Is wizard overpowered? (Yes, this again) [Archive]

View Full Version : Is wizard overpowered? (Yes, this again)

Pages : [1] 2

Heliomance

2009-12-11, 06:58 PM

I'm having a debate on my local gaming society forums on balance in 3.5. I thought I'd copy over the debate here, both to see if I'm missing anything, and because it's an interesting read. Names have been omitted to protect the guilty.

I also have to disagree with the magic solving everything idea though, unless you know exactly what is coming in the day ahead its very difficult to have the specific spell available, and if your days are long with a lot of encounters, you can find yourself short quite often. The whole idea of magic is it is a bigger punch but limited uses. I combat for example a fighter/barbarian/druid in the right form can consistently be doing around 50 damage at higher levels, whereas a wizard may break 70 damage once or twice with his higher level spells or 50 to multiple targets a few times, but after the first few he's back to doing 10d6 again for the most part after level 10. He may be able to protect himself twice or so by being invisible and flying, but by the third combat he's an incredibly squishy target for any archers, or worse against any deamons/most clerics those wouldnt work in the first place and the wizard becomes the first target, I have had a wizard die in one hit from a deamon just because they are so vulnerable.

Or as you would probably rather: the social situation the same thing applies: its a high level spell slot to have a mass suggestion spell to sway a crowd and you probably wont be able to do it more than once, wheras a bard or cleric with a high persuade skill can preach all day and sway lots of NPCs even from a low level, unlimited number of times. Or a smart talking rogue can bluff his way through unlimited situations a day. A high level ranger or rogue can hide in plane sight and with their move silently skill they will be much less likely to be spotted than an invisible wizard who at best is cross classing into the stealthy skills.

And as for imbalance, I think in general the system is very well balanced, I know you've all heard me say this before and are probably tired of it by now, but I've gone away and played in many more systems this year, and I still can't see where the argument is coming from. There are slight tweaks that make things sit better in certain campaigns, but I don't think there are major balancing floors. In <name>'s campaign last summer we had a fighter/dragon disciple who turn for turn was easily outdoing my wizard for damage even with the higher level spells by the time he took great cleave. Best move for my wizard every combat was to buff him instead normally. And in social situations the charismatic assimar cleric was far more useful most often. It was a case of the wizard being a good back up and an alternative for when mundane methods fail.

If you' were playing the wizard "right" though - by which I mean in a strictly optimal way - that demon should have connected with a maximum of one of those attacks due to stacking miss chance. Alternatively, Celerity.

if you want to go along that route though, the fighter may as well have been wearing, and was in fact, a cloak of displacement. Plus it takes multiple turns to put up all those defenses and the deamon only needs one to quicken teleport and full attack. Wheras the fighters item option is always active, granted the wizard could also wear this but point is its not directly because of being a magic user.

Also by the end of the day (which this was), the wizard has run out of the best of those spells. It was a demon nvasion into a city, wave after wave had to be fought back. The dragon disciple was of course still acting at full potential. Us casters however were not at our full compliment of spells.

Another point to make, a flat footed caster doesnt eactly have an impressive AC, add this to a sucky fort save and they are a sitting duck for an assassin or stealthed poison using rogue, far more than any other class.

If you allow all the spells from all the extra source books then I'd have to agree magic becomes broken - which is why you don't do it lol.

Magic is broken anyway. TBH, in Core, the Druid is probably the most broken class. Yes, splat books make casters more powerful, but they also make melee characters more powerful, to a greater degree than the casters. I'm not claiming it closes the gap - not even a little bit - but it does help narrow it somewhat. In core, a fighter very quickly runs out of useful feats to take. Add in splat books, and suddenly there's a half decent feat for him to take every time he gets he opportunity.

And quite honestly, your situation with the caster being out of spells is rare. D&D is "balanced" around the idea that you'll have four encounters in the average day. More than that and yes, he caster starts to struggle a bit. But most adventuring groups have less than that, maybe one or two a day, because of this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0145.html). In this situation, a wizard beyond maybe third or fourth level is not realistically going to run out of spells in the vast majority of situations. However, a wizard's true power is not in his raw blastiness but in his versatility. Invisibility and flight lets him sneak better than the rogue. Knock is better than Open Lock. Tongues obviates the need to learn languages. Flight renders climb, jump and balance checks irrelevant. The plethora of save or lose spells, starting from the very first level with sleep, are more effective than hitting with a pointy bit of metal against most things. Yes, if a barbarian caught a wizard by surprsie, the wizard would die horrible. But on the other hand, the wizard can out-skillmonkey the rogue, take out enemies - lethally or otherwise, at his convenience - more effectively than the fighter, move faster than the monk, and can reshape reality according to his very whim. If you want to be a **** about it, once you hit 17th level, a wizard can be made absolutely impossible to kill short of a deity personally intervening, and then only maybe. Using only SRD spells. For many levels before that, he's really damn hard to kill.

You missed my point about the extra books, what I meant was,just don't allow the spells. A prepared wizard is hard to kill, but as described earlier there really isn't a way out against things like that demon, where the fighter and barbarian really have the edge.

I agree devine casters are slightly more powerful than most other classes, and I definately agree with druids being a very powerful class (possibly paladins more so though). But with running out of spells, while a wizard is never going to fully run out, he may run out of appropriate ones of a high level, versitility comes at the cost of specialising (ask any bard), what kind of wizard has knock prepared more than once if at all if there is a rogue in the party? A good dungeon will have multipletraps and locked doors and chests which really requires the consistent ability of a rogue to overcome.and with fly and invisibility, its matched by an assassin with invisibility anyway, or a rogue with use magic divice and the appropriate wand, probably a higher dex, and hide and move silently as fully ranked up class skills.

I think most clerics could take a wizard of the same level as them (true seeing), like wise a wizard would take a fighter or barbarian, and the fighter would probably take the cleric though. A well built fighter can breach massive damage every round also, which is something magic isnt allowed to kill by. So this is something else to be taken into consideration. A fighter can take something with 200+hp in one turn 5% of the time regardless of its fort save. Add in great cleave and it cancells out the wizards AoE advantage. There are lots of items in the game which let you gain an advantage over magic users, simple glitterdust, high spell resistance armour or shields. Rangers and rogues can hide in plain sight and be just as difficult to notice as an invisible wizard.

Survivability against mundane means agreeable the wizard has the advantage, however they are easier to kill by other magic users and supernatural means than fighting types in my opinion, primarily due to the lack of HP.

I'm all up for hearing if you have a combination of spells you could get off within 2 turns to not be taken down by a Marilith at level 12 (assuming the dismissal fails as it most likely would with the level difference of 5), using core spells only. whereas the martial and divine characters all survive long enough to batter it to death.

Also fighters do run out of useful feats in core which is why they should always be a multiclass get some barbarian levels in there early, maybe some rogue for sneak attack and skills depending on the concept.

You have a valid point about the wizard not preparing Knock multiple times, on the other hand that's what scrolls and wands are for. Every core wizard receives Scribe Scroll automatically at first level, and there's really no reason not to have multiple scrolls of situational and utility spells sitting around. Something as generically useful as Knock would be well worth getting a wand of.

A Marilith at level 12 is an incredibly hard fight for anyone, seeing as it's CR 17. However, just off the top of my head and a quick glance through the SRD:
Methods that allow saves:
Repulsion
Flesh to Stone
Baleful Polymorph
Hold Monster
Phantasmal Killer
(Otiluke's Resilient Sphere)
Magic Jar
Tasha's Hideous Laughter

Methods that allow no saves:
(Solid Fog)
(Evard's Black Tentacles)
(Acid Fog)

Methods that let you laugh at it because it can't reach you to do anything to you:
Fly/Overland Flight
Bigby's Forceful Hand
(Wall of Iron)
(Wall of Stone)
(Wall of Ice)
(Wall of Force)
Otto's Resilient Sphere (on yourself)
(Sleet Storm)
(Grease)

Methods that let you get the hell out of Dodge:
Phantom Steed
Fly/Overland Flight
Teleport
Shadow Walk

() denotes methods that may be of less effectiveness due to Greater eTeleport at will. They're not useless though - at the least, they buy you a round. With two rounds to play with, use one of them to hit the Marilith with Dimensional Anchor. Then everything else you can do is at full potential.

I don't understand at all why you think Paladins are stronger than Druids. Paladins in vanilla D&D are weak. They suffer from worse MAD than any other class except possibly the Monk. I'm sure a Paladin with 18 in everything could be terrifying. On the other hand, after level 5 a Druid with 8 in everything would be dangerous, give him one or two higher stats (Wis and Con) and he would be more dangerous that the Paladin with all 18s. Hell, even before level 5 a Druid's animal companion is at least as deadly as the party Fighter all by itself. And I really don't think that a Cleric could take a Wizard - I would point out that Fly is not on the Cleric spell list.

You say the Fighter can take out something with 200+ HP in one go 5% of the time. A wizard can do exactly the same thing, also regardless of its saves - a natural 1 always fails saves. Also, most fighter builds won't be putting out 200+ damage even if they do crit - ones that do are very highly optimised, and while they may take out a normal wizard, one that's optimised to the same extent will own them. As for magic not being allowed to trigger massive damage, I'm not seeing that. The rules are admittedly vague, though. The wording on massive damage is "If a single attack deals 50 points of damage or more and doesn’t kill the target outright, that creature must make a DC 15 Fortitude save. If this save fails, the creature dies regardless of its current hit points." The problem is, though, that the term "attack" is not defined anywhere. The closest I can find is in the PHB glossary - "attack: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll."

Reading that, it's quite hard to determine what the Rules As Intended are on massive damage - Rules As Written though, any spell that has an attack roll and deals hitpoint damage is eligible for provoking massive damage.

On Great Cleave cancelling the AoE advantage: Great Cleave is an awful feat. Cleave is good, Great Cleave isn't. Unless you're regularly fighting goblin villages at level 10, it's far too rare for you to drop more than one opponent per turn. Add in the fact that you can't take 5' steps between attacks, and it's very rarely useful.

Also, I would note that that marilith was cheating. Greater Teleport is a 7th level spell, and thus impossible to apply Quicken Spell-Like Ability to, per http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats. ... ikeAbility. Metamagic rods don't apply to spell-like abilities, and Mariliths don't have Teleport. And if it had enough Wizard levels to cast Teleport itself and use a Quicken Spell Metamagic Rod on it, then it was at least CR 26 and should never have been sent against a level 12 party.

We've always ruled magic can't breach massive damage. It's a good point that you could carry around scrolls of knock if you wanted, but I've never felt the need with a competent rogue in the party, and the wizard still isn't as good at trap finding.

And I was arguing the 5% for breaching massive damage and failing on the 1, not the ability to breach 200 damage, with core rules this is very hard to achieve

A cleric may not have fly but he does have true seeing and enough spells to fight a wizard from range, a dispel magic is a nasty thing to happen to a flying wizard. Then if at all possible they get in close and cast divine power and grapple the wizard, dimension door, or anything else, but even this isnt necessary, there are plenty of ways to take them down from range and they have more HP and the ability to heal themselves. Plus any character should get a ring of evasion just to be sure.

Problem with a lot of those spells is that as mentioned they require a demon of 5 ELs higher to fail a save. And having never met a Maralith before I didnt expect the teleport. And just getting out of there leaving the party behind wasnt really a very in character thing to consider.

Great cleave is amazing for an enlarged dragon disciple with a spiked chain giving him huge reach, dragon disciple strength bonuses meens he did indeed break massive damage consistently. He was easily giving even my empowered spells competition for damage.

Monks agreed are underpowered, I've played a couple because they are nice for fluff, but they die so easily it becomes frustrating.

Paladins are powerful because of their mount mostly, the mount becomes as powerful as any other party member. The paladin I played had a unicorn mount, a dire lion is also a good choice just for pinning things down while you kill them. Add that to the high BAB, heavy armour profficiency, limited healing. They are almost as good as a fighter anyway (as we already agreed core fighters tend to run out of feats to take anyway). A Paladin mounted on a dire lion or unicorn wielding a bstrd sword and heavy stealshield - and a lance on the side for charges. Smite evil is also really good, amazing saves. I've heard lots of people complain about them but never seen it myself.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 07:04 PM

How to defeat a Marilith as a level 12 wizard:

Step 1: Planar Binding. Get a nightmare
Step 2: Use it's astral projection ability to make a copy of yourself.
Step 3: Sell of the astral projection's equipment. Repeat until you have enough money or magic items.
Step 4: Find the marilith and engage it with spells.
If you win, congratulations. If you lose, go back to step 2.

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 07:54 PM

Wizards aren't overpowered. Everyone else is underpowered.

How to defeat a Marilith as a level 12 wizard:

Step 1: Planar Binding. Get a nightmare
Step 2: Use it's astral projection ability to make a copy of yourself.
Step 3: Sell of the astral projection's equipment. Repeat until you have enough money or magic items.
Step 4: Find the marilith and engage it with spells.
If you win, congratulations. If you lose, go back to step 2.

Nightmare casts ethereal jaunt and escapes your planar binding or even more deliciously evil it agrees to cast astral projection then ethereal jaunts and coup de grace's your helpless body.

Lycanthromancer

2009-12-11, 08:02 PM

Wizards aren't overpowered. Everyone else is underpowered.

Nightmare casts ethereal jaunt and escapes your planar binding or even more deliciously evil it agrees to cast astral projection then ethereal jaunts and coup de grace's your helpless body.That's easy. You prepare beforehand, as wizards are supposed to. A dimension lock already in the area, along with a few save-destroying spells, then a dominate monster or two.

Voila, a slave for as long as you want to continue dominating it.

Seriously, people just don't think about these things.

Tyndmyr

2009-12-11, 08:02 PM

tyckspoon

2009-12-11, 08:05 PM

You're talking to somebody who thinks "almost as good as a Fighter" means the Paladin is doing fine and that up to 8 bonus HD and some Strength makes a Paladin's mount "as good as any party member." Take a deep breath, drink some cocoa, and try to come to grips with the idea that this guy probably just isn't going to get it.

Lycanthromancer

2009-12-11, 08:08 PM

He spelled divine as "devine", and thus, automatically loses at life.

Wizard is quite powerful...but it depends on the terms of comparison. Core only changes essentially nothing, IMO. If anything, it makes the gap between magic and melee wider.

At very low levels, say, 1-3, melee is actually stronger. Then, for several more levels, they are roughly comparable. The wizard doesn't actually hit ridiculously overpowered levels till mid to late game, and specific build can greatly affect it.

Your friend is considering things too much in terms of damage. Yes, you can get more damage overall by buffing the fighter than by nuking. This is still power, since the fighter ain't gonna buff himself. More importantly, you can determine what happens when. The fighter ends up stuck in on a pretty routine basis. If you opt to run away as a full caster, there is very little that can actually stop you.You hit the overpowered spells as early as level 1. Grease can hamstring epic-level creatures if they don't have ranks in Balance and if they can't fly, and there are a ton of outside-the-box uses of spells that are very powerful (see: silent image).

Blasting isn't something a wizard should be doing, except in very optimal circumstances (unless he's specced to instantly kill anything he hits with Metamagicked orbs).

I can make wizards that can keep going all day past about level 5 or so, unless the party runs into 10 or 15 or 20 encounters every day...not that they will, given that fighters will run out of hp faster than casters will run out of spells.

But yes, the guy's ignorant, and has no idea why wizards are better than nearly every other class out there.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 08:08 PM

Sendal

2009-12-11, 08:09 PM

Wizards have the most options of virtualy any class, by virtue of being able to learn any arcane spell they can get a scroll of. This means there is more scope for abuse and insane combos.

A non optimised wizard, made by a new player without a great deal of thought is balanced to an equivelently thought out fighter. An optimiser however can do a whole lot more with the wizard than he can with the fighter.

Tyndmyr

2009-12-11, 08:11 PM

You hit the overpowered spells as early as level 1. Grease can hamstring epic-level creatures if they don't have ranks in Balance and if they can't fly, and there are a ton of outside-the-box uses of spells that are very powerful (see: silent image).

Blasting isn't something a wizard should be doing, except in very optimal circumstances (unless he's specced to instantly kill anything he hits with Metamagicked orbs).

I can make wizards that can keep going all day past about level 5 or so, unless the party runs into 10 or 15 or 20 encounters every day...not that they will, given that fighters will run out of hp faster than casters will run out of spells.

But yes, the guy's an idiot, and has no idea why wizards are better than nearly every other class out there.

Oh, indeed. Wizards aren't broken at level 1 though. Small amount of spells per day, low hp, and a lack of escape/damage prevention is why.

Once you get Fly, the balance of power takes a rather dramatic swap, and things rapidly get more caster centric from there out.

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 08:12 PM

That's easy. You prepare beforehand, as wizards are supposed to. A dimension lock already in the area, along with a few save-destroying spells, then a dominate monster or two.

Voila, a slave for as long as you want to continue dominating it.

Seriously, people just don't think about these things.

Dominate monster is a 9th level spell. At that point you have no use for a nightmare.

You cast magic circle against evil then bolster it with dimensional anchor? Fine. You bind a nightmare and he fails his charisma check against the spell? Okay. As a neutral evil creature who's pissed off that he's bound to some asshat, I'd give him a +6 bonus to the opposing charisma check automatically unless you offer him something really, really nice.

After a few days of bargaining, you finally come to some terms you can agree on. Now touch him. The nightmare is huddled in the far end of your magic circle. You want his astral projection, you have to touch him. Just cross that line of salt, I dare you.

You manage to touch him and he actually agrees to go along with you? Oops, you dimensionally anchored him inside this magic circle which, guess what? You're standing in now! Try not to kick over the measly pile of salt as you run away.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 08:12 PM

Dominate monster is a 9th level spell. At that point you have no use for a nightmare.

You cast magic circle against evil then bolster it with dimensional anchor? Fine. You bind a nightmare and he fails his charisma check against the spell? Okay. As a neutral evil creature who's pissed off that he's bound to some asshat, I'd give him a +6 bonus to the opposing charisma check automatically unless you offer him something really, really nice.

After a few days of bargaining, you finally come to some terms you can agree on. Now touch him. The nightmare is huddled in the far end of your magic circle. You want his astral projection, you have to touch him. Just cross that line of salt, I dare you.

You manage to touch him and he actually agrees to go along with you? Oops, you dimensionally anchored him inside this magic circle which, guess what? You're standing in now! Try not to kick over the measly pile of salt as you run away.

What's your problem? I'm seeing little in the way of reasonable discussion, and lots of knee-jerk reacting.

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 08:14 PM

What's your problem?

What do you mean? I was just refuting your claim that you can bind a nightmare successfully. Dimensional travel allows him to escape so he just goes ethereal or astrally projects himself. If you anchor him then you made the ability useless for yourself.

Milskidasith

2009-12-11, 08:15 PM

Dominate monster is a 9th level spell. At that point you have no use for a nightmare.

You cast magic circle against evil then bolster it with dimensional anchor? Fine. You bind a nightmare and he fails his charisma check against the spell? Okay. As a neutral evil creature who's pissed off that he's bound to some asshat, I'd give him a +6 bonus to the opposing charisma check automatically unless you offer him something really, really nice.

After a few days of bargaining, you finally come to some terms you can agree on. Now touch him. The nightmare is huddled in the far end of your magic circle. You want his astral projection, you have to touch him. Just cross that line of salt, I dare you.

You manage to touch him and he actually agrees to go along with you? Oops, you dimensionally anchored him inside this magic circle which, guess what? You're standing in now! Try not to kick over the measly pile of salt as you run away.

So you're solution is to ignore the rule that casters know if their effect works and instead lying to the casters without letting them get a sense motive check in order to screw them over, by having them fight a very weak monster?

I don't get how this is supposed to either follow RAW or punish the caster, honestly.

