PDA

View Full Version : At which levels do wizards surpass other classes(3.5e)?



randomhero00
2009-12-31, 04:58 PM
Just out of curiosity really. For instance, around 5 or 6 or so, a (been awhile since I've played with one) kineticist or whatever psion tends to out power a wizard I think since blasty spells are still awesome at that level. Same goes for all the tier 1 and 2 classes (cleric, druid, sorcerer...) Throw in the lower tiered classes if you want too if you're really feeling analytical.

Of course in practical games with good DMs I don't think they're all that OP (don't want to make the thread about that though...) but for the purposes of this thread lets assume 1 encounter, all spells available, with an optimized party against a big bad boss + minions. No cheese of course.

It seems to me like it takes wizards quite awhile to surpass most classes.

I'd go something (roughly) like;
1-2 physical classes
3-4 martial from ToB
5-8 psion
9-11 druid/cleric
12-15 sorc
16+ wizard

Probably off a level or so here and there but that's it in a nutshell for my picks.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 05:00 PM
There is not a single level where blasty spells are awesome. The Wizard is casting crowd control spells from level 1.

Spellcasters (this includes psionicists here) in general tend to outshine non-spellcasters at around fifth level or so.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 05:03 PM
I would go earlier. Wizards/Sorcs can start outshining the rest of the party with ease at level 9. Mind you, the other tier 1 classes are also fine at this level, but mobs are no longer one hit kills for melee chars, while the casters have a nice variety of encounter enders. The good utility spells, like teleport and permanency are available. Contingency is coming shortly.

Now, it gets more drastic later, sure, and optimization levels may change the exact point, but it definitely doesn't take until level 14+ unless your wizard is pretty incompetent.

randomhero00
2009-12-31, 05:04 PM
There is not a single level where blasty spells are awesome. The Wizard is casting crowd control spells from level 1.

Spellcasters (this includes psionicists here) in general tend to outshine non-spellcasters at around fifth level or so.

Well I guess this goes toward good DMs and differing experiences. My DMs usually throw things at us that aren't very CCable. Especially when bosses are concerned. If we bring in extra cheese like leadership to keep minions busy they're pretty much auto killed (hey NPCs can have leadership too..) or they have items that give them free movement, they're immune to mind effects...etc. And/or we're put in situations where we can't get certain spells off like web needs points in space to be cast upon and we're in tall grass or something.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 05:05 PM
Well I guess this goes toward good DMs and differing experiences. My DMs usually throw things at us that aren't very CCable. Especially when bosses are concerned. If we bring in extra cheese like leadership to keep minions busy they're pretty much auto killed (hey NPCs can have leadership too..) or they have items that give them free movement, they're immune to mind effects...etc. And/or we're put in situations where we can't get certain spells off like web needs points in space to be cast upon and we're in tall grass or something.

Random immunities, freedom of movement en masse, autokilling minions and other forms of DM fiat do not constitute good DMing.

Saph
2009-12-31, 05:07 PM
The general rule is that full casters start to significantly outshine melee classes for about the second half of the game, ie level 11 onwards, and completely dominate from level 15 onwards.

There are too many classes to balance them all, but my ranking would be something like this:

Levels 1-4: Druid/ToB > Wizard
Levels 5-10: Druid > ToB/Wizard (but it's close)
Levels 11-14: Druid/Wizard > ToB
Levels 15-20: Wizard > Druid > ToB

Druids and ToB classes rule the roost at low levels, levels 5-10 are reasonably balanced, and casters pull ahead more and more each level beyond that. Wizards start out slow, but finish in the lead.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 05:12 PM
Agreed. I'd put wizards at the top of the heap at level 20. Other full casters are damn close, though.

Druid probably has the most power overall from 1-20, yeah. It's never actually a weak class.

randomhero00
2009-12-31, 05:12 PM
Random immunities, freedom of movement en masse, autokilling minions and other forms of DM fiat do not constitute good DMing.

I don't mean autokill literally. And he only uses cheese to counter cheese. Keeping the game fun and challenging is exactly what constitutes good DMing. Everything that's available to the players is more easily available to the DM (and then some). A competent DM should have no problem balancing out the game frankly.

I'm closest to agreeing with Saph. But I think a druid can outshine a wiz at level 9. They're just going to be more useful to a party. Same with cleric probably.

olelia
2009-12-31, 05:16 PM
Not necessarily, IE: the level 20 raging barbarian gets countered by a level 1 grease spell.

randomhero00
2009-12-31, 05:20 PM
Not necessarily, IE: the level 20 raging barbarian gets countered by a level 1 grease spell.

Not necessarily what? Not sure what that is in response to. I'd also hope by level 20 he'd have some balance. The DC is only 10.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 05:22 PM
Not necessarily what? Not sure what that is in response to. I'd also hope by level 20 he'd have some balance. The DC is only 10.

Yeah but the Reflex DC will be pretty high by level 20. Barbarians only have a +6 modifier to Reflex at level 20!

Saph
2009-12-31, 05:29 PM
I'm closest to agreeing with Saph. But I think a druid can outshine a wiz at level 9. They're just going to be more useful to a party. Same with cleric probably.

Probably. A core level 9 druid has Wild Shape (large), which means they can go around as a Dire Lion or Brown Bear, use Natural Spell to simultaneously buff themselves and their animal companion, and eat anything that gets in their way.

A level 9 wizard is still very useful, but if they're smart they'll function more as a buffer and debuffer, letting the melee characters handle most things and only bringing out the big guns when they're really needed. Oddly enough, I think it's a wizard's utility spells (like Teleport) that I'd find most useful around that level.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 05:32 PM
I don't mean autokill literally. And he only uses cheese to counter cheese. Keeping the game fun and challenging is exactly what constitutes good DMing. Everything that's available to the players is more easily available to the DM (and then some). A competent DM should have no problem balancing out the game frankly.

I'm closest to agreeing with Saph. But I think a druid can outshine a wiz at level 9. They're just going to be more useful to a party. Same with cleric probably.

Using spells as written is not equivalent to inventing random immunities.

Because someone casts web or grease instead of blasting, claiming the enemies are immune proves absolutely nothing about the balance of wizards vs others....it simply proves that the DM is using fiat to remove anything he dislikes or finds imbalancing.

So, it's irrelevant because it's way outside of RAW, but relying on large amounts of fiat...especially at low levels, is bad DMing. Even worse, using fiat at random results in a poor game. If you really, really, hate the spell Web, ban it, and tell players up front. Don't have them waste a spell known and a slot on it to find out everyone in your world happens to be immune.

Crow
2009-12-31, 05:37 PM
Usually level 9 is where melee classes become an afterthought. Could be lower depending on how optimized or not the group is. Rarely is it higher though.

randomhero00
2009-12-31, 05:37 PM
Using spells as written is not equivalent to inventing random immunities.

Because someone casts web or grease instead of blasting, claiming the enemies are immune proves absolutely nothing about the balance of wizards vs others....it simply proves that the DM is using fiat to remove anything he dislikes or finds imbalancing.

So, it's irrelevant because it's way outside of RAW, but relying on large amounts of fiat...especially at low levels, is bad DMing. Even worse, using fiat at random results in a poor game. If you really, really, hate the spell Web, ban it, and tell players up front. Don't have them waste a spell known and a slot on it to find out everyone in your world happens to be immune.

I *never* said it was at random or that he made them up. Undead for instance are naturally immune to a lot of things. Your putting words in my mouth. Web can and has been useful, its just not always the most useful thing to do in my games. That was my only point. Things have worked in our favor before too.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 05:43 PM
I *never* said it was at random or that he made them up. Undead for instance are naturally immune to a lot of things. Your putting words in my mouth. Web can and has been useful, its just not always the most useful thing to do in my games. That was my only point. Things have worked in our favor before too.

Undead are naturally immune to mind-affecting effects, and ability damage. That leaves a lot of wiggle room.

Undead really aren't the 'spellcaster killers' people seem to think they are.

(Nor are golems, for that matter.)

randomhero00
2009-12-31, 05:47 PM
Yeah but the Reflex DC will be pretty high by level 20. Barbarians only have a +6 modifier to Reflex at level 20!

Grease has always been oddly worded to me and personally I house rule that its not a 1.reflex, 2.balance if move, 3.then reflex if failed balance check. It's just a balance DC 10, (+move at half speed) then if you fail by more than 5 you roll reflex. This is much more in line with the spell IMO. And I think what they may have originally intended anyway.

Undead was just one example, hence the "for instance."

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 05:48 PM
I *never* said it was at random or that he made them up. Undead for instance are naturally immune to a lot of things. Your putting words in my mouth. Web can and has been useful, its just not always the most useful thing to do in my games. That was my only point. Things have worked in our favor before too.

At the level you get web, freedom of movement is not available, as it's two spell levels higher. Grease, 3 spell levels.

You replied to a post about the imbalance happening at level 5, remember?

If they're skeletons, how do they have freedom of movement? Does every one have a magic item continuously granting the bennies of a level 4 spell? How does this affect WBL?

Yes...you can have situations in which one trick does not work. If you are trying to fix balance, though...that's irrelevant. The caster just uses a different spell. Grease will drop the skeletons just fine.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 05:50 PM
Grease has always been oddly worded to me and personally I house rule that its not a 1.reflex, 2.balance if move, 3.then reflex if failed balance check. It's just a balance DC 10, (+move at half speed) then if you fail by more than 5 you roll reflex. This is much more in line with the spell IMO. And I think what they may have originally intended anyway.

Undead was just one example, hence the "for instance."

But that makes it utterly useless at high levels. And that shouldn't happen - suddenly making half your spell slots worthless isn't very good game design.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 05:52 PM
Grease has always been oddly worded to me and personally I house rule that its not a 1.reflex, 2.balance if move, 3.then reflex if failed balance check. It's just a balance DC 10, (+move at half speed) then if you fail by more than 5 you roll reflex. This is much more in line with the spell IMO. And I think what they may have originally intended anyway.

Undead was just one example, hence the "for instance."

You basically changed the entire spell. And gave it *just* a static DC, which is relatively abnormal, as far as spells go. You're claiming this as original intent how, and on what basis?

randomhero00
2009-12-31, 05:53 PM
At the level you get web, freedom of movement is not available, as it's two spell levels higher. Grease, 3 spell levels.

You replied to a post about the imbalance happening at level 5, remember?

If they're skeletons, how do they have freedom of movement? Does every one have a magic item continuously granting the bennies of a level 4 spell? How does this affect WBL?

Yes...you can have situations in which one trick does not work. If you are trying to fix balance, though...that's irrelevant. The caster just uses a different spell. Grease will drop the skeletons just fine.

Huh?? I wasn't listing what every creature got. I was giving random examples of potential anti CC effects they may get that depends on level. Had nothing to do with level 5.

For grease, for instance, you could be fighting in a sloped area. Not at all unrealistic or crazy DM power. He slides out of it. For web, thats easy, just no points close enough together for it to stick to. There is a counter to almost everything. I'm not saying he *does* counter everything. Just that he makes us work for it and doesn't let us use any spell willy nilly. Sometimes the best spell isn't memorized or learned and we can't CC.

I also mentioned leadership which isn't available till 6th level in that post, that should have clued you in.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 05:58 PM
Huh?? I wasn't listing what every creature got. I was giving random examples of potential anti CC effects they may get that depends on level. Had nothing to do with level 5.

For grease, for instance, you could be fighting in a sloped area. Not at all unrealistic or crazy DM power. He slides out of it. For web, thats easy, just no points close enough together for it to stick to. There is a counter to almost everything. I'm not saying he *does* counter everything. Just that he makes us work for it and doesn't let us use any spell willy nilly. Sometimes the best spell isn't memorized or learned and we can't CC.

