Why does it matter?

[BobVosh]

Sure wizards are incredibly strong, "better" than any other class. Why does this matter? You still need a reasonably balanced party in order to actually succeed.

It isn't like it is PC vs PC (hopefully), D&D has always been a team game. While you can out rogue the rogue with disintegrates+detect traps, that is limited in number of times a day. You will be useless or close to in encounters, except as a coup-de-grace machine.

I have never seen the melee so annoyed at being able to kill disabled enemies.

[arguskos]

Because people are bitter about their favorite classes being underpowered, which is fair enough.

Though, in many ways, casters DO need to be reduced in power. I don't mind casters being better at many things, they do channel magic after all. No, I mind when they can single-handedly rule the universe at level 10, and similarly retarded actions. THAT's what most people really get pissy about, and it's a legitimate point.

[quick_comment]

The problem is that you dont need a party.

Lets take an entirely self sufficient wizard. If he needs trap finding, he uses his summon elemental reserve feat. If he needs a bruiser, he turns into one via shapechange or summons one. If he needs healing, he summons an angel.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Sure wizards are incredibly strong, "better" than any other class. Why does this matter? You still need a reasonably balanced party in order to actually succeed.

Some people vehemently assert that their favorite class is better than it is, which tends to drive conflict with others who disagree.

[tyckspoon]

It isn't like it is PC vs PC (hopefully), D&D has always been a team game. While you can out rogue the rogue with disintegrates+detect traps, that is limited in number of times a day. You will be useless or close to in encounters, except as a coup-de-grace machine.

Or you can take one level of rogue yourself, get into Unseen Seer and Arcane Trickster, and out-rogue the rogue at his own skills while having all of a Wizard's normal power to use when the job doesn't call for rogue talents (actual build is highly skill-point intensive for pre-reqs, and calls for the first level being Rogue. Probably a Human with Able Learner so you can keep your skills up when you switch to Wizard.) A Wizard who wants to be in a role can find a way to do that job, usually better than the classes that were designed for it. One of the major problems is that he can also usually pull it off without making any meaningful sacrifice to being a Wizard, which means when stuff gets really heavy and being a rogue or a magical swordsman or whatever doesn't cut it anymore- oh hey, GATE! Or SHAPECHANGE! Or WEB! Or HASTE! Or whatever other spells you like.

[Cyclocone]

The problem is that you dont need a party.

Lets take an entirely self sufficient wizard. If he needs trap finding, he uses his summon elemental reserve feat. If he needs a bruiser, he turns into one via shapechange or summons one. If he needs healing, he summons an angel.

This. The problem is that the classic fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard party is a trap. A cleric/cleric/wizard/wizard party will quite simply do the same thing, but better.
Dnd is a team game, yes, and non-casters unfortunately become somewhat of a liability at medium-high-ish levels.:smallfrown:
It's the old "the wizard hides behind the fighter until level 5, then the fighter hides behind the wizard".

EDIT: A cloistered cleric with the kobold domain can replace a rogue too.

[BobVosh]

And this matters to the party...why?

And the arcane trickster does lose out on some wizard powers. Loses 3 caster levels, the ability to just spam one ability score, and a PrC that is generally considered decent. I don't remember unseen seer, other than the name.

Still need a party realistically. Just not the W/F/R/C combo. A balanced party, or at least one that can handle all the roles. Why does it matter which classes are in the party?

Schrodinger wizards capable of handling any threat are fine and all, but if you do get dropped on without expecting it you can easily have a TPK with all wizards. Or cleric/wizards. While the beefier chars can live through a hit.

Still that is off topic, why does it matter what the party is made up of? You have options, some are slightly suboptimal, but few are unplayable or even just not fun.

[sadi]

It's all a matter of do you want to be a team player. If you do it's a team game. Everyone can play useful characters and you can all have fun. If you want to break the game, you can break the game, then you're the only one having fun.

[Eldariel]

Because a game where every character matters is more fun? I think that's what it boils down to - fun. I personally find games where all the players contribute evenly to be more enjoyable than one-man shows. As such, I rein in caster powers, buff martial types and my experience is that the game is more enjoyable that way. Considering how many people say Wizards are overpowered and that's a bad thing, I believe I'm not alone with the sentiment.

[tyckspoon]

Unseen Seer is in Complete Arcane. It also doesn't drop any spell advancement, although it does lower your Caster Level for non-divinations (you can make it up with Practiced Spellcaster if you care.) It has only skill requirements and a modest spellcasting requirement, meaning you can get into it with just one level of Rogue. Said level is not 100% necessary either, but it is very helpful to get the required skills in-class and for extra skill points. From there, Unseen Seer also improves Sneak Attack, so you can go from Seer to Trickster without dropping more than one caster-level improving level on that first dip into Rogue.

[BobVosh]

How many people have played with players that are a trouble as a wizard, but not any other class? Replace wizard with any other class. I find people that play to the point of disrupting the game will disrupt it no matter what.

[mikej]

This. The problem is that the classic fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard party is a trap. A cleric/cleric/wizard/wizard party will quite simply do the same thing, but better.
Dnd is a team game, yes, and non-casters unfortunately become somewhat of a liability at medium-high-ish levels.:smallfrown:
It's the old "the wizard hides behind the fighter until level 5, then the fighter hides behind the wizard".


I'd rather have the Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Artificer but to each his/her own.


Because people are bitter about their favorite classes being underpowered, which is fair enough.