Once a nightmare is bound, it HAS to serve you. It cannot disobey. It steps out and projects you, without any hostility.

shadow_archmagi

2009-12-11, 08:15 PM

Of course wizards get to prepare.

The vast majority of campaigns give the players a good idea of what they'll be up against, or don't include time constraints.

"GRUMMASH IS RALLYING AN ORC ARMY; YOU PCS MUST FIND AND ASSASSINATE THE CULTISTS"

"Golems are destroying all sentient life, village by village!"

"Delve into the caves of the underdark and retrieve Loot!!"

Think of any adventure. Did that adventure include many completely surprising encounters that a wizard might have NOTHING to use against them?

erikun

2009-12-11, 08:15 PM

First, I think your friend is right. You don't always have a four-encounter workday, and the Order of the Stick comic is really parodying then entire "limited encounters based on plot" metagame. Some days you fight one battle conservatively, expecting more but finding that's it. Some days you fight six, or eight, or twelve battles in a row. Some days you start off with the "Big Bad" fight, forcing you to expend major resources not available for later battles. A lot of optimization suggestions and threads tend to assume that four encounters is some god-given right. It's not; it's simply an average.

Also, he does have a point. The wizard needs a melee support, especially at lower levels. Your wizard will not be casing Sleep on a group of orc and then coup de grace all of them with a quarterstaff - they have the fighter hack them apart. A wizard casting Dominate Monster on an Elder Red Dragon will not be beating it to death with his Staff of Power - he gets the dragon to lie its head down on the ground while the barbarian with a greataxe hits it in the neck from behind.

On the other hand, your friend seems to be missing a couple of points. Fighters are better than wizards without spells, true, but clerics outdo them both. If we're talking about an "I buff myself" game, then the cleric will outshine the fighter, and can spread out his buffs to last longer than the wizard. Clerics can even get great cleavage. Plus, this kind of assumes a generalist wizard - specialists have a handful more spells, and give up virtually nothing in the process.

As you said, scrolls and wands save spell slots. A wand of knock and wand of detect secret doors and pits costs a whole 5250 gp, and mostly invalidate the need for a rogue. I can pretty much guarantee that you won't be running out of 50 charges of each, and at mid-high levels that is minor change. It the place of a rogue, you could have another wizard (two means each is less likely to run out of spells), a druid, or even another fighter!

Wizard buffs on the meleer(s) are an effective form of combat, too. Somehow, I doubt your party fighter would be as effective without a giant growth or bull strength spell cast on him, and I highly doubt the Fighter 5/Sorcerer 1/Dragon Disciple X is casting his one-round-duration giant growth on himself. When a wizard is granting +4 to hit and +50% miss chance to the fighter, then 20% of successful attack rolls are because of the wizard, and half of the missed attacks don't need healing. And if that's the only way the fighter can hit the Marilith, then the wizard is just as necessary in the fight as the fighter. (Although a cleric with Divine Power could have done the same job.)

The SRD does have wizards who can hide just fine. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/specialistWizardVariants.htm#illusionistVariants)

Finally, I'm noticing that your friend is using several houserules and non-core sources benefitting melee combat. Wizard spells can't cause death from massive damage, not that that is a major issue. The fighter sounds like a bit of ubercharging, to be dealing 100+ damage a hit. Paladins get more powerful mounts with a half-dozen special abilities - I mean, heck, the unicorn has more abilities than the 5th level paladin that summoned it!

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 08:18 PM

What do you mean? I was just refuting your claim that you can bind a nightmare successfully. Dimensional travel allows him to escape so he just goes ethereal or astrally projects himself. If you anchor him then you made the ability useless for yourself.

Now, here is how planar binding works.

The target creature is allowed a Will saving throw. If the saving throw succeeds, the creature resists the spell. If the saving throw fails, the creature is immediately drawn to the trap (spell resistance does not keep it from being called). The creature can escape from the trap with by successfully pitting its spell resistance against your caster level check, by dimensional travel, or with a successful Charisma check (DC 15 + ½ your caster level + your Cha modifier). It can try each method once per day. If it breaks loose, it can flee or attack you. A dimensional anchor cast on the creature prevents its escape via dimensional travel. You can also employ a calling diagram (see magic circle against evil) to make the trap more secure.

If the creature fails its saves, it is bound. You can use several spells to bolster the confinement.

If it breaks free, well, you have a bunch of other spells. Any intelligent person can devise a contingency plan. Perhaps involving the Contingency spell.

If the creature does not break free of the trap, you can keep it bound for as long as you dare. You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward. You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature’s Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward. If the creature wins the opposed check, it refuses service. New offers, bribes, and the like can be made or the old ones reoffered every 24 hours. This process can be repeated until the creature promises to serve, until it breaks free, or until you decide to get rid of it by means of some other spell. Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. If you roll a 1 on the Charisma check, the creature breaks free of the binding and can escape or attack you.

As a wizard, you will not have good charisma. You can use items to bolster it, but it's not going to be high. Fortunately, you can repeat the process indefinitely. Now, it could break free and attack you, but as I mentioned before, an intelligent person can devise a way to handle it.

Once it works, the animal is bound and serves loyally. It does not attack you, as you said. Infact, there is a large discrepancy between your idea of what Planar Binding does and what it actually does.

Eldariel

2009-12-11, 08:21 PM

shadow_archmagi

2009-12-11, 08:23 PM

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 08:24 PM

So you're solution is to ignore the rule that casters know if their effect works and instead lying to the casters without letting them get a sense motive check in order to screw them over, by having them fight a very weak monster?

I don't get how this is supposed to either follow RAW or punish the caster, honestly.

Once a nightmare is bound, it HAS to serve you. It cannot disobey. It steps out and projects you, without any hostility.

Planar binding works like this

1: You cast the spell and call the creature. If it fails a will save, it appears before you and is bound for the duration of the spell.

2: It has three different methods of escaping; spell resistance, dimensional travel, and a charisma check.

3: A bound creature is not dominated. It still has free will. You demand a service, offer a reward, then make an opposing charisma check. If you succeed it agrees to do what you ask.

4: After completing the service, the creature tells you and the bound effect ends instantly.

So, what does this mean?

A) You successfully bind a nightmare. He casts astral projection on himself and escapes.

B) You use magic circle/evil + dimensional anchor. The nightmare can't leave the circle because you anchored him.

C) You actually manage to convince one that doesn't escape to astrally project you. He uses the ability and planar binding ends thus the nightmare is no longer bound to serve you. Because he's no longer bound, he astral projects elsewhere severing the tie and you return to your body.

Once it works, the animal is bound and serves loyally. It does not attack you, as you said. Infact, there is a large discrepancy between your idea of what Planar Binding does and what it actually does.

Bound does not mean dominated. It doesn't mean the nightmare is passive towards you as evidenced by the fact that it can resist each day. A DM could literally throw a wrench in planar binding by saying "The monster outright refuses everything."

Bound means that you have it stuck on your plane until the spell ends. A bound creature does not have to obey unless you give it a compelling argument.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 08:26 PM

Dimension anchor works like this

Dimension anchor?

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 08:27 PM

Dimension anchor?

Planar binding, I meant.

Eldariel

2009-12-11, 08:27 PM

C) You actually manage to convince one that doesn't escape to astrally project you. He uses the ability and planar binding ends thus the nightmare is no longer bound to serve you.

See the "open-ended service"-clause. You'll be using those. A lot. Then it's just a matter of wording the service properly; that's left as an exercise to the reader.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 08:31 PM

Bound does not mean dominated. It doesn't mean the nightmare is passive towards you as evidenced by the fact that it can resist each day.
You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarbindinglesser.htm)

A DM could literally throw a wrench in planar binding by saying "The monster outright refuses everything."
So your evidence that Planar Binding doesn't work for wizards... is DM fiat?

I'm convinced.

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 08:31 PM

See the "open-ended service"-clause. You'll be using those. A lot. Then it's just a matter of wording the service properly; that's left as an exercise to the reader.

Also see "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to."

Wizard: astrally project me then send me to a place like Sigil so I can sell all of my equipment. Wait around outside while I do this then project me back to my body so I can dump the gold in my drawer. After that your binding ends and you can return home.

Nightmare: *evil neigh* (yeah, no).

You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward.

and...

You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature’s Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward. If the creature wins the opposed check, it refuses service.

Followed by

Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. If you roll a 1 on the Charisma check, the creature breaks free of the binding and can escape or attack you.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 08:32 PM

arguskos

2009-12-11, 08:33 PM

This is a stupid example assuming that the Wizard player is an idiot.

Please try again.
Out of curiosity, how would you word this service to the Nightmare? I've always wanted to see what the wording actually was.

Sendal

2009-12-11, 08:33 PM

If the creature is trapped in your prison circle for a week or two, It might decide its worth its while to do you a minor favour to get let out.

Then again, it might sit there just to spite you. The DM has the right to refuse "unreasonable" demands regardless of your charisma check, and thats entirely up to the creature.

The charisma check makes little sense, surely that should be a diplomacy check? The fact that its the raw ability sort of implies its some sort of battle of raw personality, rather than a negotiation. I guess its because they didn't want the diplomancer to get away with it too easily.

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 08:35 PM

This is a stupid example assuming that the Wizard player is an idiot.

Please try again.

Then how would you word a service to an evil creature, who hates your guts and wants you dead, to do something using its best ability that benefits it in no way?

Keeping in mind that the creature still isn't dominated and can indirectly cause you harm.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 08:38 PM

Out of curiosity, how would you word this service to the Nightmare? I've always wanted to see what the wording actually was.

I usually play sorcerers. This is less of a problem with them.

If I were a wizard, let me see...

To motivate the Nightmare that we have inconvenienced, we must establish some means of motivating it.

Now, a Nightmare is an intelligent, if somewhat malevolent, being in the form of a horse.

Motivation could be as follows: Carrots, gold, exchange of services, magic items (which you can duplicate via the Astral Binding), etc, etc.

Ways of protecting self: The other party members, Orbs of X, save or dies (its saves are poor for the level), etc.

Then how would you word a service to an evil creature, who hates your guts and wants you dead, to do something using its best ability that benefits it in no way?

Now, you answer some of my questions: Why does it hate me to the point of wanting me dead? Is this not an example of the DM being a ****, which has no bearing on the ability of the spell?

And as I have shown, a mutually beneficial arrangement can be arranged.

Keeping in mind that the creature still isn't dominated and can indirectly cause you harm.
Keep in mind that its ability to indirectly cause me harm is trumped by my capacity to directly cause it harm.

Sendal

2009-12-11, 08:40 PM

I know I would want any deal to include reparations for kidnaping me and threatening life imprisonment, if I was the bound creature. From its perspective, it owes you nothing, and you already owe it a hell of an explenation and apology.

"reasonable" would mean a deal that leaves both sides at least grudgingly accepting it, at least if I was DM. Its quite open to interpretation though.

Eldariel

2009-12-11, 08:40 PM

Also see "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to."

Wizard: astrally project me then send me to a place like Sigil so I can sell all of my equipment. Wait around outside while I do this then project me back to my body so I can dump the gold in my drawer. After that your binding ends and you can return home.

Nightmare: *evil neigh* (yeah, no).

...so why would you do that? If that was an attempt at the exercise I left for readers...well, that's not passing.

And the Charisma-check; it's bound. You (the Wizard) have got all day. Debuff it a bit. Enervate it, Bestow Curse upon it, etc. Use your own Circlet of Persuasion.

Buff your Cha. Buff opposed checks. You are not failing that check unless you're a careless buffoon. In which case you shoulda considered the life of a blacksmith instead.

Sendal

2009-12-11, 08:42 PM

the deal has to be reasonable though, or it just flat refuses regardless.

tyckspoon

2009-12-11, 08:42 PM

Out of curiosity, how would you word this service to the Nightmare? I've always wanted to see what the wording actually was.

"Serve as my mount for a day."

Really. It's what Nightmares are *for*. You don't have to get it to agree to specifically Astral Project you as its task. Just get its services in getting you where you want to go for a period of time. And if you where you want to go happens to be on another plane, well, you'll get there via Astral Projection. Hell, even if it's somewhere else on the Prime Material you might want to get there by Projection simply because it's faster than you could otherwise get there with the Nightmare's Fly speed. Assuming the Nightmare wants to complete the service as rapidly as possible, it is even in the Nightmare's own best interests to Project you, the better to satisfy the terms.

Tavar

2009-12-11, 08:43 PM

Also, ask what it would like in exchange for some services. I mean, sure, it's ticked off at you, but if it wants anything, nows it's chance.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 08:44 PM

I know I would want any deal to include reparations for kidnaping me and threatening life imprisonment
Easy to say for you, who have never been in danger of it.

However, my knowledge of real life cases of kidnapping, hostage taking, and other coercive actions lead me to believe that you could be made more willing if certain measure were taking.

Sendal

2009-12-11, 08:46 PM

now your getting into RP circumstance bonuses and house rules and DM decisions. I thought we were discussing the rules of the spell.

the rules say only a reasonable offer will be considered, and I would think it possible for the victim to consider it unreasonable that you are not compensating it for its treatment.

erikun

2009-12-11, 08:46 PM

I'm pretty sure that Sigil would be able to identify Astral Projected equipment and the guards will have Trap the Soul gems for offenders.

Polymorph, Polymorph Any Object, Shapechange, Planar Binding-line, etc. have been game for many levels. He can provide his own meatshields just fine, and most are fully capable of beating the tar out of Fighters you could get.
True, but the wizard himself still has bad BAB and bad HP. Besides, rather than casing Bull Strength and Polymorph on yourself, why not just cast polymorph on the Fighter (or Cleric, or Rogue), then cast Bull Strength after it wears off? It lasts longer total (meaning you need less buffs) and frees the Wizard up again to do important things.

In my experience, you have LESS than four encounters most days. Most DMs don't like to run one combat after another for too long; they'll find a chance to switch over to social or exploratory fun, which generally provides a chance to nap.
In my experience, most days see around 6 encounters. Most games I run have less encounters, but they tend to come in "waves" as injured combatants escape and bring in new monsters after a few rounds. I think that assuming that all games revolve around a "two encounter CR equilivant" is a bit of a reach, and assuming that Wizards are the most powerful because they are the best in the two-encounter campaign.

The Tier system points out that "Can kill ogre in single combat" isn't the only relevant factor. The question to ask is

"How often can this class contribute, and how much?"
"How well can the Wizard contribute after using Grease to knock the orc prone?"

The Wizard certainly isn't going to try killing it with a dagger. Or if he does, he'll find out that -4 to hit isn't such a terrible penality against his AC. The Fighter would be a better choice to go bash in an orc head. The Cleric can do pretty much anything a Fighter can, at that.

I'm not saying that the Fighter is better than a Wizard, just that the Fighter has a use (that is, target for buffs). And for that matter, virtually any class halfway decent in melee can replace the Fighter.

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 08:48 PM

...so why would you do that? If that was an attempt at the exercise I left for readers...well, that's not passing.

And the Charisma-check; it's bound. You (the Wizard) have got all day. Debuff it a bit. Enervate it, Bestow Curse upon it, etc. Use your own Circlet of Persuasion.

Buff your Cha. Buff opposed checks. You are not failing that check unless you're a careless buffoon. In which case you shoulda considered the life of a blacksmith instead.

All you're doing is reducing its will to serve you. Buffing your charisma? Fine, but going so far as to curse it?

Imagine being kidnapped from your home, tossed in a 10x10 cage, stripped of your power, and the jerk standing before you is prodding you with a stick, torturing you, and making ridiculous demands. He can't physically harm you, killing you would be useless, but he demands your power and (may) offer some nice treasure for it.

Yeah, no. Evil or not if you show no respect for the person you kidnap then he'll show no respect for you. Short of dominating him, no creature would be willing to help you when you're treating them like garbage and the only repercussions is that they get to return home if they flat out refuse.

I'm pretty sure that Sigil would be able to identify Astral Projected equipment and the guards will have Trap the Soul gems for offenders.

Awesome. I'll have to remember this.

However, my knowledge of real life cases of kidnapping, hostage taking, and other coercive actions lead me to believe that you could be made more willing if certain measure were taking.

The difference being that when planar binding ends, the target gets to go home.

"I refuse your service until the spell ends." Flat out. Is it unfair? In some cases. Can you do it by RAW? Yeah.

Would I allow someone to bind a nightmare? Sure, if their offer was good. But the planar binding "unreasonable" thing is there to ensure people don't break the game.

taltamir

2009-12-11, 08:52 PM

you know... I am gonna argue against the whole "wizard is overpowered" on account of how it is played... yes a RAW wizard with an "if it is in the book it flies" makes wizards gods... but no DM does that!
A wizard is certainly a very versatile and useful class. But it has distinct weaknesses. While clearly more useful than some other classes.

1. Most DMs will not allow you to abuse planer binding to summon creatures twice your HD to automatically grant you wishes / money / items / do your bidding / summon even more powerful creatures.
2. Most players fail to make their wizard crazy prepared.
3. Most DMs will forbid any abusive spell or any abusive use of a spell.
4. Direct damage sucks, most likely you are a buffbot. People complain about being a healbot, how is being a wizard buff bot any different?
5. You are squishy... and dying just sucks... and you will lose wizards, because one lucky hit can take down a full life wizard.
6. Save or dies. This is the official reason WOTC has saddled wizards with such pain... and they are all high level. Those spells rarely get used as most of the playtime is in the low levels, before the game breaks.
7. Save or suck. Similar to the buff bot, the enemy sucks, compares to your party members, who make short work of it. It is still much better than you though. A hasted wizard vs a blinded and slowed same level fighter, the wizard gets his ass kicked. Unless he has a nice SoD/SoL and the fighter fails his check.
8. Spell acquisition restrictions: Always take collegiate... DMs are very stingy about letting letting wizards acquire spells outside of level ups. I often hear people tell me that their DM refused to allow them to gain a single spell the entire campaign that way.
9. Spell loss: lose your books and you are a commoner. that is just mean.
10. Stamina... you shine for a few battles... then you are done. you are now a commoner with a crossbow for the rest of the day, walking around and watching your friends PLAY, just waiting for night so you can sleep and get new spells.

Eldariel

2009-12-11, 08:54 PM

True, but the wizard himself still has bad BAB and bad HP. Besides, rather than casing Bull Strength and Polymorph on yourself, why not just cast polymorph on the Fighter (or Cleric, or Rogue), then cast Bull Strength after it wears off? It lasts longer total (meaning you need less buffs) and frees the Wizard up again to do important things.

*shrug* Being combat-capable yourself doesn't hurt. You aren't as good as a buffed Fighter would be, but you're still good enough to take down debuffed enemies and such. You're fully capable of defending yourself. Sure, buffing a Fighter that's around would be handier, but the point was that you don't need one.

That opens up party slots for something else, something that can Teleport and Dispel and so on, so you don't need to do everything yourself.

Of course, I was only referring to the latter part of the game; Polymorph itself is still only short duration (without...sick classes). Once you have Polymorph Any Object and Planar Binding though, you can maintain very impressive amounts of muscle constantly.

But yeah, of course a party of two characters (Wizard and Fighter) is better than a solo party.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 08:57 PM

the rules say only a reasonable offer will be considered, and I would think it possible for the victim to consider it unreasonable that you are not compensating it for its treatment.
If you would check my post on the first page, note that various valuable items and services were offered.

The difference being that when planar binding ends, the target gets to go home.

"I refuse your service until the spell ends." Flat out. Is it unfair? In some cases. Can you do it by RAW? Yeah.

And you get to go home and live happily ever after? No.

You get an Orb to the face.

Insolence is punished by death.

Then the trap is reset to get a more co-operative nightmare.

Kobold-Bard

2009-12-11, 08:57 PM

...9. Spell loss: lose your books and you are a commoner. that is just mean....

Not mentioning anything else here, take Eschew Materials and trade your Familiar for Eidetic Spellcaster (your brain is now your spellbook, using incense instead of magic ink for extra spell adding).