Ok...so you're saying that the commonly accepted imbalance is cured by your genius DM who uses tools like sloped floors, undead, and grassy fields. Clearly, none of us have ever thought of that, and wizards will be baffled and forced to struggle to overcome such obstacles.

Seriously?


I also mentioned leadership which isn't available till 6th level in that post, that should have clued you in.

6th level is generally accepted as "around fifth level or so", which was the quote.

randomhero00
2009-12-31, 06:00 PM
But that makes it utterly useless at high levels. And that shouldn't happen - suddenly making half your spell slots worthless isn't very good game design.

Err really? Guess we just disagree then. For one, I think a level 1 spell should be drastically less useful at higher levels. Why wouldn't it be? For two, it still has its uses. It creates difficult terrain for one (if it doesn't technically that'd be part of my house rule). Two, some creative uses possibly if your DM OKs it like setting it on fire. Three, giving your fighters a bonus to resist grapple checks is nice. And that can be done before combat, thus saving the whole economy of action thing.

randomhero00
2009-12-31, 06:03 PM
Tyn dude youre funny. I don't know why you keep putting words in my mouth or want to derail this thread so bad.

It's a made up game, mmhkay? That means we can play it how we want, mmhkay? That means play experiences may differ.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 06:04 PM
Err really? Guess we just disagree then. For one, I think a level 1 spell should be drastically less useful at higher levels. Why wouldn't it be? For two, it still has its uses. It creates difficult terrain for one (if it doesn't technically that'd be part of my house rule). Two, some creative uses possibly if your DM OKs it like setting it on fire. Three, giving your fighters a bonus to resist grapple checks is nice. And that can be done before combat, thus saving the whole economy of action thing.

You can't set Grease on fire. Because there's a spell (Incendiary Slime) which is exactly like Grease, but flammable, and it's one spell level higher. :smalltongue:

And, no, really, first level spells should never become useless. Less useful, sure, but a DC 10 Balance check or ignore all effects of the spell? Why would you even cast it? At level one?

Asbestos
2009-12-31, 06:04 PM
Random immunities, freedom of movement en masse, autokilling minions and other forms of DM fiat do not constitute good DMing.

And yet, flipping through the MM, that's pretty much how things are set up. The arms race that (competent) higher CR monsters are designed for (Spell Immunities, Immune Crit, Immune Whatever, SLAs, etc, etc) is just there in a crap-ass attempt to hamper the nuclear characters.

Flickerdart
2009-12-31, 06:05 PM
Tyn dude youre funny. I don't know why you keep putting words in my mouth or want to derail this thread so bad.

It's a made up game, mmhkay? That means we can play it how we want, mmhkay? That means play experiences may differ.
Houserules have no place in a RAW discussion, mmhkay? That's called Oberoni fallacy, mmhkay?

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 06:06 PM
Err really? Guess we just disagree then. For one, I think a level 1 spell should be drastically less useful at higher levels. Why wouldn't it be? For two, it still has its uses. It creates difficult terrain for one (if it doesn't technically that'd be part of my house rule).

It's somewhat similar to difficult terrain, but isn't explicitly difficult terrain. It just shares the half movement speed on a passed balance check.


Two, some creative uses possibly if your DM OKs it like setting it on fire.

It's non-flammable. There is a higher level version that is flammable.


Three, giving your fighters a bonus to resist grapple checks is nice. And that can be done before combat, thus saving the whole economy of action thing.

Round/level. Unless you're blowing metamagic on anti-grappling buffs for fighters.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 06:07 PM
And yet, flipping through the MM, that's pretty much how things are set up. The arms race that (competent) higher CR monsters are designed for (Spell Immunities, Immune Crit, Immune Whatever, SLAs, etc, etc) is just there in a crap-ass attempt to hamper the nuclear characters.

Mobs that have abilities are fine. Skipping the saving throw on grease makes it mostly worthless. Giving items of freedom of movement to everyone is not straight from the monster manual, and is generally WBL inappropriate at low levels.

randomhero00
2009-12-31, 06:09 PM
Houserules have no place in a RAW discussion, mmhkay? That's called Oberoni fallacy, mmhkay?

This isn't a RAW discussion ^^

On the grease houserule thing: that was really just a side comment, not sure why this is turning into such a huge debate. But since I'd already be houseruling it, I'd just change it a bit more to continue to make it more useful (longer lasting on armor, difficult terrain, light on fire for less dmg than the other spell, etc).

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 06:11 PM
This isn't a RAW discussion ^^

Yyyyes it is.

It's no use asking how powerful Wizards are then telling us that, because of houserules in your game, we're all wrong. That is, in fact, entirely pointless, and the whole reason RAW discussions even exist.

Flickerdart
2009-12-31, 06:12 PM
This isn't a RAW discussion ^^

Oh, but it is. The thread is discussing the efficiency of Wizards in 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons. It's not discussing the efficiency of Wizards in randomhero00's games, because such a discussion would not be interesting to most people.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 06:13 PM
This isn't a RAW discussion ^^


In MY house rules, Wizards surpass all other classes at level -13. Except for those pesky Xeonitoi, of course. Those stay competive until level Q.

Flickerdart
2009-12-31, 06:14 PM
In MY house rules, Wizards surpass all other classes at level -13. Except for those pesky Xeonitoi, of course. Those stay competive until level Q.
A base 36 level system? Genius! That puts off Epic much farther than the decimal system! The game now works at high levels, hurrah!

randomhero00
2009-12-31, 06:16 PM
Actually no its not. I am interested in your experiences, not RAW. I don't know anyone who plays strictly RAW. As subject creator of this thread that's my own rules as written dang it :) if you don't find it interesting you don't have to read the thread.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 06:16 PM
A base 36 level system? Genius! That puts off Epic much farther than the decimal system! The game now works at high levels, hurrah!

It also starts below level 1. Awesome!

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 06:17 PM
It also starts below level 1. Awesome!

The difficult part is healing the monsters to get rid of the negative xp.

JaronK
2009-12-31, 06:19 PM
A level 1 Wizard can cast Magecraft, which when combined with Masterwork Tools should be enough to craft any Masterwork item. If your DM lets you craft stuff before the game starts, this means that even a first level Wizard is capable of effectively tripling party wealth. He can also end virtually any encounter with Color Spray. And Grease of course... don't forget that it doesn't matter if they pass the balance check. If you're balancing at all and have less than 5 ranks, you're flat footed. See anything in the Monster Manuals that has 5 ranks of balance? I didn't think so. Go to town Rogues.

By level 3 he can cast Alter Self, gaining any movement mode he requires (Earth Mephling for burrow speed, Air Mephling for flight speed, etc). He can outstealth a Rogue (Skulk) out tank a Fighter (Crucian, + Mage Armor). All that is one spell. And of course Glitterdust at this level is a virtually gaurenteed end to encounters. Ghoul Glyph can be used during downtime to make no save paralysis traps (great for building up a fortified area) that last until triggered. And so on.

Yeah, Wizards are rocking it from the get go. Of course, the other T1 classes are right up there with them most of the time (sometimes exceeding them, depending on situation).

JaronK

randomhero00
2009-12-31, 06:28 PM
Grease is of course also useful to cast on lightning to create...greased lightning! When regular lightning just isn't fast enough.

Flickerdart
2009-12-31, 06:30 PM
Grease must be cast on a solid surface, which lightning is not. Unless that's another one of your house rules? Energy equates matter?

Roam7
2009-12-31, 06:38 PM
Grease must be cast on a solid surface, which lightning is not. Unless that's another one of your house rules? Energy equates matter?

Am I the only one who got it?
It's a reference to Grease (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxtQnTf-FzQ&feature=related).

randomhero00
2009-12-31, 06:41 PM
Grease must be cast on a solid surface, which lightning is not. Unless that's another one of your house rules? Energy equates matter?

{Scrubbed}

Flickerdart
2009-12-31, 06:43 PM
{Scrubbed}
I get the reference, I just find it more amusing to point out that you're wrong. Reading your petty insults is a nice bonus.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 06:45 PM
{Scrubbed}

Wow, you're going to fit in around here real well.

(Note: this is a lie.)

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 06:46 PM
(Note: this is a lie.)

I like that so much, I'd like to borrow him it for my sig. Mind?

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 06:47 PM
I like that so much, I'd like to borrow him it for my sig. Mind?

Uh. No, of course not.

:smallredface:

randomhero00
2009-12-31, 06:49 PM
I get the reference, I just find it more amusing to point out that you're wrong. Reading your petty insults is a nice bonus.

Nice try. lol I'm still chuckling. Petty insult? Its an honest suggestion.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 06:50 PM
{Scrubbed}

Pluto
2009-12-31, 06:50 PM
From my experience:

Level 9 is the magic point where the Wizard can do whatever the **** he feels like. It's where Scry, Major Creation, Fabricate, Polymorph, Binding Effects, Magic Jar, Dominate and Teleport are all in the Wizard's toolbox to use to whatever ends he likes.

The actual point where the character can steal the spotlight, if so inclined, changes between groups:

In groups where optimization is a priority, the Wizard comes out of the gates in the lead (well, alongside the other full prepared casters anyway). Between 20+ Intelligence, Focused Specialization and scrolls, the Wizard shouldn't run out of juice until after the Fighter does. He has bigger and flashier effects than noncasters and has the tools to resolve more situations than any noncaster or spontaneous caster.

In kicked-back groups, the kind where only one or two players actually leafed through every page of the spells section of the PHB, the Wizard will probably limp behind the party until level 7 or so, occasionally letting out a Bull's Strength, Haste or Inivisibility spell, but typically resorting to fistfulls of damage dice. Only around level 13, when the character not only has the tools to do anything, but also the spell slots to allow it between fists of damage, should the Wizard start dominating the non-casters.

Flickerdart
2009-12-31, 06:52 PM
{Scrubbed}

randomhero00
2009-12-31, 06:52 PM
{Scrubbed}

Signmaker
2009-12-31, 06:54 PM
I agree; I don't know if I'll be staying. You guys aren't very welcoming at all. TBH I feel like I've stumbled in to some of those public games I used to go to where there were a bunch of hygiene-challenged people who'd rather argue and nitpick over rules than be social and have fun.

Not calling you all that, but so far that's how it feels.

We are a bitter and spiteful folk, who poke and prod at your misfortune.

Not really, though it sometimes feels that way. I can't really assure you that this is true, you'll just have to stick around a bit more. Hopefully our first impressions haven't completely sent you out the door.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 06:55 PM
Now, that's just a little bit harsh! Whether or not he is in a basement cannot be confirmed.

He's posting on a D&D forum! What more confirmation could you want?

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 06:56 PM
He's posting on a D&D forum! What more confirmation could you want?

I'm in my parents' attic, silly.

Roam7
2009-12-31, 06:57 PM
I have to say, I'm a fan of the people who are actually talking about what this thread was made for.

Nice job, JaronK and Pluto.

Flickerdart
2009-12-31, 06:57 PM
He's posting on a D&D forum! What more confirmation could you want?
His parents could own an apartment, for one.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 06:57 PM
Hey, we talked about what this thread was actually for, too! And then we started to educate you about the fetish everyone here has for the RAW.

Flickerdart
2009-12-31, 06:58 PM
Hey, we talked about what this thread was actually for, too! And then we started to educate you about the fetish everyone here has for the RAW.
Wrong guy. They have the same avatar, so it can be a bit confusing.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 06:59 PM
I agree; I don't know if I'll be staying. You guys aren't very welcoming at all. TBH I feel like I've stumbled in to some of those public games I used to go to where there were a bunch of hygiene-challenged people who'd rather argue and nitpick over rules than be social and have fun.

Not calling you all that, but so far that's how it feels.

See, here's what happens when we don't discuss RAW. Person A says X. Person B says Y. They fight over it. People join in on both sides, or sometimes invents sides of their own. Because everyone is in different games, the argument never goes anywhere, and consists mainly of people restating their case in similar ways. It eventually dies of boredom, with no real agreement or progress.

