed Mage Talents in patch 1.11 I removed my old Ultimate (Combustion) to no Ultimate until after I raided Molten Core once and did well with the Remove Curse tools and then that pays off when fighting the Baron.

Now my mage deals so much that it can even freeze you and deal ultra-crit damage. So anyone who wishes to battle Frost Mages should have 125 Frost Resistance or you will have no chance unless if you are a Rogue and use Sap or anything that stuns, which is Frost Mages weakest point.

All I wish to say to future Mages, GO FROST!!

submitted from User Frostworn1822, 12:25 am EST Server Time

As much as your writing cries out for revision, I agree with the underlying message. Fire is no longer equitable (and Arcane never was). With shatter you can't expect that you'll crit on every hit, but your average damage with shatter is going to be higher then your average damage without it, and possibly higher then your maximum damage without it. The result is that you're doing damage roughly equivalent to non-crit fire, but with a slow effect instead of a DoT, and for less mana. I always appreciated frost, because I never believed much in the power of DoTs. I'd rather have an effect I can SEE working for me, like chill does. Piroko 07:41, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

In Response to Above[]

As I last said, Frost Mages do around 600 Damage plain alone with all the +dmg set (e.g. Arcanist's Set). Of course like Piroko said, Fire Mages don't have any chance against frost because they can slow down speed by 60% once casted once for Frostbolt. It reduces the number of times drinking water just to re-charge mana greatly when taking Frost Talents. So anyways I will continue adding more details about the Frost Mages and other Mages talk.

- Submitted by user Frostworn1822, 8:21pm EST Server Time.

  • Frostbolt snare is 40% (60% with Permafrost), and Improved Blizzard is 65% (75% with Permafrost). However, I'd like to point out that both Permafrost and Improved Blizzard are bad talent investments. If kiting is your ONLY interest, they're ok. But for the most part, those talent points are better spent elsewhere, either getting Clearcasting (and perhaps Improved Counterspell or Improved Arcane Explosion), or filling up Winter's Chill. Also, 3 point Improved Blizzard is a bad idea in general because it's a higher level snare then Cone of Cold, which last longer. Piroko 10:42, 21 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Let me clarify this. Frost Mage Talents have some weakness into their stability on themselves. I personally go little Fire, well at least to get Pyroblast and Ignite, you know for enemies that are immune to Frost Attacks (e.g. Water Elementals). They are evenly matched based on selection of your talents. It is all up to you to decide. Frostworn1822 1:33am, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
  • What you plan to do in the game has a large influence on what you do with your talents. Most mages today play 31 frost (if not more), because it's the only decent shield we can get, unless they're burst crazed suicide bombers who go 20 frost 31 fire. For the most part, a general, well rounded build is 17/20 arcane, 31/34 frost, to get Imp CS. This gives a lot of possibilities in PvP, but sacrifices fire, leaving holes in a mage's PvE arsenal. If I want a shield, I have to sacrifice blast wave, which to me is the key reason to go fire, not Pyroblast. Pyro is great if you've got PoM behind it, but PoM-Pyro-Shatter (4pts) is a very flimsy build... it's a big balance.Piroko 15:06, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

Mages are overpowered[]

Dont deny it, I play a mage and I know it to be true, We are literally the best at PVP (Second only to Hunters if that) and The best damege dealers in raids, and we can do so with the same spec

You'll find the page you're looking for here. --bfx 02:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Hard to play, but rewarding[]

Its no secret, mages, whatever spec can obliterate nearly any other class...providing you play them properly. With my mage, one or two hits and your dead, so you need to be really quick and hope your teamates are decent.

Like I said, mages can kill anything - even solo higher level elites in some cases. Just wish mages were less obvious to everyone else. Thank god for frost nova and blink! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R.Lockheed (talk · contr).