Problem solved.

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 08:58 PM

"Serve as my mount for a day."

Really. It's what Nightmares are *for*. You don't have to get it to agree to specifically Astral Project you as its task. Just get its services in getting you where you want to go for a period of time. And if you where you want to go happens to be on another plane, well, you'll get there via Astral Projection. Hell, even if it's somewhere else on the Prime Material you might want to get there by Projection simply because it's faster than you could otherwise get there with the Nightmare's Fly speed. Assuming the Nightmare wants to complete the service as rapidly as possible, it is even in the Nightmare's own best interests to Project you, the better to satisfy the terms.

Simple and effective. I'd allow it but, as a nightmare I'd demand to know where I'm going, which of my abilities he expects me to use, does he want me to participate in fights or risk my neck, and demand a compensation based on that.

Moving someone from point A to point B on the prime is simple. Allowing me to terrify some mortals and a moderate wondrous item are enough. Planar travel? That's some expensive stuff there. Sure, as a nightmare I can do it easily but it's a 20th level ability and demanding I use my gods given powers is offensive to my sensibilities. I'd demand compensation worth a 20th level wizard casting the spell himself.

Omegonthesane

2009-12-11, 08:58 PM

All you're doing is reducing its will to serve you. Buffing your charisma? Fine, but going so far as to curse it?
By RAW and RAI and indeed RAMS, the wizard is in fact cursing the target with inability to resist. So, your will to not let this kidnapper have his way has been reduced by the spell.

Imagine being kidnapped from your home, tossed in a 10x10 cage, stripped of your power, and the jerk standing before you is prodding you with a stick, torturing you, and making ridiculous demands. He can't physically harm you, killing you would be useless, but he demands your power and (may) offer some nice treasure for it.

Yeah, no. Evil or not if you show no respect for the person you kidnap then he'll show no respect for you. Short of dominating him, no creature would be willing to help you when you're treating them like garbage and the only repercussions is that they get to return home if they flat out refuse.
Without exception, everyone breaks under sufficiently long torture. EVERYONE. There is a reason why evidence extracted by torture is not allowed in most courts, and it isn't entirely based on ethical objections - you can get the birdie to say any lie you like if you torture it long enough.

Not to mention that the nightmare probably CANNOT go home if it refuses. DMM Persisted Dimensional Anchor comes to mind, although that requires a cleric to help you. I'm pretty sure there's going to be something you can pull to trap the nightmare irrevocably in there though.

"I refuse your service until the spell ends." Flat out. Is it unfair? In some cases. Can you do it by RAW? Yeah.
Planar Binding is instantaneous. The various Magic Circle spells aren't; however, allow me to introduce the Scroll and, if you're lucky, the Wand of Magic Circle Against Evil, combined with the Leadership feat so your 1st level slaves followers can keep the circle up while you sleep.

Eldariel

2009-12-11, 08:59 PM

All you're doing is reducing its will to serve you. Buffing your charisma? Fine, but going so far as to curse it?

Imagine being kidnapped from your home, tossed in a 10x10 cage, stripped of your power, and the jerk standing before you is prodding you with a stick, torturing you, and making ridiculous demands. He can't physically harm you, killing you would be useless, but he demands your power and (may) offer some nice treasure for it.

Yeah, no. Evil or not if you show no respect for the person you kidnap then he'll show no respect for you. Short of dominating him, no creature would be willing to help you when you're treating them like garbage and the only repercussions is that they get to return home if they flat out refuse.

That's...not how the spell works. Its willingness to serve you makes no difference; only its ability to resist the spell does and by removing that ability, you're ensuring its cooperation for the duration of the spell. That's all you need of it.

You don't bind creatures and be nice to them; they'll laugh you out of the window. You bind creatures and compel them to service. It's not a game of Mr. Niceguy.

In a kidnapping, you don't befriend those you kidnap; you control them. Of course, this has the side-effect of tending to make them subservient towards you in some cases. However, since the psychology of outsiders is probably quite alien to us and as such, we lack the information to deduct how things would actually work out, I'll strive not to extrapolate.

Before its duration expires, kill the Nightmare or something and bind a new one; avoids the whole annoying "consequences"-part just fine too. There's an infinite number of them after all.

EDIT: And yeah, if you're somewhy opposed to killing evil outsiders, you can use mindaltering magic to make them unlike to hold grudges and very willing to serve you in the future too.

taltamir

2009-12-11, 08:59 PM

Not mentioning anything else here, take Eschew Materials and trade your Familiar for Eidetic Spellcaster (your brain is now your spellbook, using incense instead of magic ink for extra spell adding).

Problem solved.

wait what? where is it from? damn I wanna take that.

shadow_archmagi

2009-12-11, 09:03 PM

"How well can the Wizard contribute after using Blind to disable to orc warlord"

He doesn't need to. He's already taken the difficulty from "Uh oh, did we bring enough medical supplies?" to "I lost an entire hitpoint? I must be getting sloppy!"

This is significantly more than he could've added as a second fighter. (A party with two wizards, on the other hand, could have one for blasting and one for disabling, and have managed this fight just fine.)

Sendal

2009-12-11, 09:04 PM

If you would check my post on the first page, note that various valuable items and services were offered.

And thus the balancing mechanic. Nothing is broken if you pay full price for it, and some services will be beyond your means to pay.

Also, there are other means of escape. Its going to roll a 20 eventualy, so you can't keep it locked up forever.

Lycanthromancer

2009-12-11, 09:04 PM

Oh, indeed. Wizards aren't broken at level 1 though. Small amount of spells per day, low hp, and a lack of escape/damage prevention is why.

Once you get Fly, the balance of power takes a rather dramatic swap, and things rapidly get more caster centric from there out.Alter self gets you access to better maneuverability and faster fly speeds for 10 minutes per level, rather than 1.

Dominate monster is a 9th level spell.Fair enough. Suggestion. Or Charm monster.

At that point you have no use for a nightmare.Except it uses the spells as Spell-Like Abilities, which don't use material or XP components. And it doesn't use up one of your higher level spell slots. And it can do so all day long. And it can take Supernatural Tranformation, meaning the spell is no longer dispellable.

You cast magic circle against evil then bolster it with dimensional anchor? Fine. You bind a nightmare and he fails his charisma check against the spell? Okay. As a neutral evil creature who's pissed off that he's bound to some asshat, I'd give him a +6 bonus to the opposing charisma check automatically unless you offer him something really, really nice.Such as you not turning it into a My Little Grease-Stain? You're a wizard; you've had days, or weeks, or even months to prepare. You can utterly destroy this thing in a standard action (or less), if you wanted to.

It should be amenable if you point this fact out.

After a few days of bargaining, you finally come to some terms you can agree on. Now touch him. The nightmare is huddled in the far end of your magic circle. You want his astral projection, you have to touch him. Just cross that line of salt, I dare you.

You manage to touch him and he actually agrees to go along with you? Oops, you dimensionally anchored him inside this magic circle which, guess what? You're standing in now! Try not to kick over the measly pile of salt as you run away.Uh huh. You're a wizard. You can take down creatures 10 or more CRs above you, if you know what you're doing. Maybe not at level 1 or 2, but once you hit level 5+? Yes. Yes, you can.

And that's just Core.

erikun

2009-12-11, 09:06 PM

I tend to looks at how useful a class is by how easily replacable it is with another class. A fighter can't replace a wizard but a wizard can't really replace a fighter, either. At least, not at lower levels. A cleric, though, can easily replace a fighter with virtually no loss of capability.

This is pretty much the Tier system - higher tiers are either irreplacable or can easily replace classes on lower tiers. Classes on lower tiers can't replace the higher tiers, or are less capable when they do.

Fighter - Replacable at level one, by the cleric. If we're talking about a barbarian or highly optimized fighter, then its life is extended a bit... perhaps replacable by around level 6.

Rogue - Replacable by level 3, although buying wands of memorizing trap-removal spells is resource intensive. Probably useful until around levl 6~8, where wands are relatively cheaper and sneak attack is resisted more.

Cleric - Hard to replace except at the highest levels, pretty much requires a wizard summoning celestials to mimic the cleric's spell list. Druids probably last longer, at least until spellcasting makes melee moot.

Wizard - Hard to replace except at the highest levels, pretty much requiring summon spells to mimic the wizard's spell list. Basically same boat as cleric. They are Tier 1 classes for a reason, after all.

Gorbash

2009-12-11, 09:11 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb and avoid the ridiculous 'bind a nightmare' discussion and get back to the topic.

I'll say that Wizard can be overpowered if it's played by a regular member of this forum (and gleemax, brilliant gameologists etc). But people forget that members of this forum != average players. And average players won't combine about 7 prestige classes to combine the desired effect with Incantatrix or sell Walls of Iron (not that any sane DM would allow that) and pull off stunts like those. An average player will, unfortunately, resort to blasting. Which isn't esentially bad... But it's just subpar.

I'm dming for a group of 6, one of them being a Conjurer/Master Specialist/Archmage. And even with substituting energy damage for sonic, it's just not that much damage compared to what the rest of the damage dealers are doing (Druid, Swiftblade, Dervish).

But still... Average wizard will be better than an average fighter, but that's not really the issue with wizard, it's about the fighter.

taltamir

2009-12-11, 09:14 PM

He doesn't need to. He's already taken the difficulty from "Uh oh, did we bring enough medical supplies?" to "I lost an entire hitpoint? I must be getting sloppy!"

This is significantly more than he could've added as a second fighter. (A party with two wizards, on the other hand, could have one for blasting and one for disabling, and have managed this fight just fine.)

Blind is basically a 50% miss chance. I use it ALL THE TIME... And it is not as godly as you make it sound. Monsters often make that 50% miss chance...

The character cannot see. He takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), moves at half speed, and takes a -4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to the blinded character. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 09:17 PM

I'll say that Wizard can be overpowered if it's played by a regular member of this forum (and gleemax, brilliant gameologists etc). But people forget that members of this forum != average players. And average players won't combine about 7 prestige classes to combine the desired effect with Incantatrix or sell Walls of Iron (not that any sane DM would allow that) and pull off stunts like those. An average player will, unfortunately, resort to blasting. Which isn't esentially bad... But it's just subpar.

Here's the thing.

Average player:

"Wall of Iron? Hm. Intereting."
*scrolls down*
"Fabricate? Hm... interesting. I could combine it with Wall of Iron to make lots of swords, couldn't I?"

Then the DM has to disallow swords from being sold instead of raw iron now.

The character cannot see. He takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class
PA for more damage. This is good.

loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)
Sneak attack for more damage. This is good.

moves at half speed
Vulnurable to kiting. This is good.

Monsters often make that 50% miss chance...
This argument cannot be true from a statistical point of view. Your point has been disproved by the science of mathamatics.

Good day, sir.

Milskidasith

2009-12-11, 09:17 PM

Don't forget they need a high listen check to pinpoint your location... which makes being blinded significantly worse.

taltamir

2009-12-11, 09:21 PM

Sneak attack for more damage. This is good.
Since 90% of opponents are immune to sneak attacks, I have yet to play with someone who had a character that could sneak attack.

This gets right back into the "on paper" vs "in reality"

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 09:21 PM

Since 90% of opponents are immune to sneak attacks
This is incorrect.

I have yet to play with someone who had a character that could sneak attack.
Try me sometime.

This gets right back into the "on paper" vs "in reality"
It also gets right back into something called "sample size too small, conclusion irrelevant."

taltamir

2009-12-11, 09:26 PM

This argument cannot be true from a statistical point of view. Your point has been disproved by the science of mathamatics.

Good day, sir.

My DM doesn't use game science dice... and oddly enough, even when we made him do so he rolls consistently good. Statistically, yes, 50%... but if you luck out that can be either all or none of the attacks in a single combat.

Last session my DM missed twice out of over 20 attacks with blinded monsters... This is TYPICAL :P

Heck, early on I lost a wizard that way... I didn't move away after using glitterdust to blind a monster, so he "half charged" my last known spot, avoided both attacks of opportunity from my team mates, avoided the miss chance, critted, and insta killed (less than -10) my full health wizard.

Gorbash

2009-12-11, 09:26 PM

Here's the thing.

Average player:

"Wall of Iron? Hm. Intereting."
*scrolls down*
"Fabricate? Hm... interesting. I could combine it with Wall of Iron to make lots of swords, couldn't I?"

Then the DM has to disallow swords from being sold instead of raw iron now.

Well, average players I've played with never thought of that one. The peak of creativity I've seen from wizards is *gasp* I can combine Energy Substitution and Acid Storm to deal mediocre amounts of Sonic Damage *gasp*.

DMs wouldn't disallow that, but then somehow all of foes would be targeting you more and of course somebody would steal your spellbook. Wall of Iron + Fabricate is a cheap shot, since it doesn't have any limits. Well, guess what, DMs are better at cheap shotting than even wizards, why push their limits?

taltamir

2009-12-11, 09:27 PM

Try me sometime.

I would love to... I live near dallas texas; and since my current DM is leaving the state and the current group is dissolving, I actually need to find a new one.
You around here?

Well, average players I've played with never thought of that one. The peak of creativity I've seen from wizards is *gasp* I can combine Energy Substitution and Acid Storm to deal mediocre amounts of Sonic Damage *gasp*.

DMs wouldn't disallow that, but then somehow all of foes would be targeting you more and of course somebody would steal your spellbook. Wall of Iron + Fabricate is a cheap shot, since it doesn't have any limits. Well, guess what, DMs are better at cheap shotting than even wizards, why push their limits?

to be honest, until reading a lot of char op forums I sucked something fierce as a wizard... or any other character...
My favorite class was a monk...

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 09:29 PM

I'm either on the east coast, west coast, or out of the country.

Well, average players I've played with never thought of that one.
Admittedly, I'm more intelligent than the average person, but when I saw Fabricate, I began plotting how to use it. Getting raw materials from Wall of Iron was the next logical step.

taltamir

2009-12-11, 09:31 PM

I'm either on the east coast, west coast, or out of the country.

Admittedly, I'm more intelligent than the average person, but when I saw Fabricate, I began plotting how to use it, and getting raw materials from Wall of Iron was the next logical step.

and you found a DM that allowed it?

I Think part of the problem is that people don't WANT To break the game... I often find my DM to use an ability and say "wait, you allow that? I thought it would be way too cheesy and cheap and unfair so I didn't take it with my wizard"

Most people are there to play, not get kicked out of the group for attempting a pun pun.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 09:34 PM

But what does that have to do with the argument at hand?

Scarlet Tropix

2009-12-11, 09:36 PM

I second the request for information on Eidetic Spellcaster. What book is this lovely thing residing within?

taltamir

2009-12-11, 09:36 PM

But what does that have to do with the argument at hand?

everything.
As I and others have pointed out... DMs do not play by the RAW exactly. Most of the "OMFG overpowered" of a wizard is due to theoretical thought experiments that will never ever ever fly in a real game.
Just like how kobolds are not overpowered because of the pun pun thought experiment.

Now granted, there ARE powerful abilities a wizard has; but it is not nearly as bad as some people say.

vicente408

2009-12-11, 09:38 PM

My DM doesn't use game science dice... and oddly enough, even when we made him do so he rolls consistently good. Statistically, yes, 50%... but if you luck out that can be either all or none of the attacks in a single combat.

Last session my DM missed twice out of over 20 attacks with blinded monsters... This is TYPICAL :P

Heck, early on I lost a wizard that way... I didn't move away after using glitterdust to blind a monster, so he "half charged" my last known spot, avoided both attacks of opportunity from my team mates, avoided the miss chance, critted, and insta killed (less than -10) my full health wizard.

Don't use anecdotal evidence to try to prove/disprove statistics. The sample size is always way too small to matter, and the human memory is never the most reliable source of information.

The Gilded Duke

2009-12-11, 09:44 PM

On the earlier sneak attack note.
Lots of things are vulnerable to sneak attacks.
The two main immune groups, constructs and undead have multiple ways to be sneak attacked.

Many of the other sneak attack immune types are either mindless or have some other glaring vulnerability.

As long as you use various non-core books that give methods to sneak attack undead and constructs it isn't much of a problem.

I guess to sum up a lot of arguments..
Fighters get feats that let them do things.
Wizards get feats and spells that let them do many more things.
Wizards don't have to roll dice as often, or have to hit easier target numbers (ranged touch attacks) so don't need things like base attack bonus as much.

taltamir

2009-12-11, 09:44 PM

That is not how probability works.

"My DM usually rolls good" doesn't mean that he has a statistically higher chance of rolling well. Unless you've been keeping a tally of every roll he makes, and find a significant trend towards higher rolls (like, 75%), that doesn't mean anything. And if he really does roll high more often, there is something wrong with the dice and/or how he rolls.
It is how UNEVEN and LOADED dice work...
Your dice does not have an equal chance to land on each side.
I am well aware of how probability works, but a dice is an imperfect device.

Don't use anecdotal evidence to try to prove/disprove statistics. The sample size is always way too small to matter, and the human memory is never the most reliable source of information.

I was in no way shape or form attempting to disprove statistics with anecdotal evidence, I am insulted by the very suggestion.
However, an experienced DM likely has "favorite dice". Which are probably favorite because they roll well, because when polished, the right surfaces were polished more than others to give them a significant edge.

Furthermore, reason for my story was that even with the 50% miss chance, an enemy can be pretty dangerous and its not a case of "I lost 1 HP because I was sloppy". Statistically, with perfect dice, it hits half the time still. So its damage output halves. But it is still hitting as hard when it does connect.

And the way statistics does work, it is entirely reasonable for it to have no effect in some fights, and completely nullify an enemy's attack in others, exactly because of of how statistics works... that is, 50% miss chance means that over a very large number the totals will get closer to 50-50. But for very small totals, ex: 5 consecutive rolls, there are going to be wide spreads of results...

Eldariel

2009-12-11, 09:47 PM

On the earlier sneak attack note.
Lots of things are vulnerable to sneak attacks.
The two main immune groups, constructs and undead have multiple ways to be sneak attacked.

There are 5 main groups:
- Undead
- Plants
- Elementals
- Constructs
- Oozes

Probably in that order of relevance. And then there are some Amorphous creatures and Greater Fortifications armors.

Sneak Attack is fine, but the limitation is very real unless you've got Penetrating Strike, in which case you'll do at least something against almost anything.

sofawall

2009-12-11, 09:49 PM

It may have been said before, but holy crap, divine casters are the most powerful class, especially Paladins?

wtf?

ericgrau

2009-12-11, 09:51 PM

I'm having a debate on my local gaming society forums on balance in 3.5. I thought I'd copy over the debate here, both to see if I'm missing anything, and because it's an interesting read. Names have been omitted to protect the guilty.

A notice the distinct problem that neither of you is talking to the other which is why this will go nowhere.

I'm tempted to start a thread on which is stronger: wizard or cleric or druid just to get the debate sparks flying (What!? Of course it's...). But that'd be a mean way to bait people.

Ya, when everybody's set in opinions it's best to live and let live.

Scarlet Tropix

2009-12-11, 09:59 PM

It may have been said before, but holy crap, divine casters are the most powerful class, especially Paladins?

wtf?

Agreed. I've never liked Paladins as a class, simply because both Druid and Cleric are capable of doing everything that they do infinitely better.

Melee?
Wild Shape and Buffs got you covered.

Healing?
Cleric and Druid both get better healing capacity.

Animals?
Cleric can summon things, Druid can have an army rivaling small kingdoms.

Magic?
Well, here it's about eve-Pff! I can't say that with a straight face.

erikun

2009-12-11, 10:00 PM

I second the request for information on Eidetic Spellcaster. What book is this lovely thing residing within?
I'm not sure, but there is an illusionist variant which memorizes all illusions with Spell Mastery (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/specialistWizardVariants.htm#illusionistVariants).