A few days later, someone starts a similar thread, and it begins again.

Thus, unless it's a discussion specifically about specific house rules, it's more useful to start with the assumption of RAW. Actual right/wrong answers are possible, so differences of opinion can sometimes be resolved, and the conversation moves forward.

Signmaker
2009-12-31, 07:00 PM
Hey, we talked about what this thread was actually for, too! And then we started to educate you about the fetish everyone here has for the RAW.

Well, it's hard to argue otherwise, because OPs that use house rules tend not to list them when seeking discussion, so we're left with the bare bones that is RAW. I actually wouldn't mind arguing with house rules in mind, provided that they are listed in plain sight. It makes for variety.

Roam7
2009-12-31, 07:01 PM
Wrong guy. They have the same avatar, so it can be a bit confusing.

Yeah, sorry for the confusion.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 07:01 PM
Wrong guy. They have the same avatar, so it can be a bit confusing.

:smallredface:

Oops. Stupid default avatars.

randomhero00
2009-12-31, 07:12 PM
1. nothing is ever decided on the internet. evar.
2. even RAW is open to interpretation; we all know how horrible wotc's clarity is
3. debating RAW is pointless if no one really uses it (or the majority doesn't)
4. what happened to just sharing ideas? There's nothing wrong with that, not everything has to be a debate. You asked what would happen if we didn't debate RAW or whatever, well we get responses like the nice, polite, complete ones we got from roam, pluto and jaron. Subjectivity is fine. This isn't rocket science this is a social game for batman's sake!
5. I am master of the universe and have a +40 to win all arguments, your words are futile

Signmaker
2009-12-31, 07:19 PM
1. nothing is ever decided on the internet. evar.
2. even RAW is open to interpretation; we all know how horrible wotc's clarity is
3. debating RAW is pointless if no one really uses it (or the majority doesn't)
4. what happened to just sharing ideas? There's nothing wrong with that, not everything has to be a debate. You asked what would happen if we didn't debate RAW or whatever, well we get responses like the nice, polite, complete ones we got from roam, pluto and jaron. Subjectivity is fine. This isn't rocket science this is a social game for batman's sake!
5. I am master of the universe and have a +40 to win all arguments, your words are futile

1. Mostly True
2. Mostly True
3. Mostly True, but regardless useful.
4. As I suggested before, listed house rules would be pretty useful so everyone was on the same page. Otherwise you get assumptions, which lead to conflicts in scope, which lead to problems. And as we have enough problems as is with RAW...=P
5. Possibly True

Satisfied?

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 07:22 PM
1. nothing is ever decided on the internet. evar.

Sure it is. There are all sorts of things about which everyone has come to general agreement, minus one or two people who will argue about anything.


2. even RAW is open to interpretation; we all know how horrible wotc's clarity is

There are some messy rule segments, yes. But with errata and many sets of eyes, it's quite possible to come to a conclusion in most areas, even if it was written in a stupid or needlessly complicated way.


3. debating RAW is pointless if no one really uses it (or the majority doesn't)

Plenty of people do. More people than happen to use any given set of house rules. Among the people who do not, they all tend to pretty much start from there. Thus, it's the most commonly used ruleset in general.


4. what happened to just sharing ideas? There's nothing wrong with that, not everything has to be a debate. You asked what would happen if we didn't debate RAW or whatever, well we get responses like the nice, polite, complete ones we got from roam, pluto and jaron. Subjectivity is fine. This isn't rocket science this is a social game for batman's sake!

Im sorry, the free love and feel good forum is elsewhere.

Responses here, and on essentially every other D&D forum I've been to, invariably assume RAW as a default. This does not require arguing, this is to prevent needless arguing.

PS: I didn't ask what would happen without RAW, I told you what would happen without RAW. Because it invariably happens every time someone doesn't use RAW.


5. I am master of the universe and have a +40 to win all arguments, your words are futile

Have fun with that.

randomhero00
2009-12-31, 07:35 PM
Tyn-
"feel good forum" is blowing my words out of proportion again, which you so seem to love to do. If you fail to see the importance of common courtesy we have nothing to say to each other.

So your general statement is that we're lost without RAW? Mine is that we aren't.


1. nothing is ever decided on the internet. evar.

Q.E.D.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 07:37 PM
Quoting yourself doesn't make it more true, you know.

Zaydos
2009-12-31, 07:44 PM
In a laid back game where nobody really knows the rules?

At level 4 I had a fighter/barbarian built by RAW (I read the PHB all the way through except the Spells chapter) with a Sword and Fist Mercurial Greatsword that could outshine the wizard (also Lv 4) who due to the DM not paying attention cast infinite spells per day straight from the PHB. Why? Because the wizard's player didn't know what he was doing with his spells at all. My character had Weapon Focus for goodness sake and was going for Weapon Specialization. This was when 3.5 had just come out (I made the character using Dragon #310's variant fighters because it was the most recent issue I got. I missed 311 and 312 so that gives you the time frame we're talking about).

I've had games where half-dragon ranger/fighters could keep up with Lv 13 wizards although they were starting to lag behind. Again the players didn't know the rules well, but they were learning (as the DM for it I like to think the DM did).

I've also seen that an Arcane Hierophant that uses Enhance Familiar on his familiar companion has a pet that outshines an unoptimized melee combatant right out of the box at Lv 12 and can, just using blast spells and self-buffs, outshine him too with only 4th and 5th level spells. Still unoptimized but a slightly better put together mage and less optimal warrior for hitting stuff (same player on the melee).

In my last campaign as a DM blaster mages make things unclear. The mages either just blasted because they didn't pay attention, because they just blasted, or multi-classed and had weaker magic. The duskblade kept up, but the arcane hierophant was probably the strongest as soon as she took the prestige class because of her animal companion. Doesn't say much for wizards, but does say that unoptimized melee character < animal companion.

I'm going to be a player again soon, and I've been rounded up by everybody to help with their character at some point or another. The DM uses Guardian Path familiars from Encyclopedia Arcane meaning that my familiar takes 50% of my damage for me and has my full hp (yes please). So of the other characters there's a druid, a dragonheart mage, a shadowsun ninja, and a DMPC dread necromancer turned eldritch theurge (also has a familiar). The dragonheart mage will either be a horribly inadequate blaster like when I dropped the campaign, or have remade her spell-list with some neat spells (Wings of Cover/Flurry, Greater Mighty Whallop). If so she still loses 1 v 1 to Evard's Black Tentacles; if not I use my single target blasts to blast her out of the water anyway. This is level 9 and I've surpassed her. That can be put down to optimization and that she wants fire breath and is going with a prestige class that gives her good firebreath.

The shadowsun ninja? With 2 buff spells (1 from me, 1 from the druid) he has 4 better AC against ranged attacks and equal against melee, and much better touch AC. His damage is about 19/hit with another buff spell from the druid, or 28/hit with one from the dragonheart (assuming she changes to a more optimal spell-list); with snap kick and wolf-fang strike this goes up a good bit (but unless the sorceress is willing to use 3 3rd level spells these will do 10 less damage each, even with 1 less each). Fully buffed he's the damage dealer although his attack bonus is low enough that against a good AC target of this level (say a dragon) he won't hit but 45% of the time if he does use both. Still decent damage, and some nice abilities (with the dread necromancer a free healing loop). Still with a single 5th level spell I out do him for 10 minutes, my familiar also outdoes him as long as it stays within 5-ft of me (outdoes me too during it because it keeps its invisibility while polymorphed). So assuming all the casters help him, the Shadowsun ninja isn't outshone at Lv 9.

The druid is the one to compete with. 1 v 1 she'd win if she got initiative and he'd win if he did. He's more likely to get it but not by enough (about a 70%). Without Greater Mighty Wallops +9 damage her tiger outshines him in melee, and that's before she uses Nature's Favor (swift) or Bite of the Weretiger.

The dread necromancer/warlock? Good defenses, but neither lesser invocations or 4th level spells yet. Can take down a CR 8 white dragon solo, but with great difficulty and almost dying in the process (we ran it as a test). That's with a shared hp pool with his familiar, and lucking out on his spell resistance checks (had about a 30-40% chance of failure didn't once). The wizard could have taken it out with two spells and maybe 3 rounds, assuming it was using intelligent tactics. He's actually the weakest, although his relative power should go up a lot next level (4th level spells and a lesser invocation) but should still be rather low.

So by 9th a wizard is starting to outshine everybody. The familiar houserule helps if he decides to get into a blast-fight with the sorceress (he can weather all her wings of flurry due to it) but if he uses his tactics he doesn't even need it. The ToB (unarmed swordsage/shadowsun in case you were wondering) can deal some good damage (4d8+10/4d8+9/4d8+10 at +14/+14/+9 if he just makes a standard full attack, the first two as a standard action without using a manuever) but without buffs from other characters is lack luster (and it's a team game so he should be able to expect them). The druid is the real challenger for the best but personally is probably a little weaker (I made both and so I'd actually like to make the druid stronger, but where I had free rein with my wizard knowing what the concept was inside and out and searching for usable things that help that concept, I made the druid for someone else and was therefore limited by lack of knowledge of concept).

Will he outshine everyone? If he starts casting Draconic Polymorph yeah, but that's the Shining Moment of Awesome/Oh fudge button. Short of that he's behind the druid, and probably a lot of people using Evard's Tentacles to grapple all the monsters. When I want to outshine them, though, he can. Till then I get to have fun blasting (which would still outshine the shadowsun without Greater Mighty Wallop).

With this party... it would probably have started with Lv 7, but since they were most of them made at Lv 9 can't actually say. I can say the power gap is likely to increase as soon as next level where I get another 5th level spell slot that can be used for any school (focused conjurer, transmuter would be stronger but this tis more fun) and thus another draconic polymorph meaning that 2 times per day I own everyone (except a similarly boosted tiger which is scary) and only the druid compares. I also get Contact Other Planes in my spellbook meaning I can prepare it instead and use it daily (+7 Int and if he'll let me take 10 when undisturbed a lot of fun) and see what happens.

So I'd say definitely by 9th level only other casters are really comparing without extensive (3 to 5) spells from the casters. By level 13 I don't know if I want to see what happens.

randomhero00
2009-12-31, 07:45 PM
Quoting yourself doesn't make it more true, you know.

Roam, where are you to get my jokes?

QED is used in proofs in reference to show what was to be demonstrated. It was a joke. I was quoting myself because our disagreement was self-referencing proof. It was a loop that is along the same "logical" lines that allows some of the funniest D&D cheese...I figured a D&D nut would appreciate it.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 07:47 PM
Roam, where are you to get my jokes?

QED is used in proofs in reference to show what was to be demonstrated. It was a joke. I was quoting myself because our disagreement was self-referencing proof. It was a loop that is along the same "logical" lines that allows some of the funniest D&D cheese...I figured a D&D nut would appreciate it.

We know. It's just not funny.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 07:50 PM
We know. It's just not funny.

Q.E.D.

Is SO long enough.

randomhero00
2009-12-31, 07:53 PM
Q.E.D.

Is SO long enough.

Fail.

10charssss

Zen Master
2009-12-31, 07:55 PM
Oh, but it is. The thread is discussing the efficiency of Wizards in 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons. It's not discussing the efficiency of Wizards in randomhero00's games, because such a discussion would not be interesting to most people.

I love how you can come into a thread, and dictate that it is now a RAW discussion, because otherwise it would not be interesting to you.

RAW is this blunt instrument that apparently is considered legal to wholesale invalidate any view you don't agree with.

This is Randomhero's thread - are you even aware of that?

randomhero00
2009-12-31, 07:59 PM
I love how you can come into a thread, and dictate that it is now a RAW discussion, because otherwise it would not be interesting to you.