It's 'magi', not 'mages'![]

The plural form of mage is, contrary to popular belief 'magi', not 'mages'. I urge everyone to stop using the etymologically incorrect word ‘mages’ when editing articles. Teabingh

Please leave new comments at the end of the page. As for 'magi', that is the plural of 'magus'. 'Mages' is an accepted use of the word (see the American Heritage Dictionary definition). I will revert your changes when I have the time. --Sky (t · c · w) 12:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Your page only states that 'mage' is a variant of magus. supports this, but the plural form is still 'magi'. Teabingh 13:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Blast from the Past anyone? you are mixing old and new dialects, Teabingh.
 ∙ Zurr  TalkContr 13.56, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it is you who is mixing American English with British English.

well, good thing this isn't an EU board.
 ∙ Zurr  TalkContr 14:04, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

British English is the Lingua Franca of Europe (and Canada). It is taught to students in almost all parts of the world, and is considered the most correct form of English except in the USA. Teabingh 14:21, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

This is neither a US- nor British-centric site. Both US Engish and British English spellings are allowed except where Blizzard uses specific terminology. The plural of mages in-game is mages. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 14:28, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

No, it is not. On your character creation screen, Blizzard uses the word 'magi'. It's just some editors at the American site that have got the bad habit of writing 'mages' :) Teabingh 14:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Would you prefer if a vote to take place to decide what it should be?
 ∙ Zurr  TalkContr 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT) ; the evidence. Well, I would prefer that people stop using the word 'mages' when editing articles because it is wrong. Teabingh 14:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Something being different doesn't make it wrong. There are many, many dialects of all different languages throughout the world.
 ∙ Zurr  TalkContr 14:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

~ Yes, but you can't write as you want, can you? Do you write American like 'Merican' just because you pronounce it that way? This is English, not Leet we are talking about here. Teabingh 14:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

i can guarantee you no American pronounces 'American' as 'Merican'.
 ∙ Zurr  TalkContr 14:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I wouldn't make that guarantee :) however I would say that pronunciation doesn't mean that is how they would spell it. We aren't discussing pronunciation here Teabingh. --GRYPHONtc 14:56, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Gryphon, please read my post again. My point is that just because a dialect has another word, pronouncitation or slang, this doesn't necerealy make it correct Standard English ;) Teabingh 15:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

The USA has its on dialect and sub dialects all across the country, it is that dialect blizzard uses and is the primary one used here. please remember to sign.
 ∙ Zurr  TalkContr 15:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
You are discussing grammar here, how something is spoken doesn't necessarily mean that is how it is spelled. Dialect has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. --GRYPHONtc 15:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Good. I'm glad that we all then agree on that Blizzard's 'official' spelling is magi and that magi is the etymologically correct form. Most words get an –s ending when written in plural form. Mage and sheep, however, do not. People who aren’t aware of this have a tendency to mistake mage and sheep for regular words, and simply write ‘mages’ and ‘sheeps’. Just because someone writes ‘sheeps’, this doesn’t make it right. Hence, writing 'mages' is wrong. Teabingh 15:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

is a group of mages a flock or a pod?User:Reskar/Sig

Flock of course... Douglas Adams said: 'You live and learn. At any rate, you live.' Teabingh 16:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Most dictionaries I've read state that "mages" is is the modern plural of the modern word "mage", and "magi" is the archaec plural of the more archaec term "magus". A few examples here; So in a word if someone says that "mages" is an incorrect plural for "mage" they are infact wrong, or at least only partially wrong. In anycase in the books, both terms get used interchangably, magi or mages.Baggins 17:05, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
"Mages" has been in use in patch notes for as long as I can remember. Both terms are correct, but "mages" is by far a lot more common than "magi", so we'll go with that. --Amro 17:27, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Besides Magus/Magi, is what more French? The Middle English Mage/Mages is far more common in modern English language usage. Besides telling people that their languages are wrong, is pretty bigoted.... a huge breach of ethnocentrism... ...and yes Amro, you are right, Blizzard always uses "Mages" in the patch notes.Baggins 19:16, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

This is not a discussion about the origin of the word, Baggins. Ethnocentrism is the tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of your own culture, not the opposite. This is exactly what you do when you begin your argument with '[...] Magus/magi, what is more French? The Middle English Mage/Mages is far more common in modern English language usage', wherein you try to make 'magi' look 'un-English'. I wonder where you got the idea that I have told someone that their language is wrong. ‘Magi’ is closer to the original pronunciation, spelling and meaning, so I therefore suggest that we prefer magi instead of mages. On the other hand, since many of you feel that mages is a popular word; we could include this in the article. --Teabingh 15:50, 1st May 2007 (CTU+1)