As long as you use various non-core books that give methods to sneak attack undead and constructs it isn't much of a problem.
True, Fighters and Rogues have much better options outside of core. So do Wizards, but when you have something like the Wizard, 15 more "end the encounter in one turn" spells doesn't make that much of a difference. :smalltongue:

Something like a Psychic Warrior or Tome of Battle class will be relevant long after the Fighters have been obsolete.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 10:06 PM

everything.
As I and others have pointed out... DMs do not play by the RAW exactly. Most of the "OMFG overpowered" of a wizard is due to theoretical thought experiments that will never ever ever fly in a real game.
But even if we avoid cheese, simply using spells intelligently will result in a more versatile and powerful character compared to someone who's options are hitting things really hard.

taltamir

2009-12-11, 10:11 PM

But even if we avoid cheese, simply using spells intelligently will result in a more versatile and powerful character compared to someone who's options are hitting things really hard.

players are only human... even a highly experienced and well read player will make mistakes. Not be crazy prepared, have the DM throw curve balls at them...

And while a very good selection of spells will make them "versatile to contribute" this doesn't necessitate overpowering... Ok, so they can actually DO SOMETHING in most situations... knock can let them "rogue out" a little, "charm person" lets them do some "diplomacy"... still, that doesn't affect combat balance. And due to a little thing called "roll playing", your chances of getting away with charm person on anyone important are slim.

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 10:13 PM

Here's the thing.

Average player:

"Wall of Iron? Hm. Intereting."
*scrolls down*
"Fabricate? Hm... interesting. I could combine it with Wall of Iron to make lots of swords, couldn't I?"

Then the DM has to disallow swords from being sold instead of raw iron now.

Hopefully the average player has craft to actually make the swords. And even if he did make a bunch of swords, what's he going to do with them? Sell them? The market just got flooded and his swords will be going for 1 copper a piece. You're better off adventuring than doing an infinite wall-of-iron/fabricate combo.

Cause and effect. Most spells that create something from nothing have a drawback or indirect effect that you have to plan out ahead of time.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 10:14 PM

And while a very good selection of spells will make them "versatile to contribute" this doesn't necessitate overpowering... Ok, so they can actually DO SOMETHING in most situations... knock can let them "rogue out" a little, "charm person" lets them do some "diplomacy"... still, that doesn't affect combat balance.
Why are you ignoring the many spells that do affect combat balance?

And due to a little thing called "roll playing", your chances of getting away with charm person on anyone important are slim.
That word you are using. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 10:16 PM

Hopefully the average player has craft to actually make the swords.
Pop quiz: name the DC for crafting an average sword, and see how hard it is for a level 10 wizard to reach it.

Answer: DC 15 craft check. Int of a level 10 wizard is likely to be in the neighborhood of 24, for a +7 modifier. Grab artisan's tools for an additional +2. cast Heroism for another +2. That's a +11 so far. Alter Self into a Dwarf for the +2 to craft relating to metals. We now have +13.

Should do it. If you don't accept that tools can be used to give a bonus to the check, we can always hire the services of a bard or something.

And even if he did make a bunch of swords, what's he going to do with them? Sell them? The market just got flooded and his swords will be going for 1 copper a piece.
Anyone with an ounce of intelligence will sell their wares to people who want, but do not have, arms.

You're better off adventuring than doing an infinite wall-of-iron/fabricate combo.
So... flooding the market with swords is bad... but flooding it with dragon's gold is... good?

Kesnit

2009-12-11, 10:18 PM

Once it works, the animal is bound and serves loyally.

Only if your DM is being nice. The spell specifically says "you can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward. You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature’s Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward. If the creature wins the opposed check, it refuses service."

It does not attack you, as you said. Infact, there is a large discrepancy between your idea of what Planar Binding does and what it actually does.

Actually, you are the one who is wrong. With a low CHA, that demon could sit in the circle for days (making a save to escape every day) without doing anything the WIZ wants it to do.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 10:20 PM

Only if your DM is being nice. The spell specifically says "you can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward. You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature’s Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward. If the creature wins the opposed check, it refuses service."
And you get to retry each day.

Actually, you are the one who is wrong. With a low CHA, that demon could sit in the circle for days (making a save to escape every day) without doing anything the WIZ wants it to do.
Summon a second nightmare. Kill the first. Ask the second if it is more willing than its predecessor to co-operate.

Kesnit

2009-12-11, 10:22 PM

And you get to retry each day.

Summon a second nightmare. Kill the first. Ask the second if it is more willing than its predecessor to co-operate.

And the DM refuses again.

Sendal

2009-12-11, 10:23 PM

Again, this is no longer a feature of the spell.

Any character that has any creature at his mercy can make a similar threat.

erikun

2009-12-11, 10:24 PM

And due to a little thing called "roll playing", your chances of getting away with charm person on anyone important are slim.
Actually, I've found that failures of Charm Person have almost nothing to do with roleplaying (or even "roll playing"), and almost everything to do with DM fiat. Either the king is immune, or is high enough level to resist, or has magic protecting, or wards in the throne room alert people that a spell was cast, etc....

I actually like using skills over spells, but it is pretty obvious to see the effects of Invisibility over Hide, or Fly over Move Silently, or Charm Person over Bluff.

Kesnit

2009-12-11, 10:25 PM

Easy to say for you, who have never been in danger of it.

However, my knowledge of real life cases of kidnapping, hostage taking, and other coercive actions lead me to believe that you could be made more willing if certain measure were taking.

The nightmare stronger than a 12th LVL wizard. If the hostage is weak, your scenario could be right. If the hostage is holding the cards, the kidnapper is at the disadvantage.

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 10:26 PM

Pop quiz: name the DC for crafting an average sword, and see how hard it is for a level 10 wizard to reach it.

DC 15. A wizard with intelligence 18 (a reasonable amount at the level you get fabricate) would need 10 ranks to guarantee success in fabricate. Failure means the spell ends and he wasted his chance to create a single sword. You're better off with craft magic arms and armor than fabricate.

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence will sell their wares to people who want, but do not have, arms.

Anyone who wants something but doesn't have it lacks the resources to get it. Unless you like receiving cows and chickens in exchange for arms you're not going to get anything. The PHB assumes a completely level market aimed at selling to PCs. A king's army is already outfitted, can requisition arms locally for free, and probably won't pay you half the price you asked for if he needed more.

So... flooding the market with swords is bad... but flooding it with dragon's gold is... good?

I never said it was but the people who actually have high value arms to sell have more uses for massive amounts of gold. A wizard selling +3 weapons would turn that dragon's gold into making more magic weapons. A simple merchant who manages to sell a single magic sword would immediately retire and buy 100 acres of land.

Amphetryon

2009-12-11, 10:26 PM

Again, this is no longer a feature of the spell.

Any character that has any creature at his mercy can make a similar threat.
Summoning other creatures to hold at their mercy is not a class feature for most non-casters, as far as I can tell.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 10:27 PM

And the DM refuses again.

So it's basically a case of the DM screwing over the player.
Says more about the DM than about anything else, doesn't it?

The nightmare stronger than a 12th LVL wizard. If the hostage is weak, your scenario could be right. If the hostage is holding the cards, the kidnapper is at the disadvantage.

Please demonstrate how the CR 5 Nightmare is stronger than a level 12 wizard who has prepared to trap it.

taltamir

2009-12-11, 10:27 PM

Actually, I've found that failures of Charm Person have almost nothing to do with roleplaying (or even "roll playing"), and almost everything to do with DM fiat. Either the king is immune, or is high enough level to resist, or has magic protecting, or wards in the throne room alert people that a spell was cast, etc....

I actually like using skills over spells, but it is pretty obvious to see the effects of Invisibility over Hide, or Fly over Move Silently, or Charm Person over Bluff.

DM fiat? unless you are the only wizard in the kingdom then the king has magical wards against it. so does the judge and high ranking police officers...

There is also the problem that police officers work in teams... so sure you can charm ONE of them... but the others are gonna notice you casting a spell on him before he suggests letting you go and will kill you on the spot / throw you in the slammer.

Why are you ignoring the many spells that do affect combat balance?

The vast majority of them are either "spell tax" to counter being squishy as hell, or buffs... making you a buff bot. Which is great for the party, but not so much for the wizard.

Then there is the save or die spells..

Amphetryon

2009-12-11, 10:29 PM

Anyone who wants something but doesn't have it lacks the resources to get itWait, what? I want a sammich and don't have one, so I lack the resources to make or purchase one?

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 10:30 PM

So it's basically a case of the DM screwing over the player.
Says more about the DM than about anything else, doesn't it?

And the DM should refuse players trying to screw the game over for everyone else. A good DM should ban things that interrupt the fun of other players and a good player should refrain from using things that hurt the enjoyment of other players. I would never wall of iron + fabricate because it's boring, wastes time, and other players are too busy spinning dice while I'm off on my own little personal adventure in wasting time.

Wait, what? I want a sammich and don't have one, so I lack the resources to make or purchase one?

And I guarantee you have the money to buy ingredients to make a sandwich.

A commoner has neither means to purchase or requisition a sword. He'll offer his prized cow which is just extra space you have to make room for. You can try selling the cow but you'll make a fraction of what you could have gotten had someone with money bought it. If you give away items for free then other people have to reduce prices to match you; they'll fail because they don't have magical means but they won't buy weapons either making the sword you just fabricated literally worthless.

Sendal

2009-12-11, 10:32 PM

going to the lair of an apropriate powerlevel and inteligent creature and handing it a beat down results in a remarkaby similar situation: Serve me or die.

True, the Wizard can do it in the comfort of his back yard, but the option is also there for less magicaly minded characters.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 10:33 PM

DC 15. A wizard with intelligence 18 (a reasonable amount at the level you get fabricate) would need 10 ranks to guarantee success in fabricate. Failure means the spell ends and he wasted his chance to create a single sword. You're better off with craft magic arms and armor than fabricate.
DC 15 craft check. Int of a level 10 wizard is likely to be in the neighborhood of 24, for a +7 modifier. Grab artisan's tools for an additional +2. cast Heroism for another +2. That's a +11 so far. Alter Self into a Dwarf for the +2 to craft relating to metals. We now have +13.

Should do it. If you don't accept that tools can be used to give a bonus to the check, we can always hire the services of a bard or something.

Anyone who wants something but doesn't have it lacks the resources to get it.
The guy above me made a nice comment about this.

A king's army is already outfitted, can requisition arms locally for free, and probably won't pay you half the price you asked for if he needed more.
But can he have them made in twelve seconds?

going to the lair of an apropriate powerlevel and inteligent creature and handing it a beat down results in a remarkaby similar situation: Serve me or die.

http://www.nuklearpower.com/comics/8-bit-theater/010308.jpg

industrious

2009-12-11, 10:36 PM

And therein lies the point. Wizards, because they are overpowered and abusable, are simply better/more powerful than fighters. With the right feats, you can make a decent fighter. An intelligent wizard of the same level will still win most of the time, provided that they are at least level 5.

We've run this experiment before(Wizard 13 vs. Fighter 20). Even with a Fighter's larger amount of item due to WBL, wizard wins.

Sendal

2009-12-11, 10:37 PM

I don't mean to say fighters are as powerful as wizards, I am just commenting on this specific example.

as for the traps:

eat my d10 HD

Alternatively:

look, its my astral projecting big brother and his mates come to kill you!

Adding complications is easy, and irrelevant to the discussion.

Glimbur

2009-12-11, 10:37 PM

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 10:38 PM

Why are you not taking 10?

Oh, that's because the spell Fabricate demands a check to craft the desired items. Can't take ten on a one time spell.

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 10:38 PM

DC 15 craft check. Int of a level 10 wizard is likely to be in the neighborhood of 24, for a +7 modifier. Grab artisan's tools for an additional +2. cast Heroism for another +2. That's a +11 so far. Alter Self into a Dwarf for the +2 to craft relating to metals. We now have +13.

Should do it. If you don't accept that tools can be used to give a bonus to the check, we can always hire the services of a bard or something.

All of this to make a single sword while the rest of the gaming group is casting angry glares at you and begging the DM to move the story along. By the time they come back with their haul a week later they just multiplied your output by 500x.

But can he have them made in twelve seconds?

A level 10 wizard with 24 intelligence makes 4 swords in a day. The king orders 5,000 more. *whip cracks*

The economy can easily collapse through magical means hence why NPC wizards don't do stupid crap like infinite food traps.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 10:39 PM

eat my d10 HD
Eat my Enervation.

Alternatively:

look, its my astral projecting big brother and his mates come to kill you!

Irrelevant. DM fiat.

Also, Astral Projection projects one onto the Astral plane. (Surprise surprise!)

Unless the bigger nightmare has a way to plane shift, he can't come to kill me! Lolololololololololol

Kesnit

2009-12-11, 10:41 PM

So it's basically a case of the DM screwing over the player.
Says more about the DM than about anything else, doesn't it?[/quopte]

Nope. It's 100% within the rules of the spell. It's also 100% within what the nightmare would actually do. If the player has something that the nightmare wants, the first one would have gone for it. If not, why would any other random nightmare want whatever the wizard is offering?

[quote]Please demonstrate how the CR 5 Nightmare is stronger than a level 12 wizard who has prepared to trap it.

Oops. Brain fart. I was thinking of the CR 17 Mornilith that was the original topic of the planar binding discussion.

But the idea still holds. If a WIZ (who, by your own admission, has a poor CHA) has to make CHA checks (at up to a -6) to compel something, who or whatever they are trying to compel is going to be at an advantage, RAW.

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-11, 10:41 PM

Sendal

2009-12-11, 10:41 PM

how is that any more DM Fiat than a trap hitting you after you win your fight?

Just because something happens that you didn't expect doesn't make it DM fiat.

The d10 HD was a defence against the kobald trap, not a wizard, that would be stupid. He laughs at puny HP.

Setra

2009-12-11, 10:42 PM

All of this to make a single sword while the rest of the gaming group is casting angry glares at you and begging the DM to move the story along. By the time they come back with their haul a week later they just multiplied your output by 500x.
Or they die without the party Wizard.

Or the Wizard just teleports to their destination once they arrive.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 10:42 PM

All of this to make a single sword while the rest of the gaming group is casting angry glares at you and begging the DM to move the story along. By the time they come back with their haul a week later they just multiplied your output by 500x.

You clearly do not know what is going on. Fabricate combined with the metal from Wall of Iron can make many, many swords. Divide the weight of the Wall by the amount a sword weighs to get the exact amount.

Doing this takes a few tools, one buff, possibly one bard, and two spells.

A level 10 wizard with 24 intelligence makes 4 swords in a day. The king orders 5,000 more. *whip cracks*
You have no idea.

The economy can easily collapse through magical means hence why NPC wizards don't do stupid crap like infinite food traps.
Irrelevant to whether the swords can be made, or to whether it is possible to make swords in this manner.

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-11, 10:44 PM

But the idea still holds. If a WIZ (who, by your own admission, has a poor CHA) has to make CHA checks (at up to a -6) to compel something, who or whatever they are trying to compel is going to be at an advantage, RAW.

Except (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#toolsAndSkillKits) there (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heroism.htm) are (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heroismGreater.htm) ways... (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#aidAnother)

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 10:44 PM

Nope. It's 100% within the rules of the spell. It's also 100% within what the nightmare would actually do. If the player has something that the nightmare wants, the first one would have gone for it. If not, why would any other random nightmare want whatever the wizard is offering?
Unless you are a nightmare, or an authority on the subject of nightmares, I submit that you do not infact have any idea of what a nightmare would do.

But the idea still holds. If a WIZ (who, by your own admission, has a poor CHA) has to make CHA checks (at up to a -6) to compel something, who or whatever they are trying to compel is going to be at an advantage, RAW.
Cast Eagle's Splendor + a Circlet of Charisma. Your Cha bonus, assuming yours tarted with a score of 8, is now +4.

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 10:46 PM

You clearly do not know what is going on. Fabricate combined with the metal from Wall of Iron can make many, many swords. Divide the weight of the Wall by the amount a sword weighs to get the exact amount.

Doing this takes a few tools, one buff, possibly one bard, and two spells.

You create a product, not products. There's no plural in RAW.

Irrelevant to whether the swords can be made, or to whether it is possible to make swords in this manner.

Irrelevant to whether creating massive amounts of swords and selling them negatively effects the economy.

Debating with you is really mind numbing. I'm pretty much done with this topic.

Sendal

2009-12-11, 10:47 PM

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-11, 10:48 PM

just so that I understand, are you arguing both that wizards can break the binding spell (and accesories) to break the game, and that any DM who institutes measures to stop this that are legal by RAW is automaticaly a bad DM?

I would not make this argument. Even so, the wizard has options, and a lot of them. This and this alone means that nearly every DM has more to worry about coming from the wizard than most any other class.

If that ain't power than I don't know what is.

erikun

2009-12-11, 10:50 PM

DM fiat? unless you are the only wizard in the kingdom then the king has magical wards against it. so does the judge and high ranking police officers...
Perhaps I used the wrong word. What I meant is that Charm Person is rarely defeated by roleplay, or a decision by the players, or by something done it game which invalidates the spell. The most common reason that Charm Person fails is because there is some mechanic, put in place by the DM, which prevents the character in question from falling under the influence of a Charm Person spell.

That is, Charm Person fails not because of poor or bad decisions, but because it never had a chance of working in the first place.

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-11, 10:50 PM

You create a product, not products. There's no plural in RAW.

I'm sorry, but, I don't think we're using Japanese, so this seems irrelevant to me.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 10:50 PM

You create a product, not products. There's no plural in RAW.

So make them all linked to each other by a piece of metal. Problem solved. They're one object under RAW.

Kesnit

2009-12-11, 10:50 PM

Except (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#toolsAndSkillKits)
there (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heroism.htm)
are (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heroismGreater.htm) ways... (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#aidAnother)

Aid Another is viable. That adds +2. Heroism and Greater Heroism add to skill checks, but this isn't a skill check, so they wouldn't change anything. I didn't see a tool or kit that would help CHA checks, though I admit I could have just missed one.

Now the WIZ is only at a -4.

Unless you are a nightmare, or an authority on the subject of nightmares, I submit that you do not infact have any idea of what a nightmare would do.

By definition, the DM is such an expert.

Cast Eagle's Splendor + Heroism + a Circlet of Charisma. Your Cha bonus, assuming yours tarted with a score of 8, is now +4. The modifier for a Cha check is now +6.

Assuming CHA of 8. That's a modifier of -1. The check is at -6, so the WIZ subtracts 7 from the roll. Aid Another (from above) would work, so the check is now -5. Heroism is already out, so that changes nothing. Circlet of CHA +4 adds 2, so the check is now -3. Eagle's Splendor adds 2, so the check is now at -1.

Impossible check? No. Easy, no.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 10:52 PM

just so that I understand, are you arguing both that wizards can break the binding spell (and accesories) to break the game, and that any DM who institutes measures to stop this that are legal by RAW is automaticaly a bad DM?
I am arguing that, if there is a neutral DM who goes by what the spell says, the wizard is more powerful than the fighter because he gets more options and more powerful options.

If you take steps to balance things, and you should (though keep them reasonable, obviously. DM fiat is frowned upon) the wizard will be less powerful in game... but that you have to initiate countermeasures for casters and not for melee classes speaks for itself.

taltamir

2009-12-11, 10:53 PM

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 10:54 PM

except, you are not taking the wizard and fighting 1 fighter a day. You are playing a wizard, in a party, fighting multiple opponent a day.

Wizards run out of spells. Fighters run out of HP. Both must manage resources.

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 10:55 PM

So make them all linked to each other by a piece of metal. Problem solved. They're one object under RAW.

Then because each sword in the link is its own product, the craft check also increases exponentially with each sword linked. If you make a level 10 wizard with a craft check of +120, then I'll personally allow you as DM to use fabricate to break the economy.

I'll also stop inviting you to play.