RAW is this blunt instrument that apparently is considered legal to wholesale invalidate any view you don't agree with.

This is Randomhero's thread - are you even aware of that?

There is hope for humanity. Thank you!

Crow
2009-12-31, 08:03 PM
{Scrubbed}

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 08:07 PM
Of course in practical games with good DMs I don't think they're all that OP (don't want to make the thread about that though...) but for the purposes of this thread lets assume 1 encounter, all spells available, with an optimized party against a big bad boss + minions. No cheese of course.


Huh? Does that say that this is a non-raw discussion to you?

Granted, what constitutes optimization and what constitutes cheese is left in the air, but there's nothing there that would clue us in about it being a random house rules discussion thread. Or about our personal experience in past games, given that it's a hypothetical situation.

I also find it amusing that he says he doesn't want to make the thread about the exact thing he derailed the thread about.

Flickerdart
2009-12-31, 09:12 PM
I love how you can come into a thread, and dictate that it is now a RAW discussion, because otherwise it would not be interesting to you.

RAW is this blunt instrument that apparently is considered legal to wholesale invalidate any view you don't agree with.

This is Randomhero's thread - are you even aware of that?
All discussions must be assumed to be RAW if house rules are not stated, otherwise we get levels -13 and Q. House rules were not stated until the point where they were abruptly brought in as an argument. What WAS stated is that the thread is 3.5e. Not "3.5e, houserules". Note that nobody has attempted to dictate anything against RAI or common sense. There is no "RAWtardation" to speak of.

Kantolin
2009-12-31, 09:40 PM
Wizards need more effort put into them to dominate than clerics and especially druids.

Not that druids are actually more powerful in my opinion, but it's extremely hard to screw them up. Most people think wolf/bear with a wolf/bear shooting lightning at things.

I know most wizards in my groups are somewhat hesitant to use spells, and do relatively unoptimized fireball/lightning bolt/magic missile spam (even at high levels), and thus never really overwhelm the noncasters (who are frequetnly, in fact, more powerful).

I have also, however, been in groups where the wizard was dominating rather quickly with sleep and color sprays. Now, at low levels this is somewhat alright, since a longsword is also one shotting a lot of things, but then at level 3 the wizard gets invisibility which makes him amazingly valuable from there.