&


Some people vehemently assert that their favorite class is better than it is, which tends to drive conflict with others who disagree.

I feel these two statement sum it all up. If your class/character is doing fine and you're enjoying yourself than it shouldn't matter whatever the Wizard is doing. Since most people tend want to be the big shot and thier favourite class that isn't the Wizard ( or anothing generally considered powerfull class ) to be great at everything. Or at least in my experience at the table. Everyone I know trys to one-up any well played caster in the party even if it's a VoP Monk.

Edit: It's playing in a game were nobody is being a jerk and not purposely trying to over shadow someone.

[sadi]

Not me, I've played in quite a few groups total over the last 25 years, and I've never had anyone play a wizard and intentionally destroy games, or disrupt other people from having fun. This is the number one reason I realize that power gaming needs to have a limit to match what the rest of the party is running and when I run a wizard I do minimal optimization and will never use incantrix as part of a build. The fact that my wizard isn't the best wizard ever doesn't matter to me. I'm having fun, the rest of the players are having fun and life goes on.

[Kizara]

One time, my best friend who was DMing a group of his friends told me "I want you to join our game and bring in the most optimized character you can without loophole combos." I won't bother explaining his reasons for this, but surfice it to say he had them even though it was a bad idea.

Rest of the party was a crusader, a shadowcaster (ToM), a bard/barbarian/rage mage, and a dread necromancer.

So, I turned up with my fleshraker druid with a fleshraker companion that liked raking people's flesh. Abusing Companion Spell and just generally being crazy, I think I was about 75% of the combat strength of the entire party, and some of it was against very bad monsters for the character (animal-scaring undead, an ooze, a snake in a narrow tunnel).

However, I found keeping track of the buffs on both creatures and having to roll 10 attack rolls every round and keeping the grapple and trip rules straight too much of a hassle, so I retired the character and showed up with my cleric next session.

So, I turned up with my DMM (quicken) cleric of Zarus. We were 8th-level then, and I had my ownage on full blast. I distinctly remember a time when we had to fight a gargantuan monsterous spider as a boss fight, and I was out of spells for the day so we retreated. Then, the next day with anti-posion buffs and my usual compliment, we were ready to fight the boss. After an HOUR (I KID YOU NOT) of OOC lollygaggling about how to fight the straightforward monster, I just threw on 2 buffs and charged it. They followed suit, and got AoOed before they could do much. I basically soloed the thing, and then healed them up from poison damage. The campaign ended in a TPK when the death throes from a Frost Wyrm killed everyone but my character, who promptly took all their wealth and went back to town, grateful to be free of the 'deadweight' of the rest of her 'party'.

Now, did I have a blast? Sure. Did other people have fun even though I was massively more useful then them? They sure did. Was there anything close to balance in that game? Good heavens no.

[Kurald Galain]

Sure wizards are incredibly strong, "better" than any other class. Why does this matter?

In many groups, it doesn't. Despite the much-vaunted cries on the internet that 3E (and earlier editions) are sooooo unbalanced, many people nevertheless play them and enjoy it.

Note how most RPGs on the market do not really care about "game balance" to begin with.

[Doc Roc]

Because a game where every character matters is more fun? I think that's what it boils down to - fun. I personally find games where all the players contribute evenly to be more enjoyable than one-man shows. As such, I rein in caster powers, buff martial types and my experience is that the game is more enjoyable that way. Considering how many people say Wizards are overpowered and that's a bad thing, I believe I'm not alone with the sentiment.

You are not alone. Balance matters, in short, because this is a game and we are playing it which means we would like to have an opportunity to be successful in it. While you can't win D&D according to many pundits, you can certainly lose. Casters are only a problem if you have a jerk playing the caster. Or someone slips and casts the right spell at the right time. Or someone knows the book list really well and picks a select set of spells. Or if you have a party of monks, paladins, and unoptimized fighters along side a wizard and a cleric.


Huh. Looks to me like there might be cases where it's important. :smallsigh:

[valadil]

Schrodinger wizards capable of handling any threat are fine and all, but if you do get dropped on without expecting it you can easily have a TPK with all wizards. Or cleric/wizards. While the beefier chars can live through a hit.


Wizard fans would argue that you can't surprise a well prepared wizard because of divination.

Overall I agree with you though. It doesn't matter. I have more fun playing sorcerers than wizards, even though I know wizards are more optimal. I think it gets discussed a lot because a) people like criticizing the imbalance and implying that they could make a better balanced game b) people like optimizing and c) other people like refuting claims from a and b.

[shadzar]

Sure wizards are incredibly strong, "better" than any other class. Why does this matter?

:smallconfused: I am confused by the question? Why does it matter than the wizard is so-called better, or why does it matter that people complain because the wizard is so-called better? Or am I really not understanding the question?

[Pika...]

Sure wizards are incredibly strong, "better" than any other class. Why does this matter? You still need a reasonably balanced party in order to actually succeed.

It isn't like it is PC vs PC (hopefully), D&D has always been a team game. While you can out rogue the rogue with disintegrates+detect traps, that is limited in number of times a day. You will be useless or close to in encounters, except as a coup-de-grace machine.

I have never seen the melee so annoyed at being able to kill disabled enemies.


It depends on the people.

For me? I could care less that if I played a 20th level fighter or rogue I would be doing less d6 rolls of damage a round/combat. FOr me it's about the roleplaying! And if I manage to roleplay out a character through his full story (a rare thing I am afraid :smallfrown:) I would be many times happier than if I had just made an optimized killing machine.