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-11, 10:55 PM

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 10:56 PM

Incidentally, Bestow Curse can be used to up your age category, giving you a +3 to mental stats. This gives you a bit of extra CHA for the negotiation.

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-11, 10:57 PM

Then because each sword in the link is its own product, the craft check also increases exponentially with each sword linked. If you make a level 10 wizard with a craft check of +120, then I'll personally allow you as DM to use fabricate to break the economy.

I'll also stop inviting you to play.

Could we get a quote on that? I don't see how making a series of swords, which, by virtue of being connected together by some metal is any more difficult than just making one sword or twenty swords separately.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 10:58 PM

Then because each sword in the link is its own product
1. No it isn't.
2. You were done with this thread several posts ago, weren't you?

taltamir

2009-12-11, 10:59 PM

Perhaps I used the wrong word. What I meant is that Charm Person is rarely defeated by roleplay, or a decision by the players, or by something done it game which invalidates the spell. The most common reason that Charm Person fails is because there is some mechanic, put in place by the DM, which prevents the character in question from falling under the influence of a Charm Person spell.

That is, Charm Person fails not because of poor or bad decisions, but because it never had a chance of working in the first place.

And it never had a chance in the first place because anyone affected by it is given the tools to be completely immune to it...
Now if there were no spells in core that made you immune to it, and if it did NOT have verbal or somatic components which are clearly identified... then it would have been a useful tool out of combat...

Surprisingly charm person is useful in combat... against a single powerful opponent that isn't immune and that you get no benefit from killing, charm person and nicely ASK to be allowed to leave (aka "we are friends, we come in peace, let us leave please")

tyckspoon

2009-12-11, 11:01 PM

Aid Another is viable. That adds +2. Heroism and Greater Heroism add to skill checks, but this isn't a skill check, so they wouldn't change anything. I didn't see a tool or kit that would help CHA checks, though I admit I could have just missed one.

Now the WIZ is only at a -4.

Eagle's Splendor, +2 Cha mod. Circlet of Persuasion, +3 Charisma-based checks. Luckstone, +1 ability checks. There's +6, which is parity for the bonus for presenting the worst possible deal, and you've only tapped some of the easiest sources of bonuses (if you're high enough level or willing to buy a scroll you can just pop Moment of Prescience and make it functionally impossible for your target to beat you.) And you have yet to attempt debuffing the victim. Feeblemind the bugger and it'll do whatever you want it to (although this may not be a good idea, as once Feebleminded most creatures will no longer be capable of understanding what you want them to do.) Or Bestow a Curse, or apply negative levels. It's a pretty easy check to rig when you have the benefit of a trapped target and the foreknowledge that you're about to try and rig an opposed Cha check.

Stompy

2009-12-11, 11:03 PM

9mm

2009-12-11, 11:06 PM

Also if the DM is adding multiple modifiers with the stance "I don't want you to do it" is quite frankly, a douche. If you didn't want them to do it you could have simplely said "Planar Binding doesn't exist," solved the problem there and the wizard player wouldn't care; he'd go focus on something else. why because he can; tell a fighter he can't go use ubercharging tactics and he gets exactly 3 other options, of which only 2 stay viable at all levels of the game. The Wizard? 8 at the very least.

Kaiser Omnik

2009-12-11, 11:08 PM

Kesnit

2009-12-11, 11:09 PM

Also if the DM is adding multiple modifiers with the stance "I don't want you to do it" is quite frankly, a douche. If you didn't want them to do it you could have simplely said "Planar Binding doesn't exist," solved the problem there

There is a difference between saying "this spell does not exist" and "I will not let you use this spell to break the game."

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-11, 11:12 PM

There is a difference between saying "this spell does not exist" and "I will not let you use this spell to break the game."

Not really, no. Hell, there isn't even a need for it not to exist. You could just have a gentleman's agreement not to do such actions. If the DM said he was fine with it and mentioned that nothing would to come of it, and something like this happens, it would have just been better to have the spell not exist to begin.

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 11:15 PM

This is one piece: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Plastic-model-F18.jpg

However, you can get multiple pieces from it with machining. I do not see where the craft DC goes up, because the only time that would happen is if you are making it quickly, which the fabricate spell will take care of.

EDIT: Sorry, 2 pieces, just link them. XD

Each of those pieces is its own unique item. It might have been pressed together, but someone had to design each individual piece in the mold before the liquid plastic passed through it in the assembly line.

Fabricating items is the same as crafting an item, you just eliminate the time necessary and simple items (like a plain, worthless chair) are instantaneous. If you create multiple swords connected together then you have to craft each sword in tandem. Show me a blacksmith that can perfectly forge a dozen swords connected together and still have them effective and I'll give you your broken use of fabrication.

Stompy

2009-12-11, 11:15 PM

Wizards can do whatever they want with the right preparation in D&D 3.5 because lots of spells are poorly worded/vague.

Lots of spells also have powerful applications like polymorph
...or are clear but still too powerful like wraithstrike.

I agree entirely with your post Omnik. :smallsmile:

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 11:16 PM

So, a summary:

Wizards can do whatever they want with the right preparation in D&D 3.5 because lots of spells are poorly worded/vague.

Sane DMs won't allow those players to break the game world economy, among other things.

Yes?
A more accurate statement would be that wizards are noticeably and unnecessarily more powerful than many other classes.

Sane DMs shouldn't allow this to happen through non-d!ckish means, but the fact that you must restrict certain classes so they don't outshine others speaks for itself.

9mm

2009-12-11, 11:16 PM

There is a difference between saying "this spell does not exist" and "I will not let you use this spell to break the game."

If your game is so fragile a single spell can break it, you need more support beams in your game, because quite frankly; a high roll on da lootz table could reach the same results.

If planar binding exists in your world you should expect your players to use it to gain access to various abilities they would otherwise spend other resources to get. This isn't rocket science.

oh and BTW; people who casually use many of these tricks are VERY USED to their opponents using them as well. How do you think I learned most of mine?

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 11:18 PM

Sendal

2009-12-11, 11:18 PM

I am arguing that, if there is a neutral DM who goes by what the spell says, the wizard is more powerful than the fighter because he gets more options and more powerful options.

If you take steps to balance things, and you should (though keep them reasonable, obviously. DM fiat is frowned upon) the wizard will be less powerful in game... but that you have to initiate countermeasures for casters and not for melee classes speaks for itself.

And there is why we are arguing. I agree completly with that statement, and would not seek to disprove it. What I disagree on is its application to the thread topic.

To me, this means a Wizard is more powerful in a game with a bad DM, and in theoretical RAW only builds. A good DM will use every limitation to the wizard's powers at his disposal to limit and punish the wizard for meddling too much in the workings of the universe. This may sound harsh, but the key words are "too much"

A fighter can only do so much harm if left to his own devices. The most irresponsible fighter is not going to weaken the fabric of reality, no matter how well he swings his sword. A wizard can, if he is irresponsible and cheesy enough. There should be consequences for this.

Wizards have more potential power, but they also have the potential to cause themselves alot of problems. DMs need to capitalise on this drawback, and good DMs know how to do this in a believable way. abducting deamons could easily come back to haunt an overconfident wizard. That deamon is an NPC and likely has contacts. Crafting stupid quantities of swords should destroy the sword economy, thus costing more in distribution than he actualy earns.

When a character abuses the rules, the DM should either say no, or otherwise nullify any benefit. There should be no free lunches. If the wizard wants a nightmare mount, well he's going to have to pay for it, as the spell stipulates. I don't care how many buff spells you can stack, or what crazy broken combo you've found. The spell says I can say no if I deem it unreasonable, and if your going to weasel your way to getting a free lunch, I'm calling it unreasonable.

The net result should be either a wizard who uses proportionate force, and is therefore not overpowered, or a wizard with alot of problems. In a real game with a good DM, actions have consequences and world shattering (read broken) actions have proportionate consequences. I would apply the same logic to an ubercharger that manages to sunder a city, or anything else equaly stupid

Volkov

2009-12-11, 11:19 PM

Lots of spells also have powerful applications like polymorph
...or are clear but still too powerful like wraithstrike.

I agree entirely with your post Omnik. :smallsmile:

That works in theory, it's much harder to pull off in practice.

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-11, 11:20 PM

9mm

2009-12-11, 11:23 PM

Fabricating items is the same as crafting an item, you just eliminate the time necessary and simple items (like a plain, worthless chair) are instantaneous. If you create multiple swords connected together then you have to craft each sword in tandem. Show me a blacksmith that can perfectly forge a dozen swords connected together and still have them effective and I'll give you your broken use of fabrication.

considering handles and hand guards are attached after making the blade, thats pretty damn simple, you just make 1 long sharpened length of steel with pinches at the tips, break it apart slip on the hand guards for quick, well made Full tang weaponry, or just keep some parts unsharpened and not care about the hand guard, it'll still be a useable, if very dangerous to the user, blade.

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 11:23 PM

You may find it interesting to note that the Craft skill for complex items is a flat 20. No mention of adding additional modifiers.

With the example being a lock, not a 1,000 sword mold.

considering handles and hand guards are attached after making the blade, thats pretty damn simple, you just make 1 long sharpened length of steel with pinches at the tips, break it apart slip on the hand guards for quick, well made Full tang weaponry, or just keep some parts unsharpened and not care about the hand guard, it'll still be a useable, if very dangerous to the user, blade.

You're still making multiple individual items and the fabricate spell only makes a single item. Your craft check to make a sword includes making a completed sword. Crafting a dozen sharpened blades might be easier but they're all individual items.

Pharaoh's Fist

2009-12-11, 11:25 PM

With the example being a lock, not a 1,000 sword mold.

Why don't you find something to support your argument from a rulebook and we'll have a reasonable discussion.

taltamir

2009-12-11, 11:26 PM

you know something... those "wizard is god" theoretical builds all assume that the wizard knows AHEAD OF TIME exactly what he will face. Thus he can be crazy prepared...

I challenge someone to build a wizard and select a spell loadout without having any knowledge of what I am gonna throw at it. Or if you think that is too unfair. Without knowing WHICH of the "examples why it is tier 1" I am gonna throw at it...

A caster who has wide access to spells and knows EXACTLY what he will face tommorow, can select an ideal loadout making himself an unstopable god... A real wizard doesn't play that way in a real game.

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 11:27 PM

Why don't you find something to support your argument from a rulebook and we'll have a reasonable discussion.

Find me a rulebook that says you can circumvent Fabricates one item limit then we'll have a reasonable conversation. A completed sword is a single item. Fabricate can only make a single item.

Nowhere in Equipment and Special Materials is there "Sword Mold"

Hyooz

2009-12-11, 11:27 PM

With the example being a lock, not a 1,000 sword mold.

Locks are complicated, interlocking movable pieces put together in a precise mechanism. The 1000 sword mold is a piece of metal in a certain shape.

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-11, 11:27 PM

With the example being a lock, not a 1,000 sword mold.

On a related note: the DC to make a small sword is the DC to make a large sword is the DC to make a diminutive sword.

Hyooz

2009-12-11, 11:28 PM

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-11, 11:28 PM

Stompy

2009-12-11, 11:28 PM

Each of those pieces is its own unique item. It might have been pressed together, but someone had to design each individual piece in the mold before the liquid plastic passed through it in the assembly line.

Fabricating items is the same as crafting an item, you just eliminate the time necessary and simple items (like a plain, worthless chair) are instantaneous. If you create multiple swords connected together then you have to craft each sword in tandem. Show me a blacksmith that can perfectly forge a dozen swords connected together and still have them effective and I'll give you your broken use of fabrication.

Sir, you need to read up on your injection molding. The image I linked to you is from one mold. No pre-fabrication of the parts in the image was done before the plastic was poured into the mold. No pressing was involved, it was just simply a flow of molten plastic into a mold that was shaped like that to produce that one part.

You do need a complicated mold, however, so that when you pour molten iron into it, it forms this structure. The fabricate spell will take care of this. You will need to cut the swords off of the link metal, but that is where an adamantine dagger comes in. You also will have to sharpen the swords, but unseen servants with whetstones can do this :P

EDIT:
Find me a rulebook that says you can circumvent Fabricates one item limit then we'll have a reasonable conversation. A completed sword is a single item. Fabricate can only make a single item.

Nowhere in Equipment and Special Materials is there "Sword Mold"

The main problem here is that so far we can't find a rulebook that proves or disproves this :P

erikun

2009-12-11, 11:29 PM

Sane DMs shouldn't allow this to happen through non-d!ckish means, but the fact that you must restrict certain classes so they don't outshine others speaks for itself.
It seems this is my opinion, as well. If the DM needs to rewrite the rules or reinterpret everything the Wizard does to avoid breaking the campaign - while the Fighter can one-shot Tiamat without any problem - then the Wizard is clearly far more powerful than the Fighter.

taltamir

2009-12-11, 11:29 PM

tried that, never had a DM that will give me (or even COULD give me) an exact knowledge of what I will be facing.

And this is a better link to the spell: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/ContactOtherPlane.htm

All questions are answered with “yes,” “no,” “maybe,” “never,” “irrelevant,” or some other one-word answer.
Not THAT useful in choosing your spell loadout.

9mm

2009-12-11, 11:29 PM

You're still making multiple individual items and the fabricate spell only makes a single item. Your craft check to make a sword includes making a completed sword. Crafting a dozen sharpened blades might be easier but they're all individual items.

um.. do you understand what a pinch is? its part of the metal that another hammershot would separate it into 2 pieces (and would often just break by itself anyway). If your not caring about folding for strength and relying on straight tempering, this is how you mass produce blades with out using molds.

tyckspoon

2009-12-11, 11:30 PM

To me, this means a Wizard is more powerful in a game with a bad DM, and in theoretical RAW only builds. A good DM will use every limitation to the wizard's powers at his disposal to limit and punish the wizard for meddling too much in the workings of the universe. This may sound harsh, but the key words are "too much"

I would be careful about claiming it requires a 'bad DM'. There are some things that are (at least IMO) clearly exploitative, like using the Nightmare's Astral Projection to adventure at full strength in near-perfect safety. But that doesn't mean only a bad DM allows the Wizard to use Planar Binding; what if he honestly does just need to engage in some planar travel? Or perhaps he needs some advice and conjures up a demon to help him- that's a very Wizardly thing to do, especially in the fantasies where magic is kind of sinister.. well, Imps can use Commune, and I would dare to say that they have it exactly so that people can call them to ask questions. That's something no other class can do (standard adventuring Clerics would have alignment issues with conjuring an Imp, as in their gods won't have Imp servants to send.)

It doesn't take deliberate exploitation or a DM letting his game slip; the Wizard's options, used as intended, honestly are stronger than like 70% of the other material printed for the game. Moving into outright exploitation just moves that percentage up to 95 or so.

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 11:30 PM

On a related note: the DC to make a small sword is the DC to make a large sword is the DC to make a diminutive sword.

All of which are completed swords. Fabricate makes a single completed item, not a partially finished item.

Sir, you need to read up on your injection molding. The image I linked to you is from one mold. No pre-fabrication of the parts in the image was done before the plastic was poured into the mold. No pressing was involved, it was just simply a flow of molten plastic into a mold that was shaped like that to produce that one part.

But they still had to make each individual piece that's part of the mold. If I had fabricated the mold in the image you created, I would have made a single wing of the plane. Then I'd have to make a craft check for the engine in a new casting of fabricate. Then I'd have to make a rudder in a new casting of fabricate.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Whoever physically created the mold that the plastic runs through didn't make the entire thing at once, they focused on each piece at a time then connected it together.

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-11, 11:30 PM

Hyooz

2009-12-11, 11:31 PM

tried that, never had a DM that will give me (or even COULD give me) an exact knowledge of what I will be facing.

And this is a better link to the spell: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/ContactOtherPlane.htm

You really don't need an exact knowledge of what you'll be facing. A general idea of how many encounters you will have vs. how much dungeon trickery will need to be done, and maybe a general idea of what kind of enemies (i.e. undead, dragons, etc.)

I've never met a DM that didn't at least have a general idea what he intended to use. Mostly because my DMs come prepared to, you know, DM.

But hey, if DM's want to make an entire school of magic useless, then that's their prerogative.

Sendal

2009-12-11, 11:32 PM

taltamir

2009-12-11, 11:32 PM

the biggest problem I see with magic being exploitable lies in metamagic...
I say, ban all metamagic of any kind, both divine metamagic and regular metamagic.
Then ban or limit specific bad spells (ex: planer binding does NOT give you automatic control of an outsider twice your HD)

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-11, 11:33 PM

All of which are completed swords. Fabricate makes a single completed item, not a partially finished item.

What if I'm tiny? What if I'm large? Colossal?

The point is, the game makes no distinction between how hard is to make something of a certain size for someone of another size.

taltamir

2009-12-11, 11:34 PM

You really don't need an exact knowledge of what you'll be facing. A general idea of how many encounters you will have vs. how much dungeon trickery will need to be done, and maybe a general idea of what kind of enemies (i.e. undead, dragons, etc.)

I've never met a DM that didn't at least have a general idea what he intended to use. Mostly because my DMs come prepared to, you know, DM.

But hey, if DM's want to make an entire school of magic useless, then that's their prerogative.

actually its more along the lines of the DM not knowing what WE will do and being unable to predict the future themselves they cannot predict the future in game. Unless HEAVILY railroaded.

What if I'm tiny? What if I'm large? Colossal?

The point is, the game makes no distinction between how hard is to make something of a certain size for someone of another size.

actually it does, it gives bonuses to AC and to hit... making it easier for a smaller creature to hit a big one, and harder for a big creature to hit a small one

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 11:35 PM

What if I'm tiny? What if I'm large? Colossal?

The point is, the game makes no distinction between how hard is to make something of a certain size for someone of another size.

And my point is that the game makes a clear distinction of what's a completed item. With 100 square feet of metal you could fabricate a single 1' sword or a single 100' long sword. You make a craft check for each one. If you make 100' interconnected, individual items you have to make a craft check for each item which Fabricate doesn't allow.

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-11, 11:36 PM

actually it does, it gives bonuses to AC and to hit... making it easier for a smaller creature to hit a big one, and harder for a big creature to hit a small one

That's for whacking something of different sizes, not for making something of a different size. Is it easy to house-rule the size rules for to-hit and AC into craft? Sure. RAW, however, that is not the case.

tyckspoon

2009-12-11, 11:37 PM

(ex: planer binding does NOT give you automatic control of an outsider twice your HD)

That's Gate, btw. The Planar Binding line lets you get 6/12/18 HD at spell levels 5/6/8. There just happen to be quite a few bindable creatures with spell-like or Supernatural abilities of levels far beyond their actual HD.

Hyooz

2009-12-11, 11:37 PM

you people are trying to bend these spells into a purpose they were clearly not intended for. You cannot ignore RAI to start with, then use it to overrule RAW later in the same sentence.

Its inconsistant.

What the hell is the purpose of Divination if not to know what's coming? At the levels you're at, and by the fact that you're adventuring, you're probably going to run into some dangerous stuff. Why not use your magic to better prepare?

Where are we being inconsistent?

Sendal

2009-12-11, 11:38 PM

I was refering to using fabricate to make things to sell for profit, clearly not the intended purpose of the spell, whilst ignoring the fact that fabricate does not use the plural. Clearly they INTENDED to include the plural, they just overlooked it.

Yess... but... they didn't intend for you to...

I would be careful about claiming it requires a 'bad DM'. There are some things that are (at least IMO) clearly exploitative, like using the Nightmare's Astral Projection to adventure at full strength in near-perfect safety. But that doesn't mean only a bad DM allows the Wizard to use Planar Binding; what if he honestly does just need to engage in some planar travel? Or perhaps he needs some advice and conjures up a demon to help him- that's a very Wizardly thing to do, especially in the fantasies where magic is kind of sinister.. well, Imps can use Commune, and I would dare to say that they have it exactly so that people can call them to ask questions. That's something no other class can do (standard adventuring Clerics would have alignment issues with conjuring an Imp, as in their gods won't have Imp servants to send.)