"This is exactly what you do when you begin your argument with '[...] Magus/magi, what is more French?"
Actually I was asking about the etymology, there is a big difference. Where as I already know the etymology for mage/mages as being from Middle English. Magus/Magi has Latin, Greek, Persian and Indo-European roots. It was my limited knowledge of Latin based "Romantic" languages, that lead to ask if it closer to french or one of the other "Romantic" languages than English. This is a matter of linguistics rather than having anything to do with ethnocentrism.
In anycase your act of ethnocentrism above against the American language/dialect (yes there are some linguists that consider the American form of English as its own "language") where you said that British English is the "most" correct form of English, and then tried to have your crusade to push that into this wiki's use. Wheras I would never say that British or American English is better than the other, or try to say which is "more right" (because in truth neither are).
Oh btw, I've been to parts of Canada, that use what's that? American English, and ya in many parts they also speak French, not to mention having their own vernacular. So you showed even more etnocentrism to think that Canada primarily speaks "British English".
BTW, as I mentioned before Blizzard, uses both Magi and Mages they don't use one primarily over the other, neither is more right or wrong than the other.Baggins 11:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Ha-ha - now I'm on a crusade to de-Americanise Wowwiki? Perhaps I didn't explain enough, what I meant was that in most schools in Europe, The Commonwealth, Asia (except former American colonies), Canada and Australia British English - or something very similar is taught to the students. It was not my intention to upset any American patriots.

Back to magi/mages, I think we should settle with one expression. Teabingh 16:11, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I see no need to settle on one. Both are correct. They both mean the same thing. Blizzard apparently has used both, though more commonly "mages". Therefore, we should also use both. --Mikaka 16:22, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Bingo. Your excessive of changing the words "mages" to "magi" is uncalled for Teabingh, when both are acceptable, and both should be used. --Sky (t · c · w) 16:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I think we should stick with mages, if you look at blizz website about mage they use mages:

(Keilden 02:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT))

I can't believe this discussion has lasted so long. Blizzard uses Mages more commonly. Players uses Mages more commonly. Therefore, WoWWiki uses Mages more commonly. There's absolutely no reason to "prefer" Magi, unless you use Magus as well. --Amro 03:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Both terms are used interchangeably. The use of "Magus" has largely been phased out. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:24, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

You have my sincerest apology from the bottom of my heart. It was not my intent to infringe your regulations on editing articles; – I thought the debate was ended, and that I had the liberty to incorporate my own stances and suggestions in the mage article. I have recently been informed that you sanctioned a ban against me because of this, a ruling which I oppose. It is my conviction to favour dialogue over conflict; – you should have notified me and we could have talked this over (I guess you debated what to do with me, right?). Putting me on your 'most wanted list' was not a very nice thing to do, especially because I wasn't aware of your Bold,Revert and Discussion Cycle; I must admit that I was knocked for six when I got your message. I feel that you have poisoned my name by nailing me to this ‘most wanted list’. For this reason, I am making an allowance for leaving Wowwiki. The only thing I shall ask for in return is that I am allowed to delete my messages and have my name cleaned from your black-list.

Yours Sincerely,

Teabingh :(

Teabingh 05:49, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Any reason this is all over the place?  D ♠ T ♣ C ♦  08:28, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

This entire thing has got out of hand - as Amro said earlier Blizzard uses Mages more commonly. Players uses Mages more commonly. Therefore, WoWWiki uses Mages more commonly. (There's been more discussion abotu the actions taken on User talk:Teabingh.) User:Kirkburn/Sig3 11:48, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I believed the same. My changes were thrashed and I was banned and put on your 'most wanted list' however. Is there a green light indicating when a discussion is over? Perhaps this could be a good idea? Apparently, this is me: Teabingh 15:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