However, note that there are people out there who's joy of the game comes from roll-playing instead of role-playing. That is perfectly fine. To each his own. It's just that these people need/want a "balanced" system (which in my honest opinion is impossible, and more of a myth). I believe it is to have a fair playing ground to out-optimize each other (that, and keep from jumping over the table at each others' throats).

Think a very competitive person vs. a very calm book reading person. One looks over the X.X PHB and sees the wondrous fantasy world created by the fluff text and beautiful art. The other sees mechanics they can get lost in in an almost intoxicating OCD way (I have OCD, so I know the feeling).


From my experience the problem lies when you have mixed types of people in the same group, or a single person of one type in a group filled of the other. I have had groups get mad at me for having a "weak character". I have learned to leave such groups pretty fast once something like that hits the air.

[kamikasei]

However, note that there are people out there who's joy of the game comes from roll-playing instead of role-playing.

No. This is not it.

Certainly there are people who are just interested in the mechanical aspects of the game and in excelling at those. However, unless you excise the mechanics all together then your roleplaying is going to be affected by what your character is mechanically capable of. Depending on your character concept, you are quite likely to find that the system makes it extremely difficult to build a bite to match your bark. That's a problem.

Then of course there's the simple fact that a lot of "yes, class X is stronger than class Y, strategy A is stronger than strategy B" comes from people asserting the opposite ("Wizards are dumb, my fighter could beat up a wizard easy!" "Warlocks are ZOMG overpowered!" "Wow, monks are the most awesome class evar!!!1!").

[Zaq]

I'm paraphrasing what's already been said, but the problem isn't the power level of wizards (/clerics/druids/artificers/archivists), it's the power differential. The old "well, I'm useless" syndrome doesn't only apply to rogues fighting oozes and rangers whose bows have been stolen. It's entirely possible to feel useless (which is, let me tell you, not fun) simply by being overshadowed by your teammates.

Take the group I'm currently in, for example... one player has rolled up a Knight, and a moderately optimized one at that (not hyper-optimized, perhaps, but she hasn't made any poor decisions). Her job is to be the meat shield and soak damage when it's possible to do so, and charge on her horse when it's not. The problem? We also have a wilder in the party who specializes in Astral Constructs. As the Knight says, "When one of those huge things pops onto the field and starts doing my job better than I can, and the wilder still has all of his other powers to use next turn... well, I'm not really sure why I'm even around." The Wilder didn't set out to make the Knight feel useless, but that's what's been happening. (The Wilder doesn't even really pay attention most of the time, which just chafes the Knight even worse, since it seems like she's being overpowered by someone who's not even trying.) Is that fun? It doesn't seem like it to me. And the higher up in power level you go, the more this is going to start happening.

Look up "Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit" on YouTube for another example.

[t_catt11]

I agree with Pika. I find a ton of this "this build/class/game is sooo unfair" whining to be silly and pointless.

As a DM, I have never once experienced this in an actual game. Why? Because I require my players to come up with a character concept, then develop that character through gameplay in a believable manner.

Does it really make sense for a person who has devoted their life to understanding and channeling magical energies to "pick up a level of rogue"? Really? That just seems so terribly much like metagaming to me. As do 99% of these uber builds that people propose.

If I get this feat and that feat and this prestige class and chain these spells...

I mean, really.

And another thing... what kind of crazy campaign worlds do you guys play in that allow casters automatic access to every single published spell? Whatever happened to the player having to gain most of their spells through scoll and spellbooks they find on their adventures... that were placed there by the DM?

Maybe I just don't get it. Then again, I don't run campaigns where the party mage can drop by Ye Olde Spell Marte to pick up new spells and components, so I'm probably just a fuddy duddy.

Seems to me that most of this would be alleviated by roleplaying, instead of worrying about builds so much. Of course, that's where 4e has taken us - it's all about the build, right?

Wonder when we'll get buttons to click to activate our powers.


Man, I feel old.

[Doc Roc]

No. No no no and no.

Why did this turn into an edition battle, or an argument about the worth of optimization? This was about the mechanical issues inherent in the design of casters or other high tier classes versus low-tier classes. I'm trying to stay polite here, but I'll be blunt. It seems to me like you guys are often all about being right, and not remotely interested in reasoned debate. :: joking bitterly:: Is that how roleplayers are?

Trust me, I have "character concepts" too. I'm actually pretty deeply offended by your presumption that an optimal build must naturally have no cohesive idea behind it. Jesus. Smooth Jazz, man. The issue isn't balance. It's a lack of orthogonality in player roles. Do you grok that?

[t_catt11]

No. No no no and no.

Why did this turn into an edition battle, or an argument about the worth of optimization? This was about the mechanical issues inherent in the design of casters or other high tier classes versus low-tier classes.

Trust me, I have "character concepts" too. I'm actually pretty deeply offended by your presumption that an optimal build must naturally have no cohesive idea behind it. Jesus. Smooth Jazz, man. The issue isn't balance. It's a lack of orthogonality in player roles. Do you grok that?

My apologies, I was not trying to offend anyone, nor suggest that a build cannot have a valid concept behind it. My point is that I don't see the mentality behind the over the top, game breaker builds.

Also, I have allowed that I may be old and senile.

[Doc Roc]

I also allow that I may be equally old and grognardy.

Would you like me to lay out a couple of nice example builds with a cohesive theme?