It doesn't take deliberate exploitation or a DM letting his game slip; the Wizard's options, used as intended, honestly are stronger than like 70% of the other material printed for the game. Moving into outright exploitation just moves that percentage up to 95 or so.

True, My post was about a wizard who oversteps the line. I would be fine with him astraly projecting with the nightmare, assuming he pays an apropriate price for it as the spell dictates. What I would object to is the tactics that some people here are explaining to get the benefit without the cost. Thats what the "unreasonable requests" clause of the spell is for.

Some people here seem to be saying invoking it is DM fiat, and therefore bad.

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-11, 11:40 PM

Some people here seem to be saying invoking it is DM fiat, and therefore bad.

We're not saying that by invoking DM fiat is making it bad. We're saying that by invoking fiat, it is wrong.

9mm

2009-12-11, 11:42 PM

Sendal

2009-12-11, 11:44 PM

but it says in the spell description that an unreasonable request is denied, regardless of the charisma check.

So you buff your check to high heaven, it still says no. Its still the same request, and its unreasonable. Is this DM fiat?

Lycanthromancer

2009-12-11, 11:45 PM

And there is why we are arguing. I agree completly with that statement, and would not seek to disprove it. What I disagree on is its application to the thread topic.

To me, this means a Wizard is more powerful in a game with a bad DM, and in theoretical RAW only builds. A good DM will use every limitation to the wizard's powers at his disposal to limit and punish the wizard for meddling too much in the workings of the universe. This may sound harsh, but the key words are "too much"

A fighter can only do so much harm if left to his own devices. The most irresponsible fighter is not going to weaken the fabric of reality, no matter how well he swings his sword. A wizard can, if he is irresponsible and cheesy enough. There should be consequences for this.

Wizards have more potential power, but they also have the potential to cause themselves alot of problems. DMs need to capitalise on this drawback, and good DMs know how to do this in a believable way. abducting deamons could easily come back to haunt an overconfident wizard. That deamon is an NPC and likely has contacts. Crafting stupid quantities of swords should destroy the sword economy, thus costing more in distribution than he actualy earns.

When a character abuses the rules, the DM should either say no, or otherwise nullify any benefit. There should be no free lunches. If the wizard wants a nightmare mount, well he's going to have to pay for it, as the spell stipulates. I don't care how many buff spells you can stack, or what crazy broken combo you've found. The spell says I can say no if I deem it unreasonable, and if your going to weasel your way to getting a free lunch, I'm calling it unreasonable.

The net result should be either a wizard who uses proportionate force, and is therefore not overpowered, or a wizard with alot of problems. In a real game with a good DM, actions have consequences and world shattering (read broken) actions have proportionate consequences. I would apply the same logic to an ubercharger that manages to sunder a city, or anything else equaly stupidSo, basically, wizards aren't more broken than fighters are because the DM squashes anything a wizard tries to do.

But the same can be said for a fighter 1 vs a fighter 20. Would you say that the phrase "a fighter 1 is the same strength as a fighter 20" always holds true because the DM can give +20 to every stat the fighter 1 has, and gives him epic levels of items?

...No. Just no.

And as far as a wizard with incredibly powerful problems goes...hey, he's a wizard, and it's quite probable for a wizard player who knows what he's doing to completely annihilate (not annoy, not just destroy, but annihilate) creatures that should, CR-wise, be able to kill dozens of parties of his level. All it takes is knowledge of how the rules work, good use of the resources at hand, and proper preparation.

Heck, I can build a core-only wizard that can take on any creature in the Monster Manual of twice the wizard's CR (and by level 10, the capabilities increase dramatically, such that I can take on even stronger creatures). It's all in how you prepare.

But that's neither here nor there.

As for the OP:

Fighters can only do two things: move, and hit things.

Meanwhile, wizards can attack AC, touch AC, Fort saves, Ref saves, Will saves, and can target none of the above and still do terrible things to the target. Wizards can damage ability scores, deal negative levels, conjure and summon minions to do all sorts of crazy things, blind their targets, deafen them, teleport them to other planes of existence, kill them instantly, charm them, dominate them, scry them from afar, phase through a wall while the minions attack, fly, transform themselves or others into Monstrous Beasts of Doomtm, turn foes into frogs, disintegrate them or parts of the environment, sculpt the environment to suit their wishes, make the environment itself hostile (or at least extremely inconvenient), block line of sight and line of effect for the enemy, deal damage in an area, annul or reflect magic, speak mind-to-mind over long distances for recon, traverse vast (even interplanar) distances instantaneously, raze cities to the ground with naught but a word, and generally alter reality to suit their whims.

Which sounds more powerful to you?

Setra

2009-12-11, 11:45 PM

Sendal

2009-12-11, 11:50 PM

the reason the spell was brought up was an example of why wizards are too powerful.

No ability is is too powerful if a sufficient price is paid to aquire it. A fair price to be payed balances this spell. People are describing how to get services out of the spell for less than the value of the service. (Astraly projecting for free)

If the services granted make the wizard "more powerful" than he payed as cost, then its not a fair deal. The DM is entitled to declare it unreasonable, and say no.

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-11, 11:52 PM

Glimbur

2009-12-11, 11:52 PM

to bad your just making a single item; it just isn't a sword; yet.

also a single blade made of 100 square feet of metal would be adamentine and mercurial at the very least. folds = strength in blades, the reason Katana's were so damn good was because they were folded so many times.

Metallurgy does not work that way. Folding and refolding and hammering the sword will probably drive out some impurities and also introduce more dislocations. Dislocations are good in that they make it harder to plastically deform the blade which makes it stronger. However, they also make fracture more favorable. So the sword becomes more and more brittle as you cold-work it.

I'm also not sure how you plan on getting that much mass into one sword. Metals don't just turn into adamantium if you compress them enough, they theoretically undergo fusion, which probably won't actually happen.

Stompy

2009-12-11, 11:57 PM

And my point is that the game makes a clear distinction of what's a completed item. With 100 square feet of metal you could fabricate a single 1' sword or a single 100' long sword. You make a craft check for each one. If you make 100' interconnected, individual items you have to make a craft check for each item which Fabricate doesn't allow.

Ok. Say I want to buy a doll for a NPC child. The game does not explicitly have this as an item (so far as I know). Does that mean that dolls do not exist? On the same line of thinking, does any item not mentioned in any book not exist?

My point is that 100 interconnected items is one item, is one use of fabricate, the complicated components for crafting the item are included in the spell (or else we would need a forge to make one sword anyway), and so long as the swords + linking network fit into the dimensions of the spell, it should work.

At the very least, I haven't been disproven clearly by RAW, so this method is possible in a game :smallsmile:. Whether or not a DM allows it is his/her call.

Sendal

2009-12-11, 11:57 PM

Lycanthromancer:

Would you ever play such a wizard in a campaign in which there was a standard core fighter?

I would hope your DM would insist you play something a little more sensible. This returns to my original statement, a wizard can be optimised ad infinitum, but noone does it in a game, and anyone who does is a jerk.

If, for some bizzar reason, I had 2 fighters in a party, 1 level 20 and 1 level 1, you can bet your ass I'll be screwing over the level 20 at every possible oportunity. In a game with these differing power levels, a DM needs to make both charcters relevant. This can't be done if 1 completly overshadows the other. Idealy, such situations should never arrise.

9mm

2009-12-11, 11:58 PM

Metallurgy does not work that way. Folding and refolding and hammering the sword will probably drive out some impurities and also introduce more dislocations. Dislocations are good in that they make it harder to plastically deform the blade which makes it stronger. However, they also make fracture more favorable. So the sword becomes more and more brittle as you cold-work it.

I'm also not sure how you plan on getting that much mass into one sword. Metals don't just turn into adamantium if you compress them enough, they theoretically undergo fusion, which probably won't actually happen.
Its Magic; who cares if if reality says it doesn't work, most people wouldn't be able to lift the damn thing anyway.

yes in IRL you hit the realm of diminishing returns on folds but we're not talking about the real world here.

tyckspoon

2009-12-11, 11:59 PM

There is a difference between unreasonable power and an unreasonable deal in-character. Unreasonable power is when the DM says, out of character, "No, I'm sorry, don't do that in my game." Unreasonable in character is what the 0-6 modifier to the Cha check reflects- maybe the first time you offer the deal "Astral Project me for nothing" the Nightmare just says no, no roll. Same the next day, so you throw a Curse at it and leave it. Third day, just getting out of the Circle starts to seem like a good thing, so it considers it, but it still doesn't like it- roll, Nightmare gets a +6. Maybe you fail that. So go away, talk to it again tomorrow.. this time you hit it with an Enervation. Now, it's been stuck in your binding circle for four days, it's bored, hungry even if it doesn't actually need to eat, you're doing all kinds of unpleasant things to it.. is it now 'unreasonable' that the creature will simply say yes so it can go home and you'll stop doing that stuff to it? Especially when what you want it to do actually costs it no more than 30 minutes casting? Perhaps it will make "Lift the curse" its terms of payment.

I suppose what I mean is, if you're going to deny something with an out-of-character balance reason, just say so. Don't make the player go through the charade of doing what the mechanics allow him just to find out at the end of a bunch of wasted effort that you were always going to say no.

Sendal

2009-12-12, 12:08 AM

abusing the creature could easily send it the other way, making it want to help you less.

Remember, the creature wille scape eventualy. Under ideal circumstances it has a 5% chance every day.

Its a matter of preference, ultimatly. My players generaly prefer an IC reason why they can't do something, even if it is a slightly contrived reason to explain an OOC issue. That'll depend on your players.

In the end, the thing we agree on is that this kind of behaviour should be prevented, by one method or another. Hense, this spell is rendered balanced by virtue of a decent DM.

Roland St. Jude

2009-12-12, 12:11 AM

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please be careful not to attack, insult, or belittle other posters. This includes comments like "you'd have to be jerk to do X" or "only a moron would rule Y" or any other passive-aggressive or thinly-veiled insult. Insulting a single person or all posters who do X or Y are both prohibited.

Hyooz

2009-12-12, 12:15 AM

Lycanthromancer

2009-12-12, 12:18 AM

Lycanthromancer:

Would you ever play such a wizard in a campaign in which there was a standard core fighter?I don't play wizards for a reason. They're too hard to reign in, while still allowing you to have fun.

I would hope your DM would insist you play something a little more sensible. This returns to my original statement, a wizard can be optimised ad infinitum, but noone does it in a game, and anyone who does is a jerk.The wizard's power is almost incidental. Those are all things a wizard is supposed to do in a game, even without abusing the system. He's supposed to toss around fireballs and enervations and scryings and summon monster spells and disintegrates and wind walls and walls of stone and dominate persons and so on. If you have to limit yourself to just what the fighter can do (ie, move and hit things), you can still do so better than the party fighter if you want to; it's not that hard.

That is why a wizard is far more powerful than a fighter; the Big Stupid Meat Shield doesn't even have the option to do any of that other stuff.

You say I'd be a jerk for simply doing what wizards do. I say that the fighter is a jerk for making me castrate myself so, just to maintain the illusion of parity.

That's why we're saying wizards are uber, and why fighters suck. You even alluded to the idea yourself.

If, for some bizzar reason, I had 2 fighters in a party, 1 level 20 and 1 level 1, you can bet your ass I'll be screwing over the level 20 at every possible oportunity. In a game with these differing power levels, a DM needs to make both charcters relevant. This can't be done if 1 completly overshadows the other. Idealy, such situations should never arrise.So, you're saying that there's no power disparity between a level 1 fighter and a level 20 fighter?

That, sir, is, quite frankly, a rather unique assertion.

taltamir

2009-12-12, 12:19 AM

I might as well throw my two cents down for the overall question of this thread:

Are Wizards overpowered? Yes. Does it often come up in practice? Not really.

Here's the thing: All the people pushing Theoretical Optimization and ridiculous things DMs probably wouldn't allow in games are just answering your question. Are they overpowered? Yes, yes they are, and here's why. Here's all the crazy things you could do to be god-like powerful. Here's the things you could do to just be really scary on the battlefield. That's the question being asked.

If you were to ask "Do wizards commonly play at those levels in actual games?" the answer would be no. No one is actually going to Fabricate 1000-sword arrays of iron in-game. No one is actually going to abuse Nightmares to do truly dirty work. Why? It's not fun, it breaks the game, and people don't want to play in broken games (save a few special exceptions where breaking the game IS the fun. I've been in those games, they rock something hard.)

The problem with these threads tends to come from an innate problem with the question being asked. You're asking if wizards are overpowered. Well, from a purely technical standpoint, yes, yes they are. And since that's what you're asking, that's the answer you'll get. Are most people going to play them to destroy the game or totally out-preform the party at every turn? No. Because that's not fun. But, that's not what you asked, so that's not what you're being told.

so so true.
A wizard could pun pun by RAW... but that doesn't happen. I have not ever seen fabricate abuse occur in a real game. It just doesn't happen.

And as for a prepared wizard can kill any single monster twice its CR... yes it can, making them capable assassins.
But an adventurer wizard does not sit in a castle and then say "today I will kill a young adult blue dragon", then aquires the exact spells neededs, prepares a whole day's loadout JUST for that one encounter, readjust its feats just for that encounter, and then does it without encountering a single other enemy the entire day.

An adventurer wizard doesn't know exactly what he is going to face, he doesn't know what spell protections he might need, he has to use up a lot of his spells for various contingencies (not the spell), and he fights multiple opponents a day.

In other words, a real wizard in a game played is nothing like the theoretical thought experiment wizards.

taltamir

2009-12-12, 12:23 AM

example. This is the spell loadout of a level 11 rearranger (custom class, a wizard limited to transmutation and a few other select spells; most conjurations) I am currently playing (base int 20, +2 from levels, +2 headband):

Prepared Spells At Various Slots:
SL0 (4): Burst of Fire, Detect Magic, Message, Prestidigitation
SL1 (6): 1(AW due to SL0)-Mending, 2-Enlarge Person, 1-Feather Fall, 1-Grease, 1-Hail of Stone
SL2 (6): 1-Baleful Transposition, 1-Shaped Grease, 1-Rope Trick, 2-Knock, 1-Glitterdust
SL3 (6): 1-Slow, 1-Haste, 1-Stinking Cloud, 1-Shrink Item, 1-Shaped Glitterdust, 1-Spell Vulnerability
SL4 (4): 2-Stoneskin (M: 250gp), 2-Ruin Delver's Fortune
SL5 (3): 1-Overland Flight, 1-Teleport, 1-Wall of Dispel Magic
SL6 (2): 1-Flesh to Stone, 1-Disintegrate

prepared cantrips are "at will" casting btw.

CHOOSING which to prepare for the day is tough... there are only so many things you need to plan for.

Tavar

2009-12-12, 12:25 AM

Hyooz

2009-12-12, 12:28 AM

What wizard is really going to waste his time making swords to sell, though? Sure, he could, but wouldn't he rather be saving the world with his arcane might instead of wasting his power on making some money (unless of course, he needs to arm an army STAT, which if he's a necromancer might be the case.)

Tavar

2009-12-12, 12:30 AM

He's going to have alot of downtime, yes? Especially if he craft items, or something.

taltamir

2009-12-12, 12:31 AM

I don't know. I think the real problem with the wizard is that, using completely IC information and abilities, they should break the game. I mean, Pun-Pun requires a horrendous amount of OOC knowledge to work. That's what really makes it TO. On the other hand, Fabricate cheese, Astral Projection, planar binding, etc, all trigger off IC knowledge, thus you have to use OOC reasoning to justify not doing it.

and all of which are generally not allowed. Not because of being OOC vs IC, but because of being horribly written spells that break the game; no matter how in character it is for you to chain gate solars.

Sendal

2009-12-12, 12:32 AM

So, you're saying that there's no power disparity between a level 1 fighter and a level 20 fighter?

That, sir, is, quite frankly, a rather unique assertion

Thats not quite what I mean.

What I mean is that in a game that had both such people working together as a party, The DM would need to warp and abuse the rules to such an extent that the weaker one is still useful, otherwise it wouldn't be much of a game, particularly for the level 1.

In a sense, the DM has to force them to be on a par in terms of screen time. He has to champion the level 1 and beat down the awsomeness of the level 20.

In a game with such a unique requirement, the usual distinctions between the two characters no longer apply. The level 1 is just as important.

erikun

2009-12-12, 12:32 AM

What wizard is really going to waste his time making swords to sell, though?
The same wizard who owns a castle, or got the deed for a chunk of land as a story reward, or is trying to defend a town from a band of orcs.

Or who took Leadership without knowing exactly what it does.

I'm not saying that I would immediately think of using Wall of Iron + Fabricate to outfit an army, but even something as simple as Acid Fog can accidentally render the Fighter moot.

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-12, 12:32 AM

I don't know. I think the real problem with the wizard is that, using completely IC information and abilities, they should break the game. I mean, Pun-Pun requires a horrendous amount of OOC knowledge to work. That's what really makes it TO. On the other hand, Fabricate cheese, Astral Projection, planar binding, etc, all trigger off IC knowledge, thus you have to use OOC reasoning to justify not doing it.

Actually, Pun-pun requires no metagaming knowledge. Everything needed to make it work is a Knowledge (X) check away.

taltamir

2009-12-12, 12:33 AM

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-12, 12:34 AM

taltamir

2009-12-12, 12:36 AM

The sorcerer has a plan to whack reality upside its head. A wizard has at least 17. Simultaneously.

how many of those plans work in a real game and not just in RAW theories though... because the whole premise of the thread is how much a wizard can do in a real game where punpun is NOT allowed.

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-12, 12:38 AM

Or who took Leadership without knowing exactly what it does.

That's more a metagame construct. Now, a wizard may know that some people of significant power may eventually gain followers. Doesn't mean he knows it as "Feat: Leadership" though.

Alternatively, some sorcerer may know that, despite kind of being an ass to people around him, random schmoes flock to him, yet, the guy who is always singing and doing wonderful things for said random schmoes has yet to have anyone come to his side.

tyckspoon

2009-12-12, 12:40 AM

speaking of... how does wizard compare to TIER2 characters?
It is fairly easily to show how a wizard is better than a tier 4 of 5 character... but that is not because of the wizard being over powered... any class is over powered when compared to a monk for example.

In traditional adventuring settings, they're pretty similar- in fact, the answer to "What does the smart wizard take along as his general purpose memorized spells?" looks pretty much the same as "What does the smart sorcerer choose as spells known?" The tier difference is that the Wizard can also have, no more than a spell prep away, tools to completely destroy reality. Or become the best basket-weaver ever, or anything in between, while the Sorcerer will remain 'only' an extremely competent adventurer.

Sendal

2009-12-12, 12:41 AM

a sorcerour can pull off the same spell combos a wizard can, but he has a much more limited number of spells, so he can probably only do one or two realy powerful combos. Even if he can do it more times per day.

The wizard's strength is not just that he can do a crazy combo, its that its very likely he can to the perfect combo for this situation.

erikun

2009-12-12, 12:44 AM

speaking of... how does wizard compare to TIER2 characters?
A specialist wizard has more highest level spells slots that a sorcerer at all levels. The specialist wizard will, in general, have 1 less spell slot a level lower than that, 2 less spell slots at 2 levels lower than maximum, and 1 less spell slot at all other levels.

Note that on half the levels, the sorcerer doesn't even have spells of the same level as the wizard.

The sorcerer learns an average of 2 spells each level, one of which is at highest casting level and the other is 1-2 levels lower. Compared to the wizard gaining two spells to scribe in their spellbook each level, of course.