For the love of god, there is no most wanted list -.-  D ♠ T ♣ C ♦  16:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
We have already explained the circumstances. Can you point out in the discussion where people agreed with your idea of changing every reference to "magi", because I don't see it. Your edits of [1], [2] and [3] all show you making the change elsewhere (did you think we wouldn't notice?) before waiting for a consensus. I do not personally believe the suspension should have occured, but there was reason for it. Edit: Wowpedia:Known vandals != Most Wanted User:Kirkburn/Sig3 16:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
This is ridiculous. No other word nor way to say it. This is f**king ridiculous. --User:Adys/Sig 16:43, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
Oi! Watch those expletives! On a lore note, I've typically seen "Archmagi" as the plural of "Archmage," a reverse of the typical convention. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 22:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
I would agree - Archmage enjoys far less use, and is more "archaic" word, so I would expect the relative percentage of Archmagi to Archmages to be far kinder to the former. Back to mages/magi - I am not saying we should use "mages" exclusively, but it should certainly be predominant. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 23:46, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I just got a wicked idea. Why not write 'the mage class' or simply 'a mage' etc., and try to use mage/magi as little as possible? This could add some diversity too, because a majority of the paragraphs in the article begin with 'Mages [...]'.Oh, and about that consensus; I thought we had agreed on that both forms are correct? Teabingh 04:29, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

No, we're not going to rewrite pages simply because you (and no one else) have a problem with the use of the word "mages". The consensus is that we use "mages" predominantly, and magi only where appropriate (such as quoting Blizzard text, or mentioning that magi is the alternate spelling). User:Kirkburn/Sig3 12:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
In most fantasy, it's typical to say "mages" in most cases and "Magi" in official cases (like the name of a building or artifact). Hence, both forms are correct- unless there are other glaring issues, no rewrites are needed. In particular, from the perspective of lore articles, it's much easier to say "Tervosh is one of Theramore's mages/archmagi" than "Tervosh is a leader of Theramore who belongs to the mage class."--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Hrpmh. I guess there is nothing more to say in this matter (but I won't give up! Just you wait ;). --Teabingh 14:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Well this might make you happy. Ogres call their mages magi:) Maybe magi is easier to say or somthing for ogres. (Keilden 02:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT))

"On a lore note, I've typically seen "Archmagi" as the plural of "Archmage," a reverse of the typical convention."
On the reverse, I think the RPG uses "Archmages" more than "Archmagi" at least when discussing the class. I noticed that in Archmage article someone changed all the refrences to "Archmages" from the RPG into "Archmagi", oddly enough.Baggins 07:22, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Ogre Mages[]

As everyone knows there are Ogre-magi (mages). Are they the same type of mages as Humans, Gnomes, Trolls etc. Or are the Ogre-magi completely different in terms of what class they are? (Mr.X8 14:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Separate class. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well depends on the context, sometimes it refers to a "seperate race". Sometimes it refers to a "seperate class" other times they are compared to other mages/magi, and share the same or similar abilities. Not all ogre-magi share the same spell lists, to be a standardized "class" (although there is such thing as a "racial class", and "creature class" in the RPG, both essentially meaning "race"). In the RPG they are generally just considered a "race" (not usually a "class") when discussing the lore. When an individual ogre-magi is mentioned, its classes are often listed, they are usually given magical classes such as "mage", "necromancer", "warlock" and others usually.Baggins 18:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

On the ogre article it lists mage and lock as classes. Shouldnt it be changed then? (Mr.X8 20:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

No, cause ogre-magi is a particular breed of ogre, that can be mages, warlocks, shamans, etc. Like I said its more of a "race" than a class. I really don't feel like adding "racial" & "creature" classes to the wiki, its far too gamey, and I would have to make practically every non-human race, a "class", there is a high elf racial class, a night elf racial class, a dwarven racial class, a ogre-magi creature class, a centaur creature class, etc... Need I go on? I think I'll just stick to the term race thank you...Baggins 20:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WIzards, Mages, and Sorcerors[]