[Chaelos]

I enjoy playing Wizards, generally, but I've long felt that people here over emphasize the class's power.

Whenever these threads come up, I notice, we all tend to assume that ALL sourcebooks are available and that a wizard will ALWAYS have ALL spells he needs prepared EXACTLY when he needs them and that ALL wizards have read and mastered The Batman or The God strategies and that, furthermore, ALL wizards are played by people who want nothing more than to break the game however possible.

The simple fact of the matter is that most people aren't optimizers, at least not in the conscious sense we go about it here and on the Wizards forums. Most people have never heard of the Direfell Arcane Mystic Eldritch Master Of 10,000 Suns prestige glass or the Frozen Orb Of I-Win-The-Game spell from the Complete Obscurity sourcebook; most people, when they see wizard, think "Oooh, Fireball!" and don't go beyond that much.

Even when I play Batman wizards, I find that, much of the time, I don't have the right spell prepared to kill the DM's new monster of the day in one turn; I might have some tools to make the other party members more effective at doing so, but this is hardly a solo act, now is it?

[t_catt11]

Sure, I'll be happy to look them over. I may be crotchety, but I try to not be closed-minded.

Understand, though, I'm looking for character motivations to come up with some crazy build.

[Doc Roc]

So yeah, I pretty much stick to complete arcane and the spell compendium, both of which are..... not rare.

[t_catt11]

I enjoy playing Wizards, generally, but I've long felt that people here over emphasize the class's power.

Whenever these threads come up, I notice, we all tend to assume that ALL sourcebooks are available and that a wizard will ALWAYS have ALL spells he needs prepared EXACTLY when he needs them and that ALL wizards have read and mastered The Batman or The God strategies and that, furthermore, ALL wizards are played by people who want nothing more than to break the game however possible.

The simple fact of the matter is that most people aren't optimizers, at least not in the conscious sense we go about it here and on the Wizards forums. Most people have never heard of the Direfell Arcane Mystic Eldritch Master Of 10,000 Suns prestige glass or the Frozen Orb Of I-Win-The-Game spell from the Complete Obscurity sourcebook; most people, when they see wizard, think "Oooh, Fireball!" and don't go beyond that much.

Even when I play Batman wizards, I find that, much of the time, I don't have the right spell prepared to kill the DM's new monster of the day in one turn; I might have some tools to make the other party members more effective at doing so, but this is hardly a solo act, now is it?

This.

This is what I was referring to.

[PinkysBrain]

Sure wizards are incredibly strong, "better" than any other class. Why does this matter? You still need a reasonably balanced party in order to actually succeed.
You mean like a wizard, druid, cleric and a rogue?

[lsfreak]

For me? I could care less that if I played a 20th level fighter or rogue I would be doing less d6 rolls of damage a round/combat. FOr me it's about the roleplaying! And if I manage to roleplay out a character through his full story (a rare thing I am afraid :smallfrown:) I would be many times happier than if I had just made an optimized killing machine.

This depends highly on your point of view. If I'm making a character that is reasonably intelligent (say 12+) and wants to be a master of tactics and master of the sword, why would be purposely choose a path that gimps him? Why would be ever take fighter over warblade? It's bad roleplaying to pick the fighter.

I'm not saying you're wrong, and each to his own. But many of us feel like any reasonably-intelligent character has better roleplay value when you actually roleplay out the class choices, including optimization. When 3.5 has very clear haves and have-nots when it comes to classes, it becomes problematic because playing some classes is nothing short of bad roleplay (from out point of view).

[kamikasei]

t_catt11, trust me, if D&D supported a style of play where you could just pick a solid character concept at the start of play and make choices as you go based on what comes up organically in the campaign, and not have the result be an unplayable mess, I'd love it. It doesn't really, though. The difference in strength between the various options is just too great.

Your character's classes, feats, and so on are out-of-character entities. Of course how you build is metagaming, because your character sheet is part of the metagame. It's working out what kind of character you want to have and choosing the options that enable that.

Your post is also misguided on one very fundamental point: multiclassing is not the harbinger of brokenness. The most powerful classes in the game are most powerful when taken straight through or with a couple of PrCs. A wizard taking a dip in rogue is either a) a theoretical optimization exercise or b) someone working on a peculiar concept who's going to have to put in a lot of work just to have it not suck.

And indeed, I find your implication that anyone who cares about the mechanical side of their character wouldn't know a "character concept" if it jumped up and bit them rather insulting. It's the fact that I want my character's mechanical abilities to reflect the concept I have of them that causes me to put effort into optimizing them.


My point is that I don't see the mentality behind the over the top, game breaker builds.

Seriously "over the top, game breaker builds" aren't meant to be played. They're exercises in number-juggling for the fun of it, because the mechanics are a system and it's fun to play with systems in and of themselves. This is not the same thing as finding it fun to play a character with such a build in a game. The Jumplomancer or Hulking Hurler, never mind Pun Pun or the Omniscifer, are not intended to ever be brought to a table.

[Frog Dragon]

Unseen Seer is in Complete Arcane.
Except that it's not. I don't know where it is (Probably CMAG), but it's not CARC

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I enjoy playing Wizards, generally, but I've long felt that people here over emphasize the class's power.

Whenever these threads come up, I notice, we all tend to assume that ALL sourcebooks are available and that a wizard will ALWAYS have ALL spells he needs prepared EXACTLY when he needs them and that ALL wizards have read and mastered The Batman or The God strategies and that, furthermore, ALL wizards are played by people who want nothing more than to break the game however possible.