Lycanthromancer

2009-12-12, 12:45 AM

how many of those plans work in a real game and not just in RAW theories though... because the whole premise of the thread is how much a wizard can do in a real game where punpun is NOT allowed.I'd say most of them, really. You can sneak a lot of power in the most unlikely places, especially if you have a bit of imagination and can think on your feet.

Clever use of silent image, pyrotechnics, or even prestidigitation can turn the tide of whole encounters, if used in the right way. Simple tools such as levers and pulleys may not seem particularly powerful, but they make strategies possible that simply aren't otherwise.

I prefer being clever with my abilities to running head-first at problems, and one would think that a person with the equivalent to a 400+ IQ would have an inkling of how to do the same thing. There's no way I'd Chain-Gate solars in a game unless that level of optimization is expected. Even if the DM would curb-stomp the idea, the fact that a plain-vanilla wizard is even capable of such a thing should make it obvious that the class is on tip-top of the power-heap.

Olo Demonsbane

2009-12-12, 12:48 AM

so so true.
A wizard could pun pun by RAW... but that doesn't happen. I have not ever seen fabricate abuse occur in a real game. It just doesn't happen.

And as for a prepared wizard can kill any single monster twice its CR... yes it can, making them capable assassins.
But an adventurer wizard does not sit in a castle and then say "today I will kill a young adult blue dragon", then aquires the exact spells neededs, prepares a whole day's loadout JUST for that one encounter, readjust its feats just for that encounter, and then does it without encountering a single other enemy the entire day.

An adventurer wizard doesn't know exactly what he is going to face, he doesn't know what spell protections he might need, he has to use up a lot of his spells for various contingencies (not the spell), and he fights multiple opponents a day.

In other words, a real wizard in a game played is nothing like the theoretical thought experiment wizards.

How about we do some sort of test, to see how powerful a wizard is when it has to face 4 encounters a day without knowing what they will face ahead of time? I would be happy to run it.

You play a fighter 13, your opponent plays a wizard 13. I put you both through a series of 4 ECL 13 encounters. These will include one vanila monster, one group of monsters, one group of monsters with terrain advantages, and one caster. If you both come out alive, you two fight each other to determine the winner. If neither of you come out alive, whoever got farther is the winner. Does that sound like a fair deal?

And if so, any takers?

taltamir

2009-12-12, 12:49 AM

I disagree. A plain vanilla wizard by the raw being able to punpun / chain gate solars / etc does not indicate that the class is overpowered... It merely indicates that the class has some occasional broken ability that will never be allowed in a real game and should not be considered for its power.

A specialist wizard has more highest level spells slots that a sorcerer at all levels. The specialist wizard will, in general, have 1 less spell slot a level lower than that, 2 less spell slots at 2 levels lower than maximum, and 1 less spell slot at all other levels.

Note that on half the levels, the sorcerer doesn't even have spells of the same level as the wizard.

The sorcerer learns an average of 2 spells each level, one of which is at highest casting level and the other is 1-2 levels lower. Compared to the wizard gaining two spells to scribe in their spellbook each level, of course.

Yes, sorcerers are just nerfed wizards. and thanks to this board I went from "never play a specialized wizard" to "you should always double specialize"

taltamir

2009-12-12, 12:51 AM

How about we do some sort of test, to see how powerful a wizard is when it has to face 4 encounters a day without knowing what they will face ahead of time? I would be happy to run it.

You play a fighter 13, your opponent plays a wizard 13. I put you both through a series of 4 ECL 13 encounters. These will include one vanila monster, one group of monsters, one group of monsters with terrain advantages, and one caster. If you both come out alive, you two fight each other to determine the winner. If neither of you come out alive, whoever got farther is the winner. Does that sound like a fair deal?

And if so, any takers?

sounds fair to me. heck I'd like to try that with more classes, and trying either class.

Although, note that I am not saying a wizard is "weak". I am saying its not the god it is made out to be since its "god" abilities are effectively non abilities in actual game play run by human players with a human DM.

Although... this also assumes no non combat encounters. which allow the wizard to prepare entirely combat spells and no OOC utility... but that is ok; the average beat stick has no OOC utility either. So converting said OOC utility to "more combat spells" is fine.

I think we should also keep the score of what each did though... that is, if the wizard spends the first 3 encounters casting 1 buff spell and then sitting back while the fighter does all the work...

Sendal

2009-12-12, 12:58 AM

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-12, 12:59 AM

I would point out that this is nowhere near actual game play, as DnD is intended as a party game, so a character's ability to solo is not realy relevant. PvP even less so.

Having said that, it might be entertaining to watch.

Not necessarily. If one guy can undo locks, traps, the enemy, and make tea, does it matter if there is a crowd shouting "WOO!"

Just my two cents on that, though.

taltamir

2009-12-12, 01:01 AM

I would point out that this is nowhere near actual game play, as DnD is intended as a party game, so a character's ability to solo is not realy relevant. PvP even less so.

Having said that, it might be entertaining to watch.

yes. I agree entirely.

Part of my claim earlier on was that a wizard often is relegated into the role of a buff bot.

Not necessarily. If one guy can undo locks, traps, the enemy, and make tea, does it matter if there is a crowd shouting "WOO!"

Just my two cents on that, though.

nono.. he can do A OR B OR C... he has to chose each morning which to do, ASSUMING he has chosen to invest spell known in it to begin with.

tyckspoon

2009-12-12, 01:03 AM

I disagree. A plain vanilla wizard by the raw being able to punpun / chain gate solars / etc does not indicate that the class is overpowered... It merely indicates that the class has some occasional broken ability that will never be allowed in a real game and should not be considered for its power.

This is.. probably one of the most frustrating things that keeps coming up in these discussions. It feels sometimes like the side that still doesn't believe Wizards are overpowered got there by banning or severely nerfbatting everything except the tactics we all mostly agree are weak. Sure, once you cut out three-quarters of the spells in the game, the Wizard is no stronger than anyone else. But spells are the Wizard; removing most of them as a balance technique strikes me as something like eliminating the Fighter's ability to make iterative attacks because you think he's doing too much damage. It works, ok, but it completely wrecks the purpose of the class.

... and I mentioned it before, but even once you remove the degenerative cases the Wizard's spells are still better than almost anything else any other class can do. From the low end (Color Spray, Sleep) to the highest (Gate) you can find a Wiz/Sorc spell that is either among the most powerful or inarguably the most powerful thing a character of that level can do with a single action. He doesn't need to be a world-shattering god. He's still better.

Olo Demonsbane

2009-12-12, 01:03 AM

I would point out that this is nowhere near actual game play, as DnD is intended as a party game, so a character's ability to solo is not realy relevant. PvP even less so.

Having said that, it might be entertaining to watch.

Heh, true dat.

However, this is useful to determine the relative power of the characters. If the wizard NEEDS the fighter to coup de grace things for him or kill things in another manner, then this trial will show it. If the fighter NEEDS to be buffed beforehand by the wizard, then we get to see what happens if he is not.

taltamir

2009-12-12, 01:05 AM

This is.. probably one of the most frustrating things that keeps coming up in these discussions. It feels sometimes like the side that still doesn't believe Wizards are overpowered got there by banning or severely nerfbatting everything except the tactics we all mostly agree are weak. Sure, once you cut out three-quarters of the spells in the game, the Wizard is no stronger than anyone else. But spells are the Wizard; removing most of them as a balance technique strikes me as something like eliminating the Fighter's ability to make iterative attacks because you think he's doing too much damage. It works, ok, but it completely wrecks the purpose of the class.

And we do so because every DM we play with IRL does exactly that. Yes, by RAW wizards are plain GODS! As a raw wizard I would be abusing the hell out of spells, chain gating solars, etc... and at level 21 you become greater than the gods...
But I have yet to play a game like that, and I think I never will.

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-12, 01:08 AM

nono.. he can do A OR B OR C... he has to chose each morning which to do, ASSUMING he has chosen to invest spell known in it to begin with.

Depends on the level, the threats involved, and too many things to be certain on that. If some multiclassing is involved (and allowed), go Spellthief 1/Wizard 4/Unseen 10/Filler! to deal with traps and the like without spells wasted.

For this challenge, yeah, it'll probably be a little difficult to do all that in one day.

Setra

2009-12-12, 01:09 AM

nono.. he can do A OR B OR C... he has to chose each morning which to do, ASSUMING he has chosen to invest spell known in it to begin with.
Or he could do all of them by making the correct spell selection.

It doesn't take an entire spell loadout to unlock some locks, heck, you can just use Wands for that.

taltamir

2009-12-12, 01:09 AM

Depends on the level, the threats involved, and too many things to be certain on that. If some multiclassing is involved (and allowed), go Spellthief 1/Wizard 4/Unseen 10/Filler! to deal with traps and the like without spells wasted.

For this challenge, yeah, it'll probably be a little difficult to do all that in one day.

its not that unusual a fight... do people here really play 5 minute days? where the wizard goes nuclear on a preknown opponent and then just retreats for 24 hours before coming back?

taltamir

2009-12-12, 01:10 AM

Or he could do all of them by making the correct spell selection.

It doesn't take an entire spell loadout to unlock some locks, heck, you can just use Wands for that.

so can the rogue. any party member with UMD can use wands better than you actually, since as a wizard you don't get UMD, and wands can contain spells of many different spell lists, not just wizard spell list.

Olo Demonsbane

2009-12-12, 01:11 AM

For this challenge, yeah, it'll probably be a little difficult to do all that in one day.

Thats part of the point. If fighters are as enduring as the fighter-philes say, then they should be able to last through the entire thing. If wizards are as enduring as the wizard-philes say, then they should be able to cast straight through the encounters with two or three spells to take down each.

Setra

2009-12-12, 01:12 AM

so can the rogue. any party member with UMD can use wands better than you actually, since as a wizard you don't get UMD, and wands can contain spells of many different spell lists, not just wizard spell list.
The point is, a Wizard doesn't need to put his entire spell list to one task.

Sendal

2009-12-12, 01:13 AM

Its not so much banning of spells, its that all the players I play with regulate themselves. They don't chain gate solars, not because the DM will hit them with the nearest book, but because they know its bad for the game.

Is wizard overpowered?

the class? yes, you can do some silly things with it.

That wizard over there? 99 times out of 100: no. Hes powerful, true, but hes not OVER powered, because the player didn't make him that way.

I would say that any character that can solo an encounter intended for the whole party without breaking a sweat is overpowered, and thats not limited to wizards. Note this is related to expectations, and criticaly the rest of the party. A chain-gating unfettered wizard might even be balanced, if everyones playing a character equaly insane.

Thats part of the point. If fighters are as enduring as the fighter-philes say, then they should be able to last through the entire thing. If wizards are as enduring as the wizard-philes say, then they should be able to cast straight through the encounters with two or three spells to take down each.

I suspect we'd find them both dead before the end, without some reasonable optimisation.

Saintjebus

2009-12-12, 01:17 AM

For those who are saying that they've never seen a game with the level of optimization normally seen on the boards, I would invite you to do a search on the boards for "Team Solars". It is in fact a game with theoretical optimization in mind from the get-go.

Olo Demonsbane

2009-12-12, 01:17 AM

Its not so much banning of spells, its that all the players I play with regulate themselves. They don't chain gate solars, not because the DM will hit them with the nearest book, but because they know its bad for the game.

Is wizard overpowered?

the class? yes, you can do some silly things with it.

That wizard over there? 99 times out of 100: no. Hes powerful, true, but hes not OVER powered, because the player didn't make him that way.

I would say that any character that can solo an encounter intended for the whole party without breaking a sweat is overpowered, and thats not limited to wizards. Note this is related to expectations, and criticaly the rest of the party. A chain-gating unfettered wizard might even be balanced, if everyones playing a character equaly insane.

I don't regulate myself that much, but I simply convince the DM to give the other player(s) some advantages. Last time I played a wizard, at level 3, I persuaded the DM to give the paladin the LA +4 Half Celestial template at LA +1. The last time I played a druid, I was non gestalt while everyone else in the party was.

EDIT: I agree with you there. I'm not a bad optimizer myself, and this is not intended to be a cake walk. I just threw in "fight to the death if they both get through" as an eventuality.

taltamir

2009-12-12, 01:18 AM

I just designed a theoretical level 15 (Effective) wizard EVOCATION specialist who abuses metamagic to throw around 540 damage (no dice roll, save for half) fireballs. that is btw quite a sub par use of metamagic abuse. With orb spells or even better, ennervation / ability drain type spells being better.

No save, just die is easily abuseable... as it stands, I think the only thing that actually needs banning is metamagic as a whole, and specific spells need to be reined in. I intend to make a comprehensive list.

Lycanthromancer

2009-12-12, 01:21 AM

I suspect we'd find them both dead before the end, without some reasonable optimisation.And I suspect that even when the wizard wins, someone will start reviling it as TO, since their games have already nerfed/banned anything used to win the test.

We've already seen someone who thinks that simply using things like shrink item or dominate person is TO, so how exactly will the test get anybody anywhere?

It's entertaining, sure, but not exactly useful.

Also, is the test using RAW? With what books? With or without errata? Which errata? Is crafting allowed? PrCs? How much optimization is actually allowed, since one could conceivably have been pulling in solars since about level 5 or so?

taltamir

2009-12-12, 01:28 AM

my favorite beat stick abuse is the great cleave... "infinite free attacks as long as you kill a creature with previous attack" goes a long way in specific situations.

BTW, what is TO?

Sendal

2009-12-12, 01:31 AM

its not a fair test, for a whole bunch of reasons.

A fair test would be a survey of a large number of players and DMs who have wizards in their partys, asking "Is your wizard overpowered", seen as the argument that they are not is that the vast majority don't utilise the class's whole potential.

I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting that a theoreticaly optimised wizard isn't rediculously powerful.

Lycanthromancer

2009-12-12, 01:31 AM

my favorite beat stick abuse is the great cleave... "infinite free attacks as long as you kill a creature with previous attack" goes a long way in specific situations.

BTW, what is TO?Theoretical Optimization.

its not a fair test, for a whole bunch of reasons.Yup. Primarily because it's wizard vs fighter.

We've already seen that a wizard 13 is more powerful than a fighter 20 (gear and all), after all. Fighter 13s are considerably weaker (unless you're using DM fiat to boost them as was mentioned earlier, of course).

Sharkman1231

2009-12-12, 01:34 AM

I've checked this first 6 pages for potential ninjas, I think I'm okay. Paladins certainly MAD, be they can be really powerful too. But, in the first post, one of the mounts for the pally was a unicorn. That's impossible cuz pallys can only have LG followers and companions, while unicorns are ALWAYS CG.
(I mean always in the sense of 99.75% are CG, and the remainder would probably be too special to become mounts)

I may add more to this thread once I get some sleep.

EDIT: minor grammar fixes
lack of sleep != good grammar
:-)

Olo Demonsbane

2009-12-12, 01:40 AM

Also, is the test using RAW? With what books? With or without errata? Which errata? Is crafting allowed? PrCs? How much optimization is actually allowed, since one could conceivably have been pulling in solars since about level 5 or so?

We'd be using is the ToS rule set (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124216).

sofawall

2009-12-12, 01:45 AM

I just designed a theoretical level 15 (Effective) wizard EVOCATION specialist who abuses metamagic to throw around 540 damage (no dice roll, save for half) fireballs.

No you didn't.

PhoenixRivers

2009-12-12, 01:52 AM

TBH, the reason that a wizard is overpowered is not that it can beat a fighter in a straight up fight (though, with skill, it almost always can).

The reason that a wizard is Tier 1 is that while melee classes play the damage game, wizards bypass it.

A low level fighter/barb, on a charge, can likely hit 20-40 damage, if he hits.
A low level wizard, with a grease or a glitterdust, can take an enemy, regardless of HP, and neutralize it with a roll.

At mid level, that fighter/barb can, on a charge, hit 40-70 damage.
That wizard can neutralize multiple opponents with a single black tentacles, regardless of HP.

At high levels, that fighter may hit up to 100 damage on a charge.
That wizard can seperate and mitigate multiple enemies with solid fog, wall of force, or the like.

Basically, the fighter chews through HP. The wizard chews through enemies.

It's not that the wizard beats the fighter at the game. They're playing different games entirely.

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-12, 04:23 AM

its not that unusual a fight... do people here really play 5 minute days? where the wizard goes nuclear on a preknown opponent and then just retreats for 24 hours before coming back?

Nope, but, at higher levels, my hypothetical Unseen Seer bypasses the need to prepare rogue-like spells, allowing him to prepare others instead. Currently, I'm in a PbP, as an Unseen Seer, where I've already used effectively all of my 2nd level slots and am down to two 3rd level slots (the highest I have, at the moment) and a few greases.

Never in my life have I gone nuclear. It does not mean that I have not felt the pressure of running low on higher level spell slots, but I have been able to end the day with either one or having spent the last one in the last fight.

Eldariel

2009-12-12, 06:11 AM

actually its more along the lines of the DM not knowing what WE will do and being unable to predict the future themselves they cannot predict the future in game. Unless HEAVILY railroaded.

This is something you can bypass as a good DM; instead of figuring out what will happen, once X happens and if the Wizard had properly found out about it, allow the Wizard to e.g. alter his spell preparations or such, as he would have had he known beforehand. The other option, of course, is forcing the events that were divined.

As for Charm Person not working, that's just bad DMing. If it doesn't work due to target being invalid, due to magical protection (that can always be disabled) or such? That's fair. If it doesn't work 'cause DM says so, that person shouldn't be DMing a rules-using game. Rules exist as a medium between the DM and the players and they must be followed on both sides, and deviations must be accepted on both sides. Using things the players don't know about is all fine and good, but altering how the players' spells work without telling them means their characters are being denied information they would have IC.

PhoenixRivers

2009-12-12, 06:41 AM

This is something you can bypass as a good DM; instead of figuring out what will happen, once X happens and if the Wizard had properly found out about it, allow the Wizard to e.g. alter his spell preparations or such, as he would have had he known beforehand. The other option, of course, is forcing the events that were divined.

As for Charm Person not working, that's just bad DMing. If it doesn't work due to target being invalid, due to magical protection (that can always be disabled) or such? That's fair. If it doesn't work 'cause DM says so, that person shouldn't be DMing a rules-using game. Rules exist as a medium between the DM and the players and they must be followed on both sides, and deviations must be accepted on both sides. Using things the players don't know about is all fine and good, but altering how the players' spells work without telling them means their characters are being denied information they would have IC.

+1.

For example: Divination (the spell). Ask a question, get an answer.

I like, "Within the next week, when will XXX happen?"

I don't give the caster an answer. However, if XXX happens during that week, the divination informed the caster.

For example, a wizard asks daily: "Within the next week, when is the next time the door to my inner sanctum is opened when I am not within 5 feet of it?"

Now, if that door is opened, the wizard knew about it a week before. I provide a specific buff list and setup for if he's informed, and a long term only buff list/setup for if he's not. Note: The above divination bypasses a lot. In fact, even if the person opening the door is under Mind Blank, I still get a straight answer. Because I'm not gaining information about him. I don't care WHO'S intruding at this stage. I care that one of my defenses was breached.

I assume I go off the former until the latter is triggered.

Kurald Galain

2009-12-12, 07:02 AM

This is something you can bypass as a good DM; instead of figuring out what will happen, once X happens and if the Wizard had properly found out about it, allow the Wizard to e.g. alter his spell preparations or such, as he would have had he known beforehand.

Yes. This even happens in live action roleplaying: some LARPs have a "vision" ability that allows you to rewind the scene you're in so that you know what would have happened and replay it while doing something different.

Emmerask

2009-12-12, 07:03 AM

+1.

For example: Divination (the spell). Ask a question, get an answer.

I like, "Within the next week, when will XXX happen?"

I don't give the caster an answer. However, if XXX happens during that week, the divination informed the caster.

For example, a wizard asks daily: "Within the next week, when is the next time the door to my inner sanctum is opened when I am not within 5 feet of it?"