So... it depends, for wizards. I suppose I can echo the above and suggest level 5-9ish is most ideal, but it really depends on the wizard's spell/feat selection and tactics. Clerics and Druids (and tome of battle) are powerful because you kind of trip into being powerful with them (At least far more easily). You can then optimize a commoner into being a devastating game wrecker. :P

~~~~~~~~

I'm... actually a little confused about this lengthy argument, which I think is off-topic. :P

I mean, the question is: "At which levels do wizards surpass other classes(3.5e)?"

Yuki stated:
There is not a single level where blasty spells are awesome. The Wizard is casting crowd control spells from level 1.

Spellcasters (this includes psionicists here) in general tend to outshine non-spellcasters at around fifth level or so.

And Tyndmyr stated:
I would go earlier. Wizards/Sorcs can start outshining the rest of the party with ease at level 9.

Those were the first two responses. O_o I'm thus a little confused about most of the rest as they did, in fact, answer the question.

Admittedly, then randomhero00 brought up the DMing tactics in his games (Autokilling leadership minions, for example), so perhaps this isn't off-topic and was in fact called for?

Overshee
2010-01-01, 12:25 AM
I know this is sort of threadjacking, but I have a quick question. Would allowing tier 3 and higher to gestalt to a tier 5-6 class make it more balanced? I'm trying to come up with ways to make my group (so far a wizard, druid, cleric, and me) less "why am I even trying it doesn't matter anyways :-P"

Zen Master
2010-01-01, 04:37 AM
All discussions must be assumed to be RAW if house rules are not stated, otherwise we get levels -13 and Q.

No. Not so. I call bull-**** on that. Only here have I had any problems discussing roleplaying with intelligent people without it devolving into the utter uselessness that RAW is.

Show me an example. Dig up a thread where someone like me spewed stuff like Q and level -13. Other than this one, where you did it to derail. Deliberate derailing doesn't count.

I am willing to bet you that never, ever happened.

It is impossible to speak with people who think they can dictate the terms of the discussion. I will not play by your assumptions. Sorry.

Nor do I ask you to play by mine - but that really should be obvious.

Eldariel
2010-01-01, 04:43 AM
So far, the well-played Wizards in games I've played have started to do silly stuff on level 9, and the poorly played ones around 13. It really doesn't take much more than just casting spells at that point; "What's this Simulacrum? Maybe I should cast it? Oh, sorry, I think I just broke the game. What's this Planar Binding? How about I try casting it? I guess I should boost my Charisma-check a bit and do the precautions the spell tells me to. Damn, I broke it again!"

A bound stock Glabrezu was about as good a warrior as my entire character, I recall. I was playing a Dervish back then. It also had True Seeing at will and other quite...powerful abilities. The only good news was that since we were a two-character party, an extra didn't hurt. And fcking Simulacrums with spellcasting are ridiculous. That was in the 13-game, btw.


And yeah, Teleporting/Plane Shifting was unsurprisingly more efficient than walking or even running. Hell, it's faster than RIDING. Zomg. And it sure takes a lot of brainpower to figure that Hold Monster is a good spell vs. Purple Worm.

olentu
2010-01-01, 04:45 AM
No. Not so. I call bull-**** on that. Only here have I had any problems discussing roleplaying with intelligent people without it devolving into the utter uselessness that RAW is.

Show me an example. Dig up a thread where someone like me spewed stuff like Q and level -13. Other than this one, where you did it to derail. Deliberate derailing doesn't count.

I am willing to bet you that never, ever happened.

It is impossible to speak with people who think they can dictate the terms of the discussion. I will not play by your assumptions. Sorry.

Nor do I ask you to play by mine - but that really should be obvious.

I have however had a disconnect where what the other person was saying made no sense to me occur due to differing rules used at tables in real life. So while it may have never happened on the net the fact that it has in real life means it could and thus I would find it a reasonable precaution to take while online.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-01, 04:46 AM
No. Not so. I call bull-**** on that. Only here have I had any problems discussing roleplaying with intelligent people without it devolving into the utter uselessness that RAW is.
Specific examples and problems may be discussed in a housrule environment.

A general consensus of a wizard's power is more problematic.

For example, some of the rules I've DM'd by, at different points:

(1) All spells have a mandatory, non-negotiable 20% failure chance.
(2) All Characters receive a bonus 20 hp at level 1
(3) RAW and RAW only

Based on these three different rules, 3 different people would have very differing views on a wizard's power level. And, since we're all eating from different bowls, it's no wonder that none of us can agree on the same flavor.

No. When a general question is asked, general rules are used. That is RAW. And, if you view it as useless, then I truly feel sorry for you, because RAW is the basis for every game of D&D played. RAW is what is flavored to taste. If what you play is a lasagna, then RAW is the pasta.

Now, if you like, you're free to talk about why wizards suck because of XXX and YYY houserules you have.

But don't expect me or anyone else to really care too much. After all, we have no stake in that game.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-01, 04:49 AM
:smallredface:

Oops. Stupid default avatars.

Why do you think I decided to make mine Super Special Awesome?

Tyndmyr
2010-01-01, 10:06 AM
I know this is sort of threadjacking, but I have a quick question. Would allowing tier 3 and higher to gestalt to a tier 5-6 class make it more balanced? I'm trying to come up with ways to make my group (so far a wizard, druid, cleric, and me) less "why am I even trying it doesn't matter anyways :-P"

It probably wouldn't be imbalanced, if that's what you're asking. A Rogue//Barbarian is likely still weaker than a wizard, but it does give them more interesting stuff to do.

Volkov
2010-01-01, 10:08 AM
The Real question is, can an Epic cleric beat an Epic Wizard. >.>

Tyndmyr
2010-01-01, 10:11 AM
For example, some of the rules I've DM'd by, at different points:

(1) All spells have a mandatory, non-negotiable 20% failure chance.
(2) All Characters receive a bonus 20 hp at level 1
(3) RAW and RAW only

Hell, I've played in settings in which only core spells were available, and you only got those available on level up automatically...the rest did not exist. Some of those core spells were also banned or nerfed in interesting ways. For example, Wish ALWAYS resulted in the DM screwing with you.

I've also played by pure RAW.


I find it interesting how quickly he devolved into "Don't tell me how to play my game". Yeah...this thread isn't about telling you how to play. It's about overall power levels. With a side discussion about finding a common ground. Discussing RAW doesn't mean we're going to beat you unless you play by RAW.

Yuki Akuma
2010-01-01, 10:12 AM
The Real question is, can an Epic cleric beat an Epic Wizard. >.>

Well, the Cleric can have twice the epic spell slots if he happens to have Knowledge (Nature) on his class skills list.

Plus, Life seed.

I'd say the Cleric.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-01, 10:13 AM
I'd say either one is quite possible. I mean...it's frigging epic. At this point, it's a "do you have a counter for....THIS?" exchange. Total amount of spells is likely going to be irrelevant, because anything that gets through is almost certainly terminal.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-01, 10:14 AM
This is Randomhero's thread - are you even aware of that?

The forum rules state that the creator of the thread cannot dictate its direction - are you aware of that?

Aldizog
2010-01-01, 02:55 PM
The forum rules state that the creator of the thread cannot dictate its direction - are you aware of that?
Of course he can't dictate it, but politeness suggests that if I'm posting to answer his question, I should be willing to answer it as he meant it, and accept any amendments he offers to that.

To the OP: In my experience, wizards don't surpass other casters until very high levels when they have the versatility that the others can't match (except possibly the cleric). Based on experience, a core Drd17 can't solve as many problems as a core Wiz17 or Clr17 could; the druid is very good at killing things and staying alive, though. Casters in general surpass martial and skill characters sooner.

One 3.5 campaign I was in went to 20. The DM removed all Teleportation from the world (as well as several other problem-solving spells) after our one and only scry-and-fry. The 3.5 game I ran went to 12 (with no single-classed wizard), and the 3.0 campaigns I played in also ended around 10th-12th. Not suprisingly, many posters in this thread have cited 9 or 13 as the transition point where wizards pull ahead in more casual games. This means that in actual games as played, the wizard is often not all that dominating; levels 11-20 are not "half the game," they are maybe 1/5 of the game, or 1/10. Only the actual gaming experience matters.

I do think that Teleport is one of the defining factors that makes wizards so powerful at that level and that makes so many games end at that level. It gives wizards this awesome power to scry-and-fry, and then requires the DM to consider that all the time. In every adventure. Every NPC has to have wards. The PCs have to be constantly defended against this so that the BBEG doesn't do it to them. Travel stops being fun. PCs can escape and rest as often as they like (to a much greater degree of safety than Rope Trick), so adventures have to be redesigned with time constraints. High-level magic, well before Epic, starts being both so world-changing and adventure-changing that many DMs don't like it. There are many other reasons that make the "sweet spot" have its upper limit somewhere in the 9-13 range. A few gaming groups have the right combination of DM and players to enjoy games beyond that, but IME it is not that common.

Inhuman Bot
2010-01-01, 03:28 PM
Just out of curiosity really. For instance, around 5 or 6 or so, a (been awhile since I've played with one) kineticist or whatever psion tends to out power a wizard I think since blasty spells are still awesome at that level. Same goes for all the tier 1 and 2 classes (cleric, druid, sorcerer...) Throw in the lower tiered classes if you want too if you're really feeling analytical.

Of course in practical games with good DMs I don't think they're all that OP (don't want to make the thread about that though...) but for the purposes of this thread lets assume 1 encounter, all spells available, with an optimized party against a big bad boss + minions. No cheese of course.

It seems to me like it takes wizards quite awhile to surpass most classes.

I'd go something (roughly) like;
1-2 physical classes
3-4 martial from ToB
5-8 psion
9-11 druid/cleric
12-15 sorc
16+ wizard

Probably off a level or so here and there but that's it in a nutshell for my picks.

Where does it say "Randomhero00's games, not RAW, because it is common practise to assume RAW unless the OP specifies otherwise?"

Because all I've seen, really, is people pointing out why RandomHero is wrong, then him basically throwing a tantrum about it.

That's just me, though.

Zen Master
2010-01-01, 07:40 PM
When a general question is asked, general rules are used. That is RAW.

No. But you think so. I think that when a general question is asked, general opinion, advice and various input is the proper response. That may or may not include RAW.

But RAW in itself is pointless. If it was as well defined as you claim it to be - it would still be pointless, because most people never play by it anyways. But since it is not even that, it's just even more irrelevant.

It is a crutch. That .... is my opinon.

Zen Master
2010-01-01, 07:42 PM
The forum rules state that the creator of the thread cannot dictate its direction - are you aware of that?
{Scrubbed}

Saintjebus
2010-01-01, 07:45 PM
No. But you think so. I think that when a general question is asked, general opinion, advice and various input is the proper response. That may or may not include RAW.

But RAW in itself is pointless. If it was as well defined as you claim it to be - it would still be pointless, because most people never play by it anyways. But since it is not even that, it's just even more irrelevant.

It is a crutch. That .... is my opinon.

The problem is, that while each person's opinion is valid at their table, it may not be completely valid in a shared environment. What I mean is, your table rules are different than my table rules. When we have a discussion about rules, we have to (A. Decide who's rules to follow or (B. Use a neutral 3rd party set of rules. Since the first option is prohibitively complicated, the option defaults to B. RAW is a neutral third party ruleset that everyone can reference. Your table rules will adjust how you implement RAW discussions, but they can't be the basis because we don't all share the same table rules.

Crow
2010-01-01, 07:51 PM
I am interested in your experiences, not RAW.
..........

Tyndmyr
2010-01-01, 07:57 PM
Interesting. Apparently he edited the original post yesterday. It's gotten shorter, and it looks like he made it less clear what he was asking.

The original question did not specify that it was not RAW in any way. That only got pulled out after he was trying to defend his assumptions against disagreement.

Yuki Akuma
2010-01-01, 07:59 PM
Bet you 10 gp he claims it was always like that.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-01, 08:01 PM
Well, in fairness, it was while we were writing our original replies, but still.

Yukitsu
2010-01-01, 08:53 PM
Just out of curiosity really. For instance, around 5 or 6 or so, a (been awhile since I've played with one) kineticist or whatever psion tends to out power a wizard I think since blasty spells are still awesome at that level. Same goes for all the tier 1 and 2 classes (cleric, druid, sorcerer...) Throw in the lower tiered classes if you want too if you're really feeling analytical.

Of course in practical games with good DMs I don't think they're all that OP (don't want to make the thread about that though...) but for the purposes of this thread lets assume 1 encounter, all spells available, with an optimized party against a big bad boss + minions. No cheese of course.

It seems to me like it takes wizards quite awhile to surpass most classes.

I'd go something (roughly) like;
1-2 physical classes
3-4 martial from ToB
5-8 psion
9-11 druid/cleric
12-15 sorc
16+ wizard

Probably off a level or so here and there but that's it in a nutshell for my picks.

My list goes like this:
1-2: druid (decent fighter/caster+powerful assistant.
3-4: ToB. (Melee no longer autokills either side on BS rolls.)
5-6: Cleric (DMM abuse starts here.)
7+: Wizard ceases to have vulnerabilities to anything within the appropriate CR range, other than a higher level wizard.

Based on in game experience.

jiriku
2010-01-01, 10:33 PM
I've recently played wizards who joined two campaigns at about 10th level (either replacing a melee character who died or a new character for me when I joined a new group). In both games, the wizard almost immediately began dominating encounters. Spells like evard's black tentacles, magic jar, and shivering touch routinely solved encounters that the rest of the party would have struggled with. The other PCs were unoptimized, but then, so were my wizards (I was experimenting and the builds were very unfocused). At level 13-15, my contribution from buffing, battlefield control, bound outsiders, and creating permanent DC 40, CL 35 symbols of weakness on people's gear is greater than or equal to the entire rest of the party combined.

In games I've DMed, I've seen druids and beguilers overshadow basic PHB melee classes as early as level 7, but poor tactical choices by the spellcasters sometimes cause them to neutralize themselves (occasionally in spectacular and fatal ways!) and give the other characters room to share the limelight.

Draz74
2010-01-02, 02:30 AM
I don't know if any Wizard who uses Shivering Touch can claim to be unoptimized. Shivering Touch falls under the "Stinky Cheese" category in Logic Ninja's classic guide.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-02, 02:32 AM