The simple fact of the matter is that most people aren't optimizers, at least not in the conscious sense we go about it here and on the Wizards forums. Most people have never heard of the Direfell Arcane Mystic Eldritch Master Of 10,000 Suns prestige glass or the Frozen Orb Of I-Win-The-Game spell from the Complete Obscurity sourcebook; most people, when they see wizard, think "Oooh, Fireball!" and don't go beyond that much.

Even when I play Batman wizards, I find that, much of the time, I don't have the right spell prepared to kill the DM's new monster of the day in one turn; I might have some tools to make the other party members more effective at doing so, but this is hardly a solo act, now is it?

SpC is not rare or obscure, and the 3.0 Incantatrix that is freely available on the Wizards website is still pretty strong.

[Chaelos]

SpC is not rare or obscure

Although this is a personal case study example, here, in all the many D&D campaigns I've played in, only one person has ever had access to that book--and that was me.

[Doc Roc]

Off the top of my head, five readily acceptable PrCs that provide a tremendous potential power boost:

Ur-Priest (Complete Divine)
Initiate of the Seven Veils (Complete Arcane)
Abjurant Champion (Complete Mage)
Thrallherd (XPH)
Red Wizard (Core Books)

[Doc Roc]

Although this is a personal case study example, here, in all the many D&D campaigns I've played in, only one person has ever had access to that book--and that was me.

In the 50+ trials I've administrated for the Test of Spite, two players have lacked access. In my 3 years or so of GM 3.5, one player has lacked access. :: shrugs ::

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Although this is a personal case study example, here, in all the many D&D campaigns I've played in, only one person has ever had access to that book--and that was me.

Sample size too small, your conclusion is null. :smalltongue:

[tyckspoon]

Except that it's not. I don't know where it is (Probably CMAG), but it's not CARC

..mmph. So it is. Stupid companion books.. they're really 2 parts of 'Really Complete Arcane' anyway. :smallyuk:

[t_catt11]

Your post is also misguided on one very fundamental point: multiclassing is not the harbinger of brokenness. The most powerful classes in the game are most powerful when taken straight through or with a couple of PrCs. A wizard taking a dip in rogue is either a) a theoretical optimization exercise or b) someone working on a peculiar concept who's going to have to put in a lot of work just to have it not suck.

And indeed, I find your implication that anyone who cares about the mechanical side of their character wouldn't know a "character concept" if it jumped up and bit them rather insulting. It's the fact that I want my character's mechanical abilities to reflect the concept I have of them that causes me to put effort into optimizing them.

I'm not sure exactly where I said this. I believe that my statement went back to an earlier argument of how a wizard could out-rogue a rogue by picking up one level and applying awesome leetness to it. I didn't see the in-character justification for picking up one sole level of rogue for skills points, feats, and such. That is all.

Nor do I recall making a statement grouping all character planning into metagaming. I do recall my immediate apology for the offense I already caused, let me extend the same to you.

My big gripe is the game breaker builds, which is what I was attempting (clumsily) to comment on.

[Yuki Akuma]

I enjoy playing Wizards, generally, but I've long felt that people here over emphasize the class's power.

Whenever these threads come up, I notice, we all tend to assume that ALL sourcebooks are available and that a wizard will ALWAYS have ALL spells he needs prepared EXACTLY when he needs them and that ALL wizards have read and mastered The Batman or The God strategies and that, furthermore, ALL wizards are played by people who want nothing more than to break the game however possible.

The simple fact of the matter is that most people aren't optimizers, at least not in the conscious sense we go about it here and on the Wizards forums. Most people have never heard of the Direfell Arcane Mystic Eldritch Master Of 10,000 Suns prestige glass or the Frozen Orb Of I-Win-The-Game spell from the Complete Obscurity sourcebook; most people, when they see wizard, think "Oooh, Fireball!" and don't go beyond that much.

Even when I play Batman wizards, I find that, much of the time, I don't have the right spell prepared to kill the DM's new monster of the day in one turn; I might have some tools to make the other party members more effective at doing so, but this is hardly a solo act, now is it?

Well... even if just playing with the core books, the Wizard totally outclasses the Fighter.

In fact without other sourcebooks, the Fighter is completely useless - all his good options are in other books. The Wizard? Some of his best spells are in the PHB.

[Doc Roc]

Well... even if just playing with the core books, the Wizard totally outclasses the Fighter.

In fact without other sourcebooks, the Fighter is completely useless - all his good options are in other books. The Wizard? Some of his best spells are in the PHB.

I think what bugs me is that this is easy to verify, but these threads never change.

+1 cookie, Yuki.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

So link them to the Test of Spite and be done with it.

[Yuki Akuma]

You mean like a wizard, druid, cleric and a rogue?

Psh, rogue? What do you need him for? Take an artificer.

[Doc Roc]

I vote strongly in favor of All Archivist All The Time, for best theme party evar. Double points if they're all tieflings with LA-buyoff. :)

[Chaelos]

Sample size too small, your conclusion is null. :smalltongue:

Well aware, and was thus would rather not have used the example. Still, Tidesinger's point about Test of Spite is exactly my point; nobody I've ever played with has thought like the type of person who would come up with a Pun-Pun.