Now, if that door is opened, the wizard knew about it a week before. I provide a specific buff list and setup for if he's informed, and a long term only buff list/setup for if he's not. Note: The above divination bypasses a lot. In fact, even if the person opening the door is under Mind Blank, I still get a straight answer. Because I'm not gaining information about him. I don't care WHO'S intruding at this stage. I care that one of my defenses was breached.

I assume I go off the former until the latter is triggered.

"The advice can be as simple as a short phrase, or it might take the form of a cryptic rhyme or omen."

Hmm cryptic rhyme or omen yes this spell is useless if the dm wants it to be :smallwink::smallwink:

PhoenixRivers

2009-12-12, 07:18 AM

"The advice can be as simple as a short phrase, or it might take the form of a cryptic rhyme or omen."

Hmm cryptic rhyme or omen yes this spell is useless if the dm wants it to be :smallwink::smallwink:

So, your argument is that wizards are not overpowered is that the DM can fiat himself to make his own wizards useless? :smallwink:

EDIT: Incidentally, I have a name for a DM that uses any opportunity or flexibility in the wording to give his players the shaft. I call such people, "jerks".

I don't play with jerks. Problem solved.

When I'm playing, I am of the impression that Divinations are tools that my players are expected to use to gain information, not spells that they are expected to avoid due to malefic faustian interpretations of the spells.

Kesnit

2009-12-12, 07:52 AM

So, your argument is that wizards are not overpowered is that the DM can fiat himself to make his own wizards useless? :smallwink:

So spells should only be interpreted RAW when they favor the player? Any DM who uses RAW is a jerk?

taltamir

2009-12-12, 08:35 AM

Theoretical Optimization.

It comes up ALL THE TIME in CRPG implementations, I routinely have a fighter kill more than 10 enemies a round in those.

And some inexperienced DMs might give you a typical "a tribe of goblins" adventure where it could also come into play. Although it is much rarer in PnP due to most people NOT wanting to slay a bunch of kobolds / goblins / rats early on.

Emmerask

2009-12-12, 08:45 AM

So spells should only be interpreted RAW when they favor the player? Any DM who uses RAW is a jerk?

exactly its pretty amusing anything in favor of the wizard (or insert random tier 1 class) is A Okay everything in favor of game balance is OMFG DM FIAT ...YOU SUCK AT DMING AND AT LIFE :smallbiggrin:

Emmerask

2009-12-12, 08:50 AM

Anyway back to topic to me RAW wizards are completly overpowered and the only question would be why they didn´t destroy he multiverse as off yet.

In actual gameplay they are still more powerfull then other classes in most situations but to a much MUCH lesser degree then in RAW.

PhoenixRivers

2009-12-12, 09:03 AM

So spells should only be interpreted RAW when they favor the player? Any DM who uses RAW is a jerk?

*coughstrawmancough*

I didn't say that any DM who uses RAW is a jerk. That's your twisted misinterpretation of what I said. I can see why you did it. It's a really easy point to argue against.

Pity it wasn't mine.

My point is that "cryptic phrase or omen" does not need to be interpreted as "grab out a 64bit encryption matrix and show those divination casting chumps that I have the ability to thwart anything they do".

It's an optional choice. See?

The advice can be as simple as a short phrase, or it might take the form of a cryptic rhyme or omen.
It can also be a straightforward answer. Even if not, an omen or cryptic phrase doesn't need to be useless, as you stated. Look at OOTS. "When the goat turns red strike true." Cryptic? Yes. Useful when needed? Yes.

So, where is your point strawmanning? When you disregard that a DM who interprets it my way is ALSO using RAW. And if my own suggested way is RAW? How exactly am I arguing against it?

No, my argument is that a DM is a jerk when he uses a choice the rules give him as an excuse to thwart every attempt the player makes at using spells as they're intended to be used.

The divination above? Doesn't give the wizard a clue about what is in the sanctum. It's vague, it leaves a lot of information open to interpretation. In short, it paints an incomplete picture of the future, much in keeping with the feel of the spell.

taltamir

2009-12-12, 09:05 AM

but which other classes. Yes, in RAWland they are ubergods...
In actual gameplay they are stronger than some other classes... but obviously those class are things like fighter, rogue, monk...
What about comparing them to bard, cleric, druid, etc?

Are wizards IN ACTUAL GAMEPLAY overpowered compared to:
T1: Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, Erudite
T2: Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Psion, Binder (with access to online vestiges)
T3: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior

Obviously if you keep comparing actual gameplay wizard to T4, T5, and T6 characters they will be overpowering. that is because those tier classes suck in their own right.

The Gilded Duke

2009-12-12, 09:14 AM

I'm playing through City of the Spider queen playing an Illusionist.
First session was pretty rough while we were still getting used to our characters.

As we approached the first drow city though, my wizard knew he was going to be facing drow. The Drow's spell resistance has beaten my scrying attempts so far, so I don't have advance knowledge of the encounters.

For spells I prepared no spells that allowed spell resistance, a series of illusions, some battlefield control spells, and haste.
We encountered an elder black pudding, normally it wouldn't have been difficult, illusion vs mindless creature tends to be an automatic win, however it got the jump on the rogue. The cleric and the wizard managed to rescue the rogue while the rest of the party scared the pudding away.

Then we got attacked by a drow ambush party with an evoker. Won initiative, used black tentacles, they all died.

The next day we entered the city itself. Used disintegrate to remove a door. A fortified group of drow started to attack us. The cleric tanked with tower shield, and then turned the undead who were attacking.

Black Tentacles shut down the enemy wizard. The Drow Poison was ineffective as the cleric had cast delay poison on all of us. After the wizard was shut down Major Image stopped the ranged attacks of the archers, and blocked line of sight of the melee fighters.

The rest of the party then took out the flat footed drow easily.

Wizard was very powerful without exact knowledge of what was faced. The Elder Black Pudding was a complete surprise. Was able to use battlefield control spells to help save a party member (Stone to Mud).

While fighters can be better then the grapple mod of Black Tentacles they usually can't grapple as many people at once. Also, Black Tentacles just costs a spell slot, not even a feat.

Now people can be immune to grapple. Wizards can dispel the buffs that make them immune. Fighters cannot. Fighters also can't disable mindless creatures with a single action.

The Cleric was pretty awesome though, we started working together better after sitting down and comparing prepared / known spells. He prepares more evocation spells then normal (I have it banned) and I have more buff and battlefield control spells prepared then normal. Also Delay Poison is one of the best spells ever.

If we have a similar talk with the Spellthief we should be even more effective. Get her casting both wizard and cleric spells, in addition to doing rogue stuff. Defiantly would help with the action economy. Already have her stealing an improved invisibility in the morning. Someone with heal spells and tumble ranks would be amazing.

The Gilded Duke

2009-12-12, 09:18 AM

Also, dealing with precision immune things:

Undead: Turning, Many anti-undead spells, mindless creature shut down by illusions, many spells, items and feats to sneak attack undead

Plants: Many have elemental vulnerability. Some are mindless and can be shut down by illusions. Some have limited mobility.

Elementals: Many have elemental vulnerability. Perhaps the toughest group to deal with.

Constructs: Many anti-construct spells, mindless creatures shut down by illusions, many spells, items and feats to sneak attack constructs.

Oozes: Most of them are mindless. Shut them down with illusion.

Aharon

2009-12-12, 09:19 AM

Thrice Dead Cat

2009-12-12, 09:29 AM

@Phoenix
I don't disagree that you can bind the nightmare, but Astral Projection doesn't work that way. In Manual of the Planes, it was stated that item copies fade when they leave the Astral Plane. You could only sell them to denizens of the Astral - which the DM might rule to be hostile. The upside: you got your party in an adventure trying to be planar merchants :smallbiggrin:

Still very powerful and useful, though.

Edit: didn't see this topic has 8 pages, sorry if this tidbit was already mentioned.

The issue was mentioned a while back. Interesting to find that WotC managed to nip that piece of abuse elsewhere, though.

I also have to agree with The Gilded Duke here. Even when options A and B fail, C, D, and Omega can manage to save the day for a party. It's reasons like that that I like to think more about the Tier systems displaying overall versatility than "MOAR DAMAGE" or "MOAR OPTIONS." Very slight difference between the first and the last there, but I find it very important.

Kesnit

2009-12-12, 09:37 AM

*coughstrawmancough*

I didn't say that any DM who uses RAW is a jerk. That's your twisted misinterpretation of what I said. I can see why you did it. It's a really easy point to argue against.

Pity it wasn't mine.

Except that is exactly what you said. The comment you quoted pointed out that the answer the WIZ gets does not have to be clear answer. You said any DM who gave a cryptic answer would be a jerk.

My point is that "cryptic phrase or omen" does not need to be interpreted as "grab out a 64bit encryption matrix and show those divination casting chumps that I have the ability to thwart anything they do".

But nothing says it can't. RAW, it can be anything the DM wants it to be.

It's an optional choice. See?

It's the DM's choice.

It can also be a straightforward answer. Even if not, an omen or cryptic phrase doesn't need to be useless, as you stated.

I never said it had to be useless. It can be the answer the everything, but so confusing that no one - IC or OOC - would understand it until it came to pass.

Yes, it CAN be a straightforward answer. It does not HAVE TO BE.

How exactly am I arguing against it?

You said any DM who interpreted it my way is a "jerk."

No, my argument is that a DM is a jerk when he uses a choice the rules give him as an excuse to thwart every attempt the player makes at using spells as they're intended to be used.

So you say it again... Any DM who interprets RAW is a jerk. Because, like it or not, any DM who gives a cryptic answer is doing exactly what the spell description allows.

The divination above? Doesn't give the wizard a clue about what is in the sanctum.

Which the rules as written allow. Nothing in the rules requires the DM to open their notes and show them to the WIZ's player.

lord_khaine

2009-12-12, 10:18 AM

Except that is exactly what you said. The comment you quoted pointed out that the answer the WIZ gets does not have to be clear answer. You said any DM who gave a cryptic answer would be a jerk.

Quote:
My point is that "cryptic phrase or omen" does not need to be interpreted as "grab out a 64bit encryption matrix and show those divination casting chumps that I have the ability to thwart anything they do".

But nothing says it can't. RAW, it can be anything the DM wants it to be.

I have to agree here, im really think its the Wizard who is a jerk for trying to abuse divination to such a degree, one thing is to get hints about what is to come, its quite another thing to expect exact time and place for when your inner sanctum will get invadet next.

erikun

2009-12-12, 10:20 AM

I do have to question a DM who allows spells in his/her game but never allows them to have any effect, such as every target of Charm Person being immune or always making their save, or every creature refusing service with Planar Binding, or Contact Other Plane never giving any meaningful answer. After all, there will be times when spells and strategies will be rendered ineffective (The white dragon was actually a red in disguise!), when it happens every time under any circumstance is just bad DMing.

It's like allowing a rogue in a campaign where you know everything is immune to sneak attack and always makes its spot checks. It's not fair to the player of the rogue, who had assumed that their abilities would not intentionally be rendered impotent by the DM.

Saintjebus

2009-12-12, 10:39 AM

*snip*
It's like allowing a rogue in a campaign where you know everything is immune to sneak attack and always makes its spot checks. It's not fair to the player of the rogue, who had assumed that their abilities would not intentionally be rendered impotent by the DM.

As someone who has played with a DM that does something like this, I can say that it is very frustrating for a player. I had a melee type(ToB) that kept having an issue with getting grappled. Since this would invalidate my player while I was grappled, I took steps to prevent this. I got someone to cast Freedom of Movement on me. The next encounter happened to be a [Whatever monster has a ton of tentacles... grell, i think]. I assumed that my freedom of movement spell would mean that I wouldn't be able to be grappled. Unfortunately, his answer was
"It has 10 tentacles, so you still have to make a grapple check. Freedom of
Movement doesn't protect you."

That was really frustrating to have a valid tactic disabled only because he wanted his monster to be a challenge. Not saying that he was a bad dm, because he wasn't, but that the call was bad, and lessened my fun.

Kesnit

2009-12-12, 10:42 AM

I do have to question a DM who allows spells in his/her game but never allows them to have any effect, such as every target of Charm Person being immune

No one has said every target of Charm Person should be immune. Just that it isn't unreasonable for a high-level NPC to have immunity. Or have other people in the room who can catch the caster using Charm Person.

or always making their save, or every creature refusing service with Planar Binding, or Contact Other Plane never giving any meaningful answer.

Again, no one has said neither of these spells should never work. Both spells are situational. If the caster is asking for something that the creature in question would consider reasonable, there is no reason the spell wouldn't work the way the caster wants. If the caster takes extra steps to make it work, then there should be a better (though still not 100%) chance it will work.

OTOH, casting "Contact Other Plane" should not require the DM to hand over their notes to the caster. The puzzle doesn't have to be something that is only solved in hindsight (though that is RAW). It could be something that requires more thought and research to solve.

In other words, the spells should be tools, not the end-all, be-all.

After all, there will be times when spells and strategies will be rendered ineffective (The white dragon was actually a red in disguise!), when it happens every time under any circumstance is just bad DMing.

No argument here.

porpentine

2009-12-12, 10:45 AM

I agree with the last-but-one-post, and Kesnit - I think you're missing the point, wilfully or not.

The thread is asking 'Is the Wizard overpowered?'. Your answer is, 'Yes, but not if the DM scotches that power.' Yes?

(1) That is not an argument against the wizard being overpowered. Quite the opposite, as others have pointed out. You're scotching the wizard's abilities because he is problematically powerful. So...what are you arguing for?

(2) DM Fiat can be over-used. With great power comes great responsibility. What others are trying to point out to you is that if you consistently baffle the wizard's spells, you will lose your players' trust. That is why such over-use is an example of bad DMing. In a nutshell, you're being unfair to a player who has already created a wizard PC. If you don't want certain spells to work, you should spell it out before the game, in a houserules doc. You shouldn't leave it to the player (wizard or otherwise) to discover, by trial and error, where and how he has been nerfed. That's cruel and pointless. It wastes the player's time, and yours. See?

(3) Any discussion of any class balance can be set aside if you bring in the 'But' of DM Fiat. Wizard more powerful than fighter? Fiat it. Monk underpowered? Fiat it.

If this 'solves' the arguments, then all classes are equal. There are no problems with class balance, ever. But that isn't true. There are issues, and sometimes problems, because of these inequalities.

Invoking Rule Zero doesn't prove or disprove these balance issues. And as far as I can tell, that's all you're doing...or did you have another point?

shadow_archmagi

2009-12-12, 10:59 AM

spells should be tools, not the end-all, be-all.

Ultimately, that's what all class features are. The wizard just happens to get the biggest tool box and that tool box also happens to contain some of the nicest tools.

If the DM chooses to make these tools smaller and less valuable, and unplug his power drill, then yes, wizard will be significantly weaker.

Spontaneously declaring "No, that doesn't work in this situation" is irritating and unpleasant if it *should* work. Declaring that the king is immune to Charm Person is just as annoying as saying all the bandits have DR 50/-

Of course, if the king is immune because he has some sort of protective item that the players can discover and disable, that is, at least, a bit more reasonable.

The Gilded Duke

2009-12-12, 11:06 AM

No one has said every target of Charm Person should be immune. Just that it isn't unreasonable for a high-level NPC to have immunity. Or have other people in the room who can catch the caster using Charm Person.

Why should a high level npc arbitrarily be immune?
They might secretly be undead?
They might have protection from evil cast on them?
They might have spell resistance?
They might have good saves?

But there are ways to get around all of those
If they are undead cast control undead or rebuke if you are able to.
If they have protection from evil, dispel the protection first.
If they have spell resistance use assay resistance.
If they have good saves, up your DC or damage their wisdom first.

Just making someone completely immune to mind control because they are high level or plot important seems very similar to making them invulnerable for plot reasons. Why shouldn't the pcs be able to charm a king?

As far as someone observing them casting a spell, I like that method of blocking much better, however there are ways to get around it, such as having a silent and stilled charm person, or having charm person as a spell like ability, or making the charm person spell disguised, or corrupting the observers ahead of time.

Defenses against mind control are great, but just flat immunity to it?

erikun

2009-12-12, 11:18 AM

I have to agree that, if something doesn't work, then it shouldn't work for a reason.

The king immune to Charm Person? It's probably because he has a wizard or cleric on staff to cast spells to prevent it. Or the king is a spellcaster himself. In that sense, the players have a better idea what is going on and learn a way to bypass it. Cast Dispel Magic first? Bribe the wizard to not cast the spell today?

I don't see why there would be a problem with Planar Binding, say, a Nightmare. Indeed, using Astral Projection is actually quite dangerous, between Githyanki raiders and Astral Dreadnoughts. And that's assuming you can trust the traders at the other end - the Nightmare may politely take you to a Githyanki or Efreet trading camp, neither of which is a pleasant place for a low level wizard.

Contact Another Plane is the other one. Why would "will anyone break into my house within the next week" give an obscure answer? It should be Yea or Nay. The only time it should misread or give out gibberish is if someone is using magic to obscure the truth. And even then, it becomes a plot hook rather than DM obstruction.

Now, I've DMed before, so I know that the DM won't have all the answers all the time. Still, it's generally a better idea to allow a player to do whatever unless you feel they are intentionally breaking the game. If a player is trying to abuse a game mechanic, it is better to do away with the bothersome mechanic that just completely ban the spell in question. Gating a Solar to use Wish? Rule that summoned creatures don't need to use abilities that you expend XP (as spells) unless the creature feels it is necessary. Astral Projection to sell items in Sigil? Either rule that Sigil merchants are wise to such trickery, or that there is no Sigil. Fabricating thousands of swords from a Wall of Iron? Point out to the player that nobody is interested in purchasing 10,000 mundane swords at once.

Ultimately, it is a bad idea to say no, you can't do that without a good reason for doing so. Players understand reasons, and it gives them a way to get what they want in-game. Simply preventing them from doing something without a reason just frustrates players out-of-game.

jiriku

2009-12-12, 11:40 AM

Even overlooking the obvious fact that your debate opponent doesn't appreciate the goodness that comes from being batman, he is grossly underestimating the damage potential of a blasty wizard. An optimized blaster wizard of level 13+ can deal enough no-save, no-SR damage to one-shot any CR-appropriate monster out of the monster manual, he can do it repeatedly throughout the day, and thanks to celerity he can do it before his opponents act even if he loses initiative.

Glimbur

2009-12-12, 11:51 AM

and thanks to celerity he can do it before his opponents act even if he loses initiative.

Can't use an immediate action if you're flatfooted. Foresight gets around this, but it's a 9th level spell.

HamHam

2009-12-12, 12:37 PM

I don't really understand why RAW technicalities even need to come into this. The wizard is overpowered simply by doing any of the following:

1) Casting Polymorph.

2) Applying metamagic to Enervation.

3) Preparing Glitterdust.

4) Casting Overland Flight.

5) Casting Time Stop

6) Scrying.

7) Taking Craft Contingent Spell.

8) Taking Craft Wonderious Item.

9) Having Wands and Scrolls

10) Casting any spell that is not Evocation or Conjuration.

nepphi

2009-12-12, 01:34 PM

DM excluded, the wizard is at the very least entirely out of scale to the other classes. There's a reason that the first step in most TO challenges that people put forward is "ok, wizard of X level." It's the MasterKey.

DM factored in, it becomes a bit more nuanced. Wizards still channel more raw power than any other class, just because of the nature of spell slots and saves and no-saves, etc. The DM is a powerful tool for applying moderation and balance however, and making sure the wizard's abilities fit within the scope of the game.

So rather than arguing that with a DM the wizard isn't overpowered (as I always assume cooperative playing spirit between players and DM, since no other arrangement is palatable to me), I argue that it doesn't -matter- to most groups, since people tend to try to adopt a playstyle that works for everyone.

Obviously there are grand exceptions, but just a point I like to put forward.