The other PCs were unoptimized, but then, so were my wizards (I was experimenting and the builds were very unfocused). At level 13-15, my contribution from buffing, battlefield control, bound outsiders, and creating permanent DC 40, CL 35 symbols of weakness on people's gear is greater than or equal to the entire rest of the party combined.

When you're level 15 and have CL 35, DC 40 symbols of weakness, you are not unoptimized.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 02:41 AM
I don't know if any Wizard who uses Shivering Touch can claim to be unoptimized. Shivering Touch falls under the "Stinky Cheese" category in Logic Ninja's classic guide.

And yet it's a spell available to any Wizard. It's an overpowered class feature, not an optimization option. It's much like casting Polymorph, which I believe he also calls overpowered. It's not optimizing to use it, it's just using a class feature that's overpowered. When discussing how powerful Wizards are, it's nonsensical to say "this doesn't count, because it's too powerful."

JaronK

Tyndmyr
2010-01-02, 02:45 AM
It's overpowered, it's cheese...but yeah, you're right, the sheer volume of available cheese is what makes wizard so good. Sure, you can optimize wizard beyond all belief, but when you crack open the book and see spells like Clone, Wish and Time Stop, even a relatively new player should go "Woah, that looks like it could be useful".

Polymorph is useful and quite powerful even if you don't know the optimal things to shift into, for example. You can pretty much pop open the MM and start looking almost at random.

Optimystik
2010-01-02, 03:35 AM
I think Saph's progression is pretty spot-on, particularly in comparing Wizard to another tier 1 class (i.e. Druid.) It takes Wizard a considerable amount of time to surpass the Druid, though it stays equal with it well before that.

And this thread is now about yummy pancakes. I kid, I kid.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-02, 04:31 AM
No. But you think so. I think that when a general question is asked, general opinion, advice and various input is the proper response. That may or may not include RAW.

But RAW in itself is pointless. If it was as well defined as you claim it to be - it would still be pointless, because most people never play by it anyways. But since it is not even that, it's just even more irrelevant.

It is a crutch. That .... is my opinon.

And your opinion is valid. I don't think it has any possible application to a constructive discussion, but it is valid nonetheless.

Why doesn't it?

Because let's look at a few players:

Is a wizard overpowered?

Player 1: Not at all. We play pure RAW with all supplements, and some level 1 kobold paladin outshines the wizard every time.

Player 2: Not at all. My DM mitigates spell availability and power, and imposes fatigue and exhaustion penalties on wizards that cast 2 spells within a minute of each other.

Player 3: Absolutely yes! My DM plays by RAW, with core only, and the wizards show everyone up all the time. It's horrible!

Player 4: Nope. My DM runs a no-magic world. Wizards don't even exist.

All 4 players have valid views. Why on earth, however, would player 2-4 care about how Player 1's DM let pun-pun in?

Why would 1,3, and 4 care about fatigue and exhaustion rules that don't apply to them? The answer is based on facts that have no bearing in their game.

Why would 1, 2, and 4 care that player 3's DM doesn't mitigate bad combos?

Why would 1,2, and 3 care that wizards aren't overpowered in worlds without magic? It's not how they play.

In other words, if you try to use individual RAP to answer such an open-ended question, all you get is a bunch of answers that nobody cares about.

If the question were, "Given these houserules, when does wizard start to outshine"?? Then it's targeted to include those RAP variations, and everyone's on the same page.

Otherwise, it's just a bunch of people bickering over a bunch of rules, most of which nobody else cares about.

In short? Even if nobody plays by RAW, EVERYONE starts there. Without the RAW you trash talk as useless, you wouldn't have a skeleton to apply your house rules and alterations to. As such, you can, with the will to expend just a tiny bit of effort, take that base discussion, apply your rules to it, test it for validity, and see if it works for you.

Incidentally, I've now seen 2 people in this thread post, saying that they play RAW D&D. Even if most people don't, that's still twice as many here than play your way. Wouldn't that, by the argument you posited above, make discussing the way you play even more pointless than discussing RAW?

See, even if not everyone plays RAW... everyone KNOWS it. It's all there, in the books on your shelf. You alter it, you modify it, but you know it. That can't be said for my alterations. You don't know them, and so are unqualified to discuss them, just as I am unqualified to discuss yours. That is very counterproductive to constructive education.

For example, let's say that Gate is banned.
Why? Because in RAW, it can be used in abusive fashion.

Let's say Simulacrum is banned.
Why? Because in RAW, it can be used in abusive fashion.

Let's say Shivering Touch is banned.
Why? Because in RAW, it can be used in abusive fashion.

Note how all these bannings and alterations come about due to an understanding of how they can be abused in RAW? Understanding how the game works without these rules directly led to the balancing effect they provide.

In other words? Discussing RAW lets it be fixed with RAP. Funny concept, but it works.

Mike_G
2010-01-02, 11:39 AM
Is a wizard overpowered?

Player 1: Not at all. We play pure RAW with all supplements, and some level 1 kobold paladin outshines the wizard every time.

Player 2: Not at all. My DM mitigates spell availability and power, and imposes fatigue and exhaustion penalties on wizards that cast 2 spells within a minute of each other.

Player 3: Absolutely yes! My DM plays by RAW, with core only, and the wizards show everyone up all the time. It's horrible!

Player 4: Nope. My DM runs a no-magic world. Wizards don't even exist.

All 4 players have valid views. Why on earth, however, would player 2-4 care about how Player 1's DM let pun-pun in?

Why would 1,3, and 4 care about fatigue and exhaustion rules that don't apply to them? The answer is based on facts that have no bearing in their game.

Why would 1, 2, and 4 care that player 3's DM doesn't mitigate bad combos?

Why would 1,2, and 3 care that wizards aren't overpowered in worlds without magic? It's not how they play.

In other words, if you try to use individual RAP to answer such an open-ended question, all you get is a bunch of answers that nobody cares about.



Well, he did ask for people experiences, rather than quotes from the RAW.

I see the question as "Yes, by RAW, wizards are overpowered, and the gap gets worse as level increases. At what level have people found that it becomes an issue in their actual experience."

I assume he can read the description of Shapechange as guess that by RAW, the guy who can cast that outshines any guy with a sharp stick of the same level.

As far as my experiences with 3e have shown, from levels 1 through 6, the Wizard is really valuable, contributes a lot, maybe even more than other players, but doesn't "outshine" them to the point where they feel redundant. He's still squishy, and just doesn't have enough spells per day to play God.

From 7-14, he can outshine the rest of the party, depending on how he optimizes and how he plays. Somewhere in here, the Fighter and Barbarian start bringing a book to read or a RISK board to use during the encounters.

From 15th on, he pretty much outshines the others without any real effort. At this point, if I'm playing a melee character, I start going to bars and trying to have sex with women on games nights.

That's pretty much how a melee character can have fun. Adventure with the Wizard at low levels, show up at the game for the comradery at mid levels but don't expect to contribute, and just find something better to do than high level play.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-02, 05:28 PM
Well, he did ask for people experiences, rather than quotes from the RAW.

I see the question as "Yes, by RAW, wizards are overpowered, and the gap gets worse as level increases. At what level have people found that it becomes an issue in their actual experience."

As much of my experience relies on games played by "98% RAW, 2% Fix", I can tell you, wizards start to shine early and often.

Encounter 3 CR above you at level 1? Wizard has the best chance to drop it.

Level 7? Well, various walls come into play, and Dim Door, Blur, and protective effects really come into their own.

Level 13? The power spells are rolling out. Wizards can end many rough encounters with a well placed spell or two.

harpy
2010-01-02, 05:44 PM
One way of looking at it would be the number of spells a wizard has available versus the number of rounds of combat is typically found in a day.

Towards the end of the 3.5 design process the Monster Manuals were building monsters with the idea that an encounter would last roughly 5 rounds. So if you go by that average, and then assume that in any particular game session you'll have between three and five encounters, then you're looking at about 15-25 rounds to mess around with.

Below is a table showing how many spells a wizard has available (sans cantrips) per day at level, plus the bonus from abilities through normal level and your typical magic item load out... it also assumes a starting of 18 Int.

Level 1 -2
Level 2 -3
Level 3 -5
Level 4 -7
Level 5 -9
Level 6 -11
Level 7 -14
Level 8 -18
Level 9 -21
Level 10 -23
Level 11 -26
Level 12 -28
Level 13 -30
Level 14 -34
Level 15 -36
Level 16 -40
Level 17 -45
Level 18 -49
Level 19 -51
Level 20 -55

So as you can see, around level 7-8 the wizard now has enough daily spells that they can pretty much cast a spell per round throughout the day in a three encounter day. If you have five encounters per day then it would be around level 10 or 11 where the wizard can cast something the whole time.

Of course, not everything that is being prepared is necessarily appropriate for the encounter, but this is balanced out with an assumption that the wizard would have a growing library of scrolls, tucked away in a hewards handy haversack to be ready to go.

As you can see from the table, at level 13 the wizard now has double the number of spells prepared for a 3 encounter day, which means the scrolls become even less meaningful since the wizard now has a more diverse set of spells to use, and each level after that they keep gaining more diversity and thus are more likely to have just the right spell on hand to deal with the situation.

Then take into account the Quicken Spell metamagic feat. You can start to use it at level 9, but it won't probably really come into its own until around level 13 and then it just keeps getting more and more useful. So now not only does the wizard have diverse heap of spells ready to go, but he can start casting many of them two per round.

Now imagine if you play in games where it's six hours of roleplaying and then one big encounter in the one session. In those five rounds the versatility of the wizard dramatically rises.

Overall somewhere between level 7 and level 13, depending on the DM and players at the table, the wizard starts to shoot away. In roleplay heavy games it could go as low as level 5, but pretty much at level 13 and beyond the wizard just keeps leaping ahead.

Aldizog
2010-01-02, 05:59 PM
As much of my experience relies on games played by "98% RAW, 2% Fix", I can tell you, wizards start to shine early and often.

RAW doesn't tell you encounter design, setting (e.g. dungeons vs. open-air), monster tactics, or frequency, nor does it tell you the optimization level that players and the DM are using. Two campaigns that are both using the same nominal ruleset can be very different experiences. So your experience is useful as an example of one player's experience, but the fact that you use 98% RAW is only part of what has made your gaming experience what it is. It's not like all games that are "98% RAW" are going to look the same.

Boci
2010-01-02, 06:06 PM
RAW doesn't tell you encounter design, setting (e.g. dungeons vs. open-air), monster tactics, or frequency, nor does it tell you the optimization level that players and the DM are using. Two campaigns that are both using the same nominal ruleset can be very different experiences. So your experience is useful as an example of one player's experience, but the fact that you use 98% RAW is only part of what has made your gaming experience what it is. It's not like all games that are "98% RAW" are going to look the same.

Okay true, but how many times will the 2% fix give a 1st level fighter the chance to end an encounter of multiple opponents with a standard action? Or a 6th level fighter a chance to kill a CR: 20 dragon? I know the wizard's chances are pretty low, but the fact that they have a chance and the fighter doesn't says a lot.
In all fairness the 2% fix will most probably ban or nerf shivering touch, but colour spray?

In my own expirience fighters start to feel pointless around level 5, but most of my DMs have few encounters per day.

Aldizog
2010-01-02, 06:11 PM
Okay true, but how many times will the 2% fix give a 1st level fighter the chance to end an encounter of multiple opponents with a standard action? Or a 6th level fighter a chance to kill a CR: 20 dragon? I know the wizard's chances are pretty low, but the fact that they have a chance and the fighter doesn't says a lot.
No, I don't mean the 2% fix.
I mean things like encounter design. Whether the battles are open fields or dungeons with 20' rooms. What specific kind of foes you fight. How many encounters you have in a day. Campaign downtime, and remote wilderness or deep megadungeons vs. easily-accessible cities. Things that aren't part of the rules but are a crucial part of our gameplay experiences.

These things can alter the low-mid level balance in terms of actual gameplay. When DMing, I am quite aware that encounter design and adventure design do shift the usefulness of certain classes to a degree. Not enough that a Ran16 can remotely compete with a Wiz16, but at level 8 it can alter things a great deal.

You indicate that you usually see fewer encounters per day. That means the wizard starts becoming dominant sooner.

Boci
2010-01-02, 06:38 PM
No, I don't mean the 2% fix.
I mean things like encounter design. Whether the battles are open fields or dungeons with 20' rooms. What specific kind of foes you fight. How many encounters you have in a day. Campaign downtime, and remote wilderness or deep megadungeons vs. easily-accessible cities. Things that aren't part of the rules but are a crucial part of our gameplay experiences.

Fair enough. Some of those things sound like campeign design more than enconter design (I expect to know at character creation whether I'll be fighting in a deep megadungeons or an easily-accessible city, but I do not expect much more detailed info then that reguarding room siye ect) but your points still stand.


You see fewer encounters per day. That means the wizard starts becoming dominant sooner.

I know, you should see my current game: Yet to have three encounters per day and all books allowed. Which wouldn't be too bad if it wasn't for the fact that the melee characters can't be bothered to check any non-core books and me the archivist stays up into the early morning planning which spells to learn and prepare and making a photo copy of every domain in existence (and the factotum is pretty optomiyed as well). Yeah this doesn't have disaster waiting to happen written all over it.

deuxhero
2010-01-02, 06:55 PM
What level do they get sleep and color spray?

Boci
2010-01-02, 07:02 PM
What level do they get sleep and color spray?

-3 I think, if you play a warforge wizard and take that -4 LA construct template.

Doc Roc
2010-01-02, 07:17 PM
My experience has indicated that barring what most people would consider game-breaks, the sorcerer can keep pace till epic.

Mike_G
2010-01-02, 07:23 PM
As much of my experience relies on games played by "98% RAW, 2% Fix", I can tell you, wizards start to shine early and often.

Encounter 3 CR above you at level 1? Wizard has the best chance to drop it.


Yes. Sorta.

He is the most powerful, for a one time thing. Sleep or Color Spray can take out an encounter, but how many spells do you get per day at level 1? What if you run into Zombies or Skeletons or Oozes?

You can't just dispense with the party like you can later.

And at 1st level, the Fighter/Barbarian etc, should be able to one-shot most monsters, and take a hit and survive. The Wizard really is a glass cannon at low levels. The dynamic can balance very nicely through the first 5 or 6 levels.