[truemane]

I think the one thing you can draw from all the (very smart) comments in this thread so far that is that everything depends on context. There is no right way to play the game and no wrong way to play the game. There is nothing wrong with role-playing or roll-playing. You hit trouble when you have disparate elements of the game colliding in the same place at the same time.

When four people at the table want one thing and the fifth wants something else, there will be conflict. That's all.

From a purely mechaincal viewpoint, Wizards and Clerics and Druids start to dominate the game as the levels go much past 10. That's not 'better' or 'more fun' or anything else, merely a statistical fact. Around 15th level or so, a wizard and/or and Cleric and/or a Druid can do everything everyone can do as effectively (or more so) than they can do it. Again, this is not a value judgement, simply a statement of mathematical fact.

And if you have one of those classes, played in the wrong group by the wrong person for the wrong reasons, you have civil dischord and hurt feelings and conflict.

[Doc Roc]

Actually, we've had five or six nice infinite loops show up in the ToS. It's been pretty darn cool, from my perspective.


When four people at the table want one thing and the fifth wants something else, there will be conflict. That's all.


http://pixiestixkidspix.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/cookie-bite-web.jpg

When cookies attack!

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Well aware, and was thus would rather not have used the example. Still, Tidesinger's point about Test of Spite is exactly my point; nobody I've ever played with has thought like the type of person who would come up with a Pun-Pun.

KHHHAAAAAANNNNN!!!!

(My SpC was given to me by a friend who is far from a good optimizer. Just for the record.)


Psh, rogue? What do you need him for? Take an artificer.
Cleric with Persisted Find Traps.

[kamikasei]

I'm not sure exactly where I said this. I believe that my statement went back to an earlier argument of how a wizard could out-rogue a rogue by picking up one level and applying awesome leetness to it. I didn't see the in-character justification for picking up one sole level of rogue for skills points, feats, and such. That is all.

Oh, I see. I apologize, I didn't realize what you were referring back to (and your subsequent apologies were made while I was typing up that post). The attitude is a rather common one, where people freak out when presented with a Rogue 3/Swashbuckler 17 with Daring Outlaw but think a Druid 20 is just fine.

On the other hand, if a wizard can do a rogue's job better just by diverting a single level's worth of attention to learning the basics of their trade (or if, say, a first-level rogue will be better off in his career if he spends all the rest of his time in the study of wizardry, if you want to justify it in character), that's not much of an argument for wizards not outclassing rogues. (I'm not actually interested in defending whether a single level of rogue actually will so empower a wizard - I'm taking that as a given for the sake of exploring the implications, since you didn't challenge that point in your response.)

[t_catt11]

Sigh. I'm too old for this. I'm gonna go back to my houseruled 2nd edition where everything was unbalanced and broken, and we LIKED IT.

We walked uphill five miles in the snow BOTH WAYS just to play it!

[Kaiyanwang]

Magic is very powerful but in my experience:

Meleers use items, mundane, alchemical and magic to vary things to do.

Even those with few skills use them.

I my campaigns, magic have some nerf (not always), and these nerfs I found them in Wotc books, and make magic not "meh" but less "I win" and more "I win with risk or sacrifice".

We play with an effort on the builds (because I think that it HELPS roleplaying, BTW) but nothing exaggerated, EXPECIALLY FOR CASTERS.

I'm a Devil of a DM!

So yes wiz is poweful but I don't see SO MUCH the problems teh internet claims. True, my players several times don't follow max optimization but tastes. I know that magic, if "maximized" in its use, can be ... very hard to manage.



In fact without other sourcebooks, the Fighter is completely useless - all his good options are in other books. The Wizard? Some of his best spells are in the PHB.

True. I like a lot the fighter, but you cannot do one I like with PH only.

[kamikasei]

So yes wiz is poweful but I don't see SO MUCH the problems teh internet claims.

I think the most extreme examples you see on the net tend to be products of "My fighter could beat any wizard!" "...No, he really couldn't" threads, where it's granted that an actual PC wizard in play at a table is not so infallible, but in the game universe a wizard worth his Int score will be capable of such shenanigans and the ones most willing to engage in them will be the ones still alive and/or at the top of the heap.

[Foryn Gilnith]

but in the game universe a wizard worth his Int score will be capable of such shenanigans and the ones most willing to engage in them will be the ones still alive and/or at the top of the heap.

Yes. The only thing keeping thousands of wizards from massive success is the intellectual laziness of their players. I came to play a game, not to play Batman. Character creation, tracking encumbrance, etc. are fine. Thinking like a paranoid super-genius is not. Being Batman is too much effort.

[Doc Roc]

But being the Green Lantern? Yeah, that I can do.

Man, Astral Constructs are fun!

[Umael]

To answer the OP's question, it matters because if the wizard/cleric/Tier 1 class is overpowered and the CW Samurai/Monk/Tier 6 class is underpowered, then as both player and DM, I may have to take that into account. I want to have fun both in the character concept and in the mechanics of the game (yes, I'm greedy).

Ideally, I shouldn't have to care. I like building character concepts that ARE unoptimized, not because I like gimping myself, but because it makes sense for that character to have that particular class or be that particular race to take that particular feat. Hank the barbarian may not be an effective barbarian because he's highest stat is Intelligence, but playing a barbarian with a Ph.D. is so much fun!

And then I think to myself, gee, wouldn't it be nice if I could do something with that Intelligence so that there is a mechanical benefit to it? Nothing as good as Strength and Constitution and Dexterity, obviously, but something that gives me an unexpected edge.