What are the differences between wizards, mages, and sorcerors? (21:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Read the articles, for the lore explanations...Baggins 21:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
As it happens, the articles aren't completely clear...--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 11:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the articles discussing wizards and sorcerers is fairly clear, as it compares and contrasts the two classes. As for new edition of the RPG, which has the mage class it added the ability to have a summoned "familiar" (cat, toad, owl, that sort of thing), among other things.Baggins 15:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to take a stab at trying to distinguish the differences in this post, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. Mages are more explosive and damage casters but do have spells like slow fall, invis, etc. Sorcerers are like mages but they are not as morally good. Wizards aren't as big on blast and damage as spells that (for lack of a better term) make things happen, for example, using spells that might clean a room or change one's appearance (so they are possible enchanters). Feel free to clean it up or correct as you see fit. jclipps (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


Dunno if its just me, but that art f a Female Human 'Mage' near the bottom of the page looks a bit like a warlock, imo Benser 02:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

?Image:ArtHumanMage.jpg?, nope, that is definitely a mage.   Zurr  TC 14:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrath of the Lich King Info[]

New ranks of spells with specific information? Where did this information come from and why is it not cited? Aielchief 04:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this even needed? It's just new ranks to old spells, and just adds more fluff. It probably comes to no one's surprise that there will be new ranks for old spells, so I'm going to be taking this out until someone gives a good reason why we need it. Pzychotix (talk · contr) 14:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
After further thought, these new ranks should probably be on their respective spell pages, but like the OP, I don't know where this information comes from, and whether these are the official ranks (seems too early for something like this). Pzychotix (talk · contr) 14:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Pretty sure they were discovered in some form at Blizzcon. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Magi not plural[]

Someone sent me a note explaining that "magi" is not the plural of "mage", so I removed that part. Please don't add it back unless you have some official Blizzard info that proves magi is the plural of mage. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:41 PM PST 10 Jan 2008

Actually the term magi is used alot in the books, and game in quests and what not. Both plurals are valid.Baggins 01:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

List of magi found in game. Another reference to the term "magi"Baggins 01:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hedge Mage[]

Can anyone tell me what exactly is a Hedge Mage? User:CoobraSssssssssssssssssssssssss User:CoobraFor Pony! {TDon't hiss at me.CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.) 23:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, a mage that is self-taught and has no formal training. Usually, such mages are not as skilled as ones who have been taught how to properly utilize their art. -- Dark T Zeratul 11:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok thankyou. User:CoobraSssssssssssssssssssssssss User:CoobraFor Pony! {TDon't hiss at me.CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.) 20:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed : Background 1.2 Dalaran[]

The author of the 2nd paragraph in the 1.2 Dalaran section doesnt cite any source. He claims that "the number of warlocks has grown disturbingly high" and that warlocks "live openly and declare their study into the forbidden arts publicly"... I'm pretty sure that he assumed that Warlocks are now accepted by society just because (for gameplay reasons) Warlock players can walk in any city of the game with their demon pets.

Most of the warlock trainers of the game are still hiding in dark corners unlike mage trainers... Unless I missed something (in that case, that paragraph needs to cite its sources), in the lore, warlocks are not/barely accepted by most of the races.

Uncorrupted Warlocks vs. Hidden warlocks. Even the RPG has opened up the possibility that some warlocks might be out in the open more than they used to be, while others hide their class. Though the information on Dalaran might be too much on an article about mages, considering that info could be read in the Dalaran page.Baggins (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Need an update in the "High-end spells" section[]

Maybe it isnt in the mage article alone, we could either delete it and leave the information to the "Wrath of the Lich King changes" section or merge the "changes" section with the rest of the article, i dont think its necessary (anymore) to keep wotlk content separate from the rest of the gameUser:Eity

New Polymorph[]

New polymorph spell in patch 3.1! --User:ShandrisForever 19:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


So that's bunny, turtle, cat, penguin, pig and sheep. Am I forgetting any? Adesworth talk to me Special: Contributions/Adesworth 21:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Serpent, but it's not implemented. Fuck they removed my pic! --User:ShandrisForever 07:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Common builds (pre-cataclysm)[]

I finally removed the above section from this page. While interesting in an extremely historical kind of way, it really had no place on the main mage page, being more than 2 1/2 years out of date, and of no relevance whatsoever to the game as it is now. However, if anyone wants to make a separate page for it, etc, it's all there in the history. -- Taohinton (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)