Level 7? Well, various walls come into play, and Dim Door, Blur, and protective effects really come into their own.

At this point, a wizard can play so as not to outshine the party by being a buffer/controller instead of casting Quickened Win The Game every encounter, but will still probably be the biggest contributor.




Level 13? The power spells are rolling out. Wizards can end many rough encounters with a well placed spell or two.

At this point, it's a lot of work for the Wizard not to leave anyone in the dust. With access to 7th level spells, the Wizard can probably solo any encounter he chooses to.

So I think your categories are pretty accurate, but I really do think low level Wizards are nicely balanced.

Leolo
2010-01-02, 08:40 PM
Bards - Level 5.

Until then bards have more hit points, more skills, better attack, and even spells a wizard could not cast at this time (like suggestion, hold person) or never (like bard only spells or spells from the druid or cleric list)

A better base attack bonus, better weapon and armor useage and class features, too.

Eldariel
2010-01-02, 08:59 PM
Really, now? Level 1, they have no 1st level casting. Level 2, they have 0 1st level spells (probably coming out at 1), lacking a great number of notable options too (Grease, Ray of Enfeeblement, Enlarge Person, Color Spray...). Oh, and they have a grand total of 2 spells known on level 2. Level 3, they get 1 1st level slot meaning they'll probably be able to cast 2.

Then, level 4, they finally get 2nd level spells. Too bad they have 0 of them, most likely ending up able to cast 1 thanks to high Cha. If they had actual spells per day, this is the one level where they could be ahead. However, 0/day doesn't cut it.

All this while Bardic Music is lagging behind with 1/day on level 1, 2/day on level 2 and 3/day on level 3. Also, the only options are the non-combat Fascinate (without Suggestion), Countersong (which SUCKS), +1 Inspire Courage (which amounts to Bless), and on level 3, Inspire Competence (which is very bleh). Of those, Inspire Courage is the only one that can be made worthwhile in combat and it requires either spells or feats, as items are hard to track down for those prices. Even if we calculated Bardic Music as level 1 spells, they'd still be behind, so meh.


By comparison, Wizard gets 1 standard 1st level slot on level 1, and can Specialize or Generalize for another one and then gets a 3rd one from Int and might get a 4th one as well. And hell, he can Focused Specialize for a 5th. Then, level 2, they have 4-6 to Bard's 1-2 (possible extra from 20 Cha).

And level 3, 2nd level spells bring another 2-5 more spells within their reach (though 5 is highly unlikely, requiring Craft Wondrous Item and time to craft +2 Headband of Iny). Either way, the Wizard can have upwards to 10 spells this level, not counting Cantrips, while Bards are lucky to have 3 with 3 uses of Bardic Music. Not to mention, Wizard's level 2 spells include Web, Glitterdust, Alter Self and company; a whole array of raw power.

Of those, Bard lose out on a bunch (Fog Cloud, Web and Gust of Wind, for few core examples; the one thing they get is Heroism and frankly, it isn't really all that efficient on these levels yet, especially as it doesn't stack with their Inspire Courage). Of course, they don't even GET level 2s before level 4, and then they get to cast two if they crafted their Cloak of Cha +2 AND started with 19-20.


Nay, Bard doesn't really compare. Not in terms of combat efficiency at any rate. Lots of skills + Fascinate means they have a ton of good stuff out-of-combat. That said, Wizards can replicate some of that with their more numerous spells while still maintaining combat flexibility. Their Spells Per Day are simply much lower and they advance much more slowly and miss out on some key spells.

Leolo
2010-01-02, 09:42 PM
Never said bards are better casters of spells from the wizards spell list at this level. Only that wizards surpass them beyond it.

Bards always have the option to draw a big sword and do some damage or to simple inspire courage so it is not surprising that they have less spells than a wizard.

Also some of the spells you have mentioned to be part of the raw wizard power are on the bard spell list, too. At least Glitterdust and Alter Self. They are good spells for this level, same as suggestion.

Eldariel
2010-01-02, 09:52 PM
Bards always have the option to draw a big sword and do some damage or to simple inspire courage so it is not surprising that they have less spells than a wizard.

Inspire Courage isn't an amazing buff on low levels though, without a huge party and tons of optimization anyways (Song of the Heart couldn't be taken before level 3-6 IIRC leaving only Inspiration Boost which burns the few level 1 spells you have real fast).

As for the sword...the only one they're proficient in is Longsword, which is hardly optimal on level 1. The one advantage they have on level 1 is Armor Proficiency, but other than that, High Str Wizard can melee just as well as High Str Bard. With Abrupt Jaunt, the Wizard may even have some survivability (the Bard really has precious little, being one hit away from death).


I wouldn't frankly put either in melee on level 1 outside completely obscene stats. Few reach weapons (other than Whip which doesn't give AoOs), low HP, etc. Give them a bow and profit. There's no difference in their combat ability before level 3 and very little until level 5.


Also some of the spells you have mentioned to be part of the raw wizard power are on the bard spell list, too. At least Glitterdust and Alter Self. They are good spells for this level, same as suggestion.

Of course, but Wizard's power comes from the mix of various attacks hitting each save while Bard pretty much lacks the Ref/Fort spells entirely hitting only Will. Good spells, to be sure, and Alter Self just kicks ass, but with the limitation in place and so few overall, I don't see them matching up.


Really, I'd argue that Wizards give a party more than Bards from level 1 if both are built with low-level play in mind, or if both are built with high-level play in mind. Bards quite compete with Wizards on the lowest levels (come midlevels, they become more versatile, but Wizards are rocket-throttling past them by then) on the same strengths and Wizard being more focused is just much stronger on that exact set of abilities.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 09:54 PM
Bards only trump Wizards at low levels in mass combat situations. There's very little a level 1 Wizard can do that compares to a level 1 Bard with Masterwork War Drums playing Inspire Courage for a whole army for the duration of the battle.

But of course that very rarely comes up in actual game play, as few people play low level characters in large armies. Still, that's one situation where it could happen.

Just playing Devil's Advocate for a moment here.

JaronK

Aldizog
2010-01-02, 10:08 PM
Bards' skill list is not entirely non-combat-related. Balance, Tumble, Listen, and Knowledge all have applications, and bards get a lot of skill points. And in many non-combat challenges these and other skills will help them a lot. They also have better Reflex saves than wizards.

So in addition to mass combat, bards might also be better in swashbuckling Indiana Jones-type adventures with traps, balancing, falls, cliffs, ledges, and so on. The kind of things that DMs like to use at low-levels because they know they'll never get to use them at mid-to-high levels.

HCL
2010-01-02, 10:12 PM
What book are masterwork war drums from?

JaronK
2010-01-02, 10:15 PM
They're in Complete Adventurer. And they're quite handy.

JaronK

jiriku
2010-01-02, 10:28 PM
When you're level 15 and have CL 35, DC 40 symbols of weakness, you are not unoptimized.

You flatter me, sir. I am not half so clever as you think.

The worst of it is, I truly didn't optimize the wizard. I played a necromancer with a focus on cyst-related spells, but my most effective spells were generally conjurations. I prestiged into red wizard (thus the high CL and save DCs on the symbol), but didn't think to get a red wizard cohort - my cohort was a cleric and my wizard's circle was a bunch of level 1-5 followers. I banned illusion, and later realized that simulacrum is a very good spell for a red wizard. Shivering touch likewise caught me by surprise. I just thought, "hey, here's a spell that people say is good. It deals Dex damage, and we're going to be fighting a dragon next week. Dragons have low Dex, why don't I pick up this spell and give it a try?" Even the redonculously good symbol of weakness simply came from thinking "hey, I can make this spell permanent with permanency. Well, I need a high caster level to make sure it doesn't get dispelled. I'm taking a whole day of downtime to do it so I guess I'll just do circle magic until my followers run out of spells and buff the caster level -- guess I'll spend the extra bonus levels on heightening it. And hey, didn't I take sudden maximize last level? Might as well put that on too. Heck, why don't I just put all my metamagic on it, since I'm paying so much XP for permanency."

Had I seriously played a Batman wizard according to the LogicNinja guide, the disparity would have been gruesomely hilarious.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 10:34 PM
You're describing standard Wizard play there. "Hey, wait, I have this spell! It looks useful. I should try it!" Next thing you know you're god. Yeesh.

JaronK

Eldariel
2010-01-02, 10:35 PM
Bards only trump Wizards at low levels in mass combat situations. There's very little a level 1 Wizard can do that compares to a level 1 Bard with Masterwork War Drums playing Inspire Courage for a whole army for the duration of the battle.

But of course that very rarely comes up in actual game play, as few people play low level characters in large armies. Still, that's one situation where it could happen.

Just playing Devil's Advocate for a moment here.

JaronK

Aye, that's a given; in army situation, mass buffers tend to rock on low levels, and Bard is the very best one, especially if we go by the apparent RAW that Inspire Courage never ends as long as you keep performing. Hell, level 2 you could Inspirational Boost that for massive bonuses, but that's not really an argument for Bards over Wizards in context of D&D adventures.

So yeah, well played. I'm not arguing against a role that's irrevocably right. Though I suppose if the opposing army happened to contain a very large number of highly powerful singular melee creatures, getting Greases and Rays of Enfeeblement could compare. But eh...yeah, that's reaching for it.

Mike_G
2010-01-02, 10:47 PM
I think low level play is fairly well balanced. It has been in my experience at least.

I think that's the appeal of E6. You get to chuck 3rd level spells, which are cool, like Fly and Haste and Fireball, but you never get the huge cheese.

At the low levels, Spells Per Day will prevent the Wizard from being prepared for everything. Sure, he can best any given encounter with the right spell, but he can only prepare for so many possibilities, and he doesn't have the really impressive defenses yet, he can't Teleport away or spend all night every night in his Rope Trick. He can do a lot, but still does better with a group.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 10:52 PM
Aye, that's a given; in army situation, mass buffers tend to rock on low levels, and Bard is the very best one, especially if we go by the apparent RAW that Inspire Courage never ends as long as you keep performing. Hell, level 2 you could Inspirational Boost that for massive bonuses, but that's not really an argument for Bards over Wizards in context of D&D adventures.

So yeah, well played. I'm not arguing against a role that's irrevocably right. Though I suppose if the opposing army happened to contain a very large number of highly powerful singular melee creatures, getting Greases and Rays of Enfeeblement could compare. But eh...yeah, that's reaching for it.

Yeah, well, mass buffing (and I mean REALLY mass buffing) at low levels is where the Bard is king, as that's his best area. Most places outside of that the Wizard is going to have better spells available.

I do believe that the Bard is quite potent at low levels, where skills actually matter significantly. But for virtually every situation, there's a Wizard spell that rocks, and a lot of the time that's the same spell (Glitterdust or Color Spray for most low level combat situations, for example).

JaronK

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-04, 02:24 AM
So I think your categories are pretty accurate, but I really do think low level Wizards are nicely balanced.

I'm specifically looking at the most challenging fights.

A level 1 wizard has the best chance to drop a CR 4.
A level 1 fighter or barbarian often can't reliably drop the same.

I perused a half dozen CR 4's. HP ranged from 40-75, with a typical of around 50.

Will saves ranged from 3-6, with the typical being +3.

Zen Master
2010-01-04, 03:34 AM
In other words, if you try to use individual RAP to answer such an open-ended question, all you get is a bunch of answers that nobody cares about.

No .... that's what I get if we discuss RAW. I'm sorry, but pointless literal interpretations of text are just that to me: Pointless. I can easily navigate the stormy seas of differing sets of RAP, and learn from that - but RAW gives no nothing at all.


Even if nobody plays by RAW, EVERYONE starts there.

See, even if not everyone plays RAW... everyone KNOWS it.

And - naturally - I disagree with this as well. You actually start with RAI, because starting out, no one sets out to break the rules. All that comes later, with adaption and specialisation. You *learn* to break the rules.

And frankly - no one knows RAW. I've seen more discussions here about exactly what the (in)correct literal interpretation of the rules are than pretty much any other topic. Well that and questions about builds, which often becomes something very similar.

JaronK
2010-01-04, 03:48 AM
Ah, but even before your mistaken interpretations you have RAW, and from this you create house rules (even if you don't recognize them as such). Here's the thing though... those house rules go in different directions. Some people boost Sorcerers because they think they're too weak. Some nerf Monks. Some don't understand how Power Attack works and accidentally nerf that. Since these house rules go in different directions, RAW is the closest average point between all games except in a few rare cases where RAI is perfectly clear, clearer even that RAW (a good example is the Monk Unarmed Strike proficiency issue).

The chances of any one player over the internet having your house rules for any given situation is extremely small. The chances of any one player over the internet having RAW in a given situation is far higher. The chances of RAW being closer to that one player's house rules than your house rules are to their house rules is quite high as well.

This is why we discuss RAW, even though almost everyone doesn't play it completely.

JaronK

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-04, 03:57 AM
No .... that's what I get if we discuss RAW. I'm sorry, but pointless literal interpretations of text are just that to me: Pointless. I can easily navigate the stormy seas of differing sets of RAP, and learn from that - but RAW gives no nothing at all.
For this to be true, the following statements must be true:

(1) RAP and RAW must not align.
- False. About 95-98% of RAW is commonly used as printed. This means that, for 95-98% of RAW discussions, they are relevant. For example. RAW for an attack roll is (1d20+ability modifier + relevant modifiers vs AC). This is not a "pointless literal interpretation". It is a "literal interpretation that is the basis for the combat system".

(2) Nothing can be gained by bringing errors in RAW to light.
- False. Corporations spend tons of money each year identifying problems. Why? Because knowing the problem is the first step to correcting it.

Now, you want to discuss RAP? Fine. Discuss my RAP on AoO's. Go.
...
...
You can't? Because you don't know it?
Odd, anyone with a PHB can pick it up, read a few sentences, and intelligently discuss AoO's by RAW, identify possible problems, and introduce houserules to correct them.

Is that process pointless? The process of identifying errors and fixing them? Is it?

Because that's what you've stated.

And - naturally - I disagree with this as well. You actually start with RAI, because starting out, no one sets out to break the rules. All that comes later, with adaption and specialisation. You *learn* to break the rules.RAW is not about breaking the rules.

I'll repeat that.

RAW is not about breaking the rules.

Everyone who picks up a book, and reads the rules, reads them as written. From there, they interpret them. But everyone starts by reading the rules. As they are written. Rules... as written. RAW.