One of my fears is that one day I decided to pick up that one level of wizard so that I can go around scribing True Strike. A few levels later, I have an X-level barbarian/1st level wizard and I find out that I'm outperforming the X+1-level barbarian and I think to myself, "That's not how it's supposed to work."

I want to have my game to be balanced, customizible, easy to plan, and fun!

And I'm rambling, so I'll be quiet now.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Yes. The only thing keeping thousands of wizards from massive success is the intellectual laziness of their players. I came to play a game, not to play Batman. Character creation, tracking encumbrance, etc. are fine. Thinking like a paranoid super-genius is not. Being Batman is too much effort.
You're misusing the phrase "Batman". The proper term for that kind of wizard is "God"

[kamikasei]

You're misusing the phrase "Batman". The proper term for that kind of wizard is "God"

I think of him as the Tippmeister. I'm talking about the seriously out-there, never sleeps in a dimension anyone else knows about, applies his buffs extended and persisted and then sleeps again to prepare his actual spells for the day, won't collect the paper without scrying it to hell and back, kind of wizard.

[Foryn Gilnith]

To Umael:
Worse, be a Duskblade (PHB2). You can use that True Strike 3/day, with no spell failure in light armor. You lose no BAB, only about 2 hp, and get random nifty cantrips too. The class has two good saves too.

This thread is starting to turn me anti-3.5. :P

[Pharaoh's Fist]

To Umael:
Worse, be a Duskblade (PHB2). You can use that True Strike 3/day, with no spell failure in light armor. You lose no BAB, only about 2 hp, and get random nifty cantrips too. The class has two good saves too.

This thread is starting to turn me anti-3.5. :P

The current record holder for most damage dealt on a charge is a Barbarian, if that makes you feel better.

[Doc Roc]

I think of him as the Tippmeister. I'm talking about the seriously out-there, never sleeps in a dimension anyone else knows about, applies his buffs extended and persisted and then sleeps again to prepare his actual spells for the day, won't collect the paper without scrying it to hell and back, kind of wizard.

Normally, we actually just call him The Paranoid Wizard, over on 339 or BG. I like the idea that He's Not Anyone's Fault.

[Yuki Akuma]

Not that pure damage per round is much of a rubric of power in 3.5... The Wizard can't hope to outdamage a half-decent Fighter.

[Doc Roc]

It's actually not a terrible metric sometimes, either. The interestin' part is that you really can get some nice action going with a:

Wizard Warblade Archivist Factotum

Style thing.

Or an Instantaneous\Intimidating\Imperious Barbarian sure brings a lot of interesting things to a party, particularly a pouncer. Did you know that with instantaneous rage, you can rage mid-charge after you get into intimidate range but before you hit?

Really cool stuff. People seriously discount the interesting things the system allows.

[d13]

This depends highly on your point of view. If I'm making a character that is reasonably intelligent (say 12+) and wants to be a master of tactics and master of the sword, why would be purposely choose a path that gimps him? Why would be ever take fighter over warblade? It's bad roleplaying to pick the fighter.

I'm not saying you're wrong, and each to his own. But many of us feel like any reasonably-intelligent character has better roleplay value when you actually roleplay out the class choices, including optimization. When 3.5 has very clear haves and have-nots when it comes to classes, it becomes problematic because playing some classes is nothing short of bad roleplay (from out point of view).

So... You have a Fighter... A guy with armor that hits things with a big sword...

And a Warblade... A guy with armor that hits things with a big sword...

Who studied a cool path and can do some other nifty tricks that you WOULDN'T EVER know about by just seeing one of them.

So tell me, then, how's choosing a Warblade over a Fighter a roleplaying decision, if you don't know the difference about them? :smallconfused:

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I cannot understand you; can you please rephrase?

[tyckspoon]

Not that pure damage per round is much of a rubric of power in 3.5... The Wizard can't hope to outdamage a half-decent Fighter.

Depends on what you consider to be a "half-decent" Fighter. It's somewhat difficult for a Wizard to approach the massive damage tallies of Uberchargers, but they can still break into 100's of damage inflicted without really investing in it and touch 1000 + bunches of debuffing effects if you get into serious metamagic abuse. That's well into kill-anything range even if you're not competing for TO world records.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Really cool stuff. People seriously discount the interesting things the system allows.

I recently collaborated with my GM to update some of the Heart of Nightfang Spire NPCs to 3.5. My knowledge of what 3.5 lets you do with Intimidate increased exponentially.

[Korivan]

It's the old "the wizard hides behind the fighter until level 5, then the fighter hides behind the wizard".


An how is this fun for everyone? At high levels I enjoy as a wizard still being the buffer/debuffer/BC. I'd much rather augment my team and then directly join in the fun. But I also don't try min/max-optimise to steal the show. I like the typical F/C/W/R combo, if nothing more then the old style DnD feel and role-play. But this line of though also comes from the tried and true philosophy of our gaming groups "if you can do it, then your enemies can to". If I build a wizard that kills an army at will, our dm will pit us up against a wizard that can kill an adventuring party that can kill an army at will.

On this note it is important to note that no class is 100% better then another. (dodges a brick to the head from the forum). It's all how a person plays. I litteraly know people that love to play, but can't really play worth a d@*#. You could build a Truenamer that could kick the crap out of this guys wizards (all that he plays) at any level. The only thing that could save him and screw you, is if everysingle roll favored him.

[Yuki Akuma]

An how is this fun for everyone?