No matter what else you say, that is true. For someone to start D&D, they generally must pick up a book, and start reading.


And frankly - no one knows RAW. I've seen more discussions here about exactly what the (in)correct literal interpretation of the rules are than pretty much any other topic. Well that and questions about builds, which often becomes something very similar.
There are areas that are unclear? Yup.
There are areas open to interpretation? Yup.
How does blatantly ignoring learning the areas benefit anyone?

It doesn't.

Changes to RAW are fine. They're even recommended. However, any change that's made should be for a reason. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and all that.

And how will you know what's broke unless you look at it, discuss it, and come to an educated decision?

No, I will not willfully ignore the baseline so that I can play cops and robbers. I gave that up long ago. If rules need changing, I'll change them. But in order to know that they need changing? The basis must be:

This is the rule.

This rule is unbalanced.

This is my fix.

Now, see? We have RAP in there. It's the solution. But looking for a solution without knowing the problem is like trying to get to Tulsa, Oklahoma when you don't know where you are.

If you don't know where you are, you cannot make an educated decision about where you are going. If your decision isn't educated, it's based in ignorance of the rules, and I will not agree to the path of ignorance.

Zen Master
2010-01-04, 06:22 AM
For this to be true, the following statements must be true:

... shortened to conserve space ...

If you don't know where you are, you cannot make an educated decision about where you are going. If your decision isn't educated, it's based in ignorance of the rules, and I will not agree to the path of ignorance.

That's a long post. My most obvious answer would be 'I disagree', which isn't really fair. But it would sum it up quite nicely.

Your percentates are way off. Now, if you assume that all the rules are actually used - even if only infrequently - they may be right. But I've never used lots of stuff, starting with WBL, treasure tables, the whole chapter on NPC's, the entire part about doors and traps, and a lot more to boot. Of the parts I do use, I'd say 50% are RAI, not RAW.

About problemsolving - I really don't need to go into RAW to find out what is wrong. It's not a puzzle I'm solving, I don't need to lay down all the little tiles to see where the last piece fits. There is a simple rule of thumb: There should be no obvious choices. If there is anything you can tell in advance every druid should have (natural spell) then chances are it's not as it should be. Or it should have been a class feature, which is possible. Same goes for things no one in their right mind would ever chose - like toughness.

Now, maybe I'm just assuming we're all past the point where we pick up the rules, hitherto unseen, and stare at them in awe and wonder. Because naturally you're correct in so far as the text in the actual books are the foundation we build on. But like I said - digging back down into that foundation and starting from scratch is just silly and unproductive. To me.

I'd much rather speak with people who've left that behind - about how their actual play works, and how they made it so.

Sure, RAW may come up in such a discussion. As in 'well by RAW, toughness is pointless, so we made it so-and-so.' But really, it need not. And even when it does, it's the persons fix that's interesting - not what the rules had to say about it.

Teron
2010-01-04, 06:54 AM
Of the parts I do use, I'd say 50% are RAI, not RAW.
Are you actually implying that anything close to 50% of the RAW diverge from the RAI? :smallconfused:

Killer Angel
2010-01-04, 06:56 AM
That's a long post. My most obvious answer would be 'I disagree', which isn't really fair. But it would sum it up quite nicely.

Snip

I'd much rather speak with people who've left that behind - about how their actual play works, and how they made it so.
Sure, RAW may come up in such a discussion. As in 'well by RAW, toughness is pointless, so we made it so-and-so.' But really, it need not. And even when it does, it's the persons fix that's interesting - not what the rules had to say about it.

It really depends on the discussion.
RAI and fixes belongs more to the homebrew section, or to balance question (a request to evaluate a fix to fighters or a nerf to wizards).
But if you ask for help for a barbarian build with Core and ToB, we stick by RAW (unless specified differently). The same for arena tournament, etc.
You cannot escape RAW, because even RAI starts from RAW. Even if you don't know what are the RAW for a specific argument.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-04, 07:06 AM
Your percentates are way off. Now, if you assume that all the rules are actually used - even if only infrequently - they may be right. But I've never used lots of stuff, starting with WBL, treasure tables, the whole chapter on NPC's, the entire part about doors and traps, and a lot more to boot. Of the parts I do use, I'd say 50% are RAI, not RAW.I'd say you take for granted many things that you do.

For example: Skills encompass hundreds of rules. Only those involving certain skills are remotely viewed as overpowered (diplomacy, UMD). Of those skills, one of which really only has broken applications when looking at the Epic sections.

All the rest? Used RAW, without really realizing how many rules you comply with on a single skill check. The d20 mechanic. Opposed check rules. Skill specific rules.

So when you say 50% are not RAW? I can only say that you are sadly misinformed as to how many rules are out there that are balanced, more or less. Actually, I consider this a testament to the ruleset as a whole, that most of it is simply taken for granted.

After all, most people pay very little attention to the foundation of their house. But without it, there wouldn't even be a house.


About problemsolving - I really don't need to go into RAW to find out what is wrong. It's not a puzzle I'm solving, I don't need to lay down all the little tiles to see where the last piece fits. There is a simple rule of thumb: There should be no obvious choices. If there is anything you can tell in advance every druid should have (natural spell) then chances are it's not as it should be. Or it should have been a class feature, which is possible. Same goes for things no one in their right mind would ever chose - like toughness.YOU UNDERSTAND THAT BY UNDERSTANDING THE CLASSES AND THE FEATS. THAT IS RAW.


Now, maybe I'm just assuming we're all past the point where we pick up the rules, hitherto unseen, and stare at them in awe and wonder. Because naturally you're correct in so far as the text in the actual books are the foundation we build on. But like I said - digging back down into that foundation and starting from scratch is just silly and unproductive. To me.There's a reason that when people that write books make a new translation, they go to the original source.

Accuracy. It's imprecise to never reconsider the foundation on which your house is built. Do it long enough, and you fall into incoherence.


I'd much rather speak with people who've left that behind - about how their actual play works, and how they made it so.Then you're gonna have a fit with me. My actual play works about 95% or more by RAW, and it seems balanced to me. Perhaps not by YOUR standards... But I don't care about your standards. They don't impact my games. My game play DOES work, and explaining it to you won't help it. Hearing your views on how abilities and powers that I have no problem incorporating cannot be incorporated?

It reminds me of something I read once.

"Those who say it cannot be done should stay out of the way of those who are doing it."

See? The main issue with leaving RAW behind is that the vast majority of the problems come from NOT understanding RAW. If everyone starts by moving past it? You don't identify the problem.

Basic rules of Troubleshooting: Begin at the beginning, and eliminate possibilities until you have a solution.



Sure, RAW may come up in such a discussion. As in 'well by RAW, toughness is pointless, so we made it so-and-so.' But really, it need not. And even when it does, it's the persons fix that's interesting - not what the rules had to say about it.
"By RAW, Toughness is pointless" - nonsensical. You're saying:
<The fact of the matter is> <insert unsupported opinion here>
By RAW, Toughness grants +3 HP. That is RAW. One can infer that other feats are superior, but that isn't RAW. That's Character Optimization. That's evaluating RAW choices, and choosing the one that's better. But even that is based in knowing what those RAW choices are.

Zen Master
2010-01-04, 08:33 AM
It really depends on the discussion.
RAI and fixes belongs more to the homebrew section, or to balance question (a request to evaluate a fix to fighters or a nerf to wizards).
But if you ask for help for a barbarian build with Core and ToB, we stick by RAW (unless specified differently). The same for arena tournament, etc.
You cannot escape RAW, because even RAI starts from RAW. Even if you don't know what are the RAW for a specific argument.

Yes - I can agree with that. But I'm not trying to 'escape RAW' as you put it - rather I regret that so many discussions on this forum end up being about RAW, when very often that just .... not interesting. To me.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-04, 09:04 AM
Yes - I can agree with that. But I'm not trying to 'escape RAW' as you put it - rather I regret that so many discussions on this forum end up being about RAW, when very often that just .... not interesting. To me.

You have the freedom to skip over the things that do not interest you, you know. It's perfectly acceptable, rather than start a crusade to enforce a minority preference upon the majority audience.

I mean, you're more than welcome to post in areas you don't find interesting. I, for one, tend to skip such things because I don't like boring myself.

Zen Master
2010-01-04, 09:49 AM
You have the freedom to skip over the things that do not interest you, you know. It's perfectly acceptable, rather than start a crusade to enforce a minority preference upon the majority audience.

I mean, you're more than welcome to post in areas you don't find interesting. I, for one, tend to skip such things because I don't like boring myself.

I think you mistake 'most vocal' for 'most numerous'. I absolutely do not consider myself in the minority here.

Also, crusade and enforce are words I feel a strong resentment towards you using in this particular context. If you could term it that I 'politely present a popular alternative view' that'd sit better with me.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-04, 09:52 AM
I suspect it's the default attitude for newcomers. The whole "I don't play RAW, I don't care about it" is relatively common at first, until you realize "hey...what I play isn't that far off RAW", and realize what sort of ridiculous house rules other people play with that you also don't care about.

RAW is your best friend for pretty generic questions like overall class balance.

Thus, it's a pretty widely accepted convention, both here and on other similar forums.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-04, 10:07 AM
I think you mistake 'most vocal' for 'most numerous'. I absolutely do not consider myself in the minority here.
People who don't make their voice heard, aren't counted. Whether you feel that you have a silent million man march supporting you or not is irrelevant (though many like to believe that many others believe what they do, even in the total absence of any evidence to support this. It's a psychological thing.)

Those that don't vote, aren't counted.
Of the people who voice an opinion?

You are most assuredly in the minority.


Also, crusade and enforce are words I feel a strong resentment towards you using in this particular context.
You are attempting to get everyone to go along with your way of thinking, right? You're attempting to get them to speak in the manner that you find most interesting, in contrast to the evidence that shows you alone in this desire.

In short: You are attempting to get a majority to post in a manner less interesting to them and more interesting to you. You have no reason for this, other than you personally prefer it.

If you could term it that I 'politely present a popular alternative view' that'd sit better with me.
LOL. I'm sure it would. However, in my conversations with you, there have been many times I've not seen polite. So I'll leave that out.

Further, I've not seen one drop of evidence to support 'popular'. So I'll leave that out.

I have seen you reiterate it several times, to the point of relentlessness. So I'll add that in.

I have seen you argue it, despite a much greater opposition to it. So I'll add that in.

Your request is in the nature of altering posting style. So I'll add that in.

What do I have now?

"Relentlessly advocating a minority alternative posting style, despite evidence that the majority prefers otherwise"

Killer Angel
2010-01-04, 10:49 AM
Yes - I can agree with that. But I'm not trying to 'escape RAW' as you put it - rather I regret that so many discussions on this forum end up being about RAW, when very often that just .... not interesting. To me.

I'm fine with this; you can certainly dislike "RAWish" discussions.
I don't like RAWtarded positions on arguments like SLA Wish, etc.
But this don't negate the fact that RAW is our common ground, and the starting point (even when unmentioned) for any discussion.

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-04, 11:42 AM
Here's the issue. Everyone has different houserules. Here's mine:All characters:
All WotC 3.5 books allowed
Level 5
Stats are 4d6b3 roll 7 and take best or 32 pt buy
HP is either rolled or average, whichever you prefer, max at 1st level.
Everyone gets Able Learner free.
Multiclass XP penalties can go die in a fire.
Fractional BAB/Saves if you want it(good saves progress at level/2, poor ones at level/3, good progression only adds the +2 once).
You level up when I feel it appropriate, not by XP.
If you want to craft items(you poor, poor, fool), we'll work something out, but it won't be XP.
3rd party, Dragon, and Homebrew are allowed with approval only. I like them a lot of the time, but they require triple-checking.
All classes get an additional 2 skillpoints per level.
Feats at 1st level and every even level after
Ask about LA. It may be adjusted downwards.
ToB and Complete Scoundrel are allowed.
Skill focus makes a skill a class skill for you and gives a +3 bonus.
Stupidly broken feats, items, spells, and class features are banned. Retroactively, if necessary.

Casters:
Wizards are banned.
Savant, summoner, and rearranger are allowed.
Druids have partial spellcasting(ranger progression) and AC at level-3.
Spirit Shamen are unchanged.
Archivists and Artificers are banned. Anyone who mentions Spell-to-Power will be smacked by the CPsi.
Psionics and MoI are banned until I get a better handle on the rules.
All [Calling] effects are banned until I houserule them to something simple, balanced, and SANE.
Any metamagic reducer requires talking with me first. This includes Rods, DMM, and similar, but doesn't mean I'll say no.
Cloistered Cleric is encouraged.
Contingency, Celerity, Streamers, Fabricate, the Creation line, Venomfire, and all spells from those lines are banned.

Martial characters:
Rangers have full-progression AC.
Iron Heart Surge is gong to be ruled as I feel like, not as the RAW reads. Because the RAW is stupid.
ToB is allowed. Now, if you start a discussion on when Druids start being OP, I can respond either with an analysis using the RAW, or I can respond with "They never are." Then when someone asks me for how I can possibly believe that, I roll out my list of houserules designed to nerf Druids to something reasonable, which, while interesting, does nothing to help the guy who just wants to know when he should start reining his Druid character in.
RAW is common. If someone provides an analysis of something by RAW, I can take it, apply changes based on my houserules, and use it. if they provide analysis based on their own houserules, assuming they list all of their houserules for me(and that they even remember every houserule they play with), I still have to go over and de-apply all of their alterations before I can make any of my own, and if I miss some odd interaction of their houserules, I end up with the wrong idea anyways.

Roland St. Jude
2010-01-04, 04:23 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: This thread seems to have degenerated beyond salvaging. Thread locked.