It's not. That is the entire point behind calling it a problem.

[kamikasei]

Normally, we actually just call him The Paranoid Wizard, over on 339 or BG. I like the idea that He's Not Anyone's Fault.

Confession: I don't actually call him the Tippmeister. I made that up just there. He's neither Batman nor God, though.


Wizard Warblade Archivist Factotum

Didn't someone on these forums say they'd played in just such a party (might have been Beguiler rather than Factotum, though)? Team Genius. They made fun of the Warblade for only having 16 Int.


I cannot understand you; can you please rephrase?

I think he's suggesting that to train as a Warblade, you'd have to find a master of the Iron Heart style in his mountaintop cave of seclusion and study under him, and you wouldn't know to do that just by seeing a Warblade on the street. (To be a Fighter, though, it seems you only have to look at one buying his groceries.)

That was a bit snippy, so to be constructive, let me point out that I would play it as either a) someone learning to fight can learn the tricks a Warblade can without needing special instruction, or b) Fighters need their Colleges of the Pugilistic Arts and fechtbuchs and instructors, too. Treating Warblades as the "exceptional" ones you have to make an effort to train as strikes me as kind of weird.

[lsfreak]

So... You have a Fighter... A guy with armor that hits things with a big sword...

And a Warblade... A guy with armor that hits things with a big sword...

Who studied a cool path and can do some other nifty tricks that you WOULDN'T EVER know about by just seeing one of them.

So tell me, then, how's choosing a Warblade over a Fighter a roleplaying decision, if you don't know the difference about them? :smallconfused:

They both study and practice their art (swinging a sword). Neither and magic and both explainable (except for a handful of strange or extremely high-level maneuvers) in purely mundane terms, like "he lines up a very precise blow" or "he calls to an ally to strike in the opening he created." The PHB description for the fighter fits the warblade better than the fighter.

About the "cool path," fighters do exactly the same thing. Combat Expertise->Improved Trip is a "cool path." So is PA->LA->Shock Trooper. One just does "cool paths" with slightly different fluff (and can be refluffed easily) and without sucking.

[Foryn Gilnith]

That's the approach Star Wars Saga took. Multiclass all you want, because in the end you have to play a character, and a Jedi specializing in lightsaber throwing who dislikes children yet feels a compulsion to train that won't change due to your build. He could be a Jedi 7/Jedi Knight 5/Jedi Master 5, or a Noble 4/Soldier 3/Bounty Hunter 1/Gunslinger 1/Jedi 1/Jedi Knight 2/Jedi Master 5. All that does is change his power level, not who he is.

The warrior is defined by his mission, and his beliefs, and his personality. He is not defined by whether his build is fighter or warblade.

[Delwugor]

I agree with Pika

I agree with this.
EDIT: I took out the pointless part, it isn't pointless to everyone otherwise there wouldn't be so many threads here and other forums about it.


As a DM, I have never once experienced this in an actual game. Why? Because I require my players to come up with a character concept, then develop that character through gameplay in a believable manner.

I also agree with this.


Does it really make sense for a person who has devoted their life to understanding and channeling magical energies to "pick up a level of rogue"? Really? That just seems so terribly much like metagaming to me. As do 99% of these uber builds that people propose.

If I get this feat and that feat and this prestige class and chain these spells...

I mean, really.

And this also.


And another thing... what kind of crazy campaign worlds do you guys play in that allow casters automatic access to every single published spell? Whatever happened to the player having to gain most of their spells through scoll and spellbooks they find on their adventures... that were placed there by the DM?

This is exactly what I do, spells don't just magically appear.


Maybe I just don't get it. Then again, I don't run campaigns where the party mage can drop by Ye Olde Spell Marte to pick up new spells and components, so I'm probably just a fuddy duddy.

I agree with this... and if you're a fuddy duddy then so am I.


Seems to me that most of this would be alleviated by roleplaying, instead of worrying about builds so much. Of course, that's where 4e has taken us - it's all about the build, right?

Hey guess what? I agree with this also.


Man, I feel old.

So Do I.

Since I seem to agree with you:
I'm Delwugor and I approve of this message.:smallbiggrin:

[Doc Roc]

Except, of course, in combat where he is entirely defined by those. :: gentle grin ::

[Delwugor]

Not for players and their characters that think combat is a method of achieving a goal, not the goal itself.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

t_catt, the spells a wizard gets from leveling up are enough to wreak some serious havoc, even if restricted to core.

[kamikasei]

On spells: bear in mind that a wizard gets more free spells known per level than a sorcerer does, and there's no suggestion that either class has to track these down as scrolls or the like in game before they can be learned. Divine casters for the most part have their entire spell lists available to them. While of course a DM can ban any spells he wants and restrict the introduction of new spells from splatbooks, the argument that spell knowledge is limited by treasure just doesn't hold up.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Except, of course, in combat where he is entirely defined by those. :: gentle grin ::

Not for players and their characters that think combat is a method of achieving a goal, not the goal itself.


Valid point. Many martial types may indeed see combat and the honing of techniques as a goal in itself. However, in the end, the focus on combat and techniques defines the character, not what those techniques are.

Of course, I advocate warblade because it's easier to play a hero when random failure isn't quite as likely to hurt you (i.e. you're more powerful) Or better yet, both. (the cheese explanation for this is so that you can get a 3rd-level stance at your 4th level of warblade. The roleplaying explanation, if necessary, will vary by character)