PDA

View Full Version : Wizards, worst class you can play in a real game



taltamir
2010-01-11, 04:29 PM
Wizards, by the RAW, are pure unadulterated power. They are gods among insects. The only thing that can best a wizard is another wizard. Although a few other full casters come close...

Then you get real gameplay...
But with a wizard it is an all or nothing kind of deal, wizards who aren't casting spells are effectively commoners.

DMs will hate their power and brokenness, they will hate how many of their powers (which are essential to the wizard's survival) completely break the campaign. They will hate how they overshadow the others, they will hate the perceived power (since your DM probably read about he tier system and how every char op is about wizards).

So the ban hammer starts dropping. Gone are the good spells (with the exception of buffing), gone are the good feats, gone are the good PrCs, gone are meta reducers, gone are the pathways to real and awesome power...
You are left with a simpering 4HD low bab and 2 bad saves character who is only good at one thing, buffing. with a dash of crowd control and defensive spells.

And that doesn't even take into account the really extreme DM's who start to fiat away all the wizards powers... aka, someone sunders your spellbook, you need to track every material component, even cheap ones; you wake up bound and gagged and your spellbook and component pouch are gone; spells don't quite work right; everything has insane SR and saves, and spells that ignore either are not allowed... etc.

But, you think to yourself... buffing is pretty good, right? you can play god? you can hire hirelings, you can build a golem...
Can you though? DnD is a group game... sure, summoning a monster and then getting out of the way sounds great on paper, but that isn't team playing.

So there you are, trying to sit in the back out of combat, dropping the occasional buff, CC, or summon... You will be skipping turns, a lot; skipping turns is not fun. You will be dying, dying is not fun. You will never ever kill something yourself; not killing anything isn't fun...
And unlike your team mates, your character sheet takes the absolute most amount of work to write and maintain. Many more hours will go into the effort of building and maintaining a wizard then other classes.

And what if the DM allows everything? unless he is dumbing down opponents, then you will end up with every fight being a wizard fight... the PC party wizard vs the NPC wizard. If either has no wizard, it loses. Also not fun... because you are trying to play with people, not against people.

The end result is a class that is theoretically godly and overpowered, and in effect not fun to play, and not all that worthwhile to play either.

Swordgleam
2010-01-11, 04:34 PM
Is this true? I know according to the ideas of charOp it's true, but I've never seen a real game play out like that. Usually everyone is about the same power level regardless of class, though player skill makes some characters more useful than others.

Maybe it's because most of the people I game with don't read gaming forums. But I feel like there's a considerable gap in the experiences of those who don't and those who do.

jmbrown
2010-01-11, 04:38 PM
The wizard's power is directly proportional to the source books allowed at the table. A lot of spells that float around this forum like nerveskitter and mindrape I've never heard of primarily because I never kept up with the thirty something splat books. Power gaming in general assumes you have access to everything you want exactly when it should be available. If the DM puts a limit on anything, such as making Blessed Book worth 40x its base cost, then the player's plans are forced to change.

This doesn't change anything, though. Houserules, ban lists, and errata doesn't change the fact that wizard is more powerful than everyone else. Even if you play the game using core material, RAW only, and elite array the wizard is still in a league of his own. The fighter needs magic armor, magic swords, and magic potions. The wizard needs a headband and a book. Depending on what material you allow, neither.

As far as the not fun to play thing, that's an opinion. I know plenty of people who have fun breaking everything.

FishAreWet
2010-01-11, 04:38 PM
Wizards, worst class you can play in a game with an ass of a DM.

Vizzerdrix
2010-01-11, 04:38 PM
If we are talking real play, I have never seen any class nerfed that much in my twelve years of play. Ever.

And if the DM gets that pissy over wizards, then make a druid :smallamused:

FishAreWet
2010-01-11, 04:39 PM
The wizard's power is directly proportional to the source books allowed at the table. A lot of spells that float around this forum like nerveskitter and mindrape I've never heard of primarily because I never kept up with the thirty something splat books. Power gaming in general assumes you have access to everything you want exactly when it should be available. If the DM puts a limit on anything, such as making Blessed Book worth 40x its base cost, then the player's plans are forced to change.

This doesn't change anything, though. Houserules, ban lists, and errata doesn't change the fact that wizard is more powerful than everyone else. Even if you play the game using core material, RAW only, and elite array the wizard is still in a league of his own.

As far as the not fun to play thing, that's an opinion. I know plenty of people who have fun breaking everything.

Core, by far, has the highest concentration of unadulterated OPness.

Splatbooks let you get creative, but core has Genesis, Gate, Planar Bindings, Wish, all the Images...

Vizzerdrix
2010-01-11, 04:40 PM
Core, by far, has the highest concentration of unadulterated OPness yummness.

Oh hai I fixed this 4U ^_^

Boci
2010-01-11, 04:41 PM
The wizard's power is directly proportional to the source books allowed at the table.

As is every class. A wizard can be fun though, especially if you focus on buffing, although debuffing and battlefield control can also be managed without making other classes feel useless.

Zen Master
2010-01-11, 04:42 PM
Is this true? I know according to the ideas of charOp it's true, but I've never seen a real game play out like that. Usually everyone is about the same power level regardless of class, though player skill makes some characters more useful than others.

Maybe it's because most of the people I game with don't read gaming forums. But I feel like there's a considerable gap in the experiences of those who don't and those who do.

Quite so. And being a guy who mostly plays sword-swingers, I have powered right through the defences of so many wizards, I've lost count.

There is one wizard I remember - well, three, but the last two are Azalin and Strahd, and they hardly count, but the ancient elf king from that old Dragon Magazine. What was his name again? Anyways, that's off-topic.

I've never seen wizards as overpowered. Only one contingency, no all-day buffs, and a general consensus that both scrying and teleporting detract from the game - that's pretty much all it takes. Oh, and our games tend to stop around level 14 max. That helps a lot too, I suspect.

Longcat
2010-01-11, 04:42 PM
Anyone who complains about Wizards hasn't had a StP Erudite in his game yet.

That said, most people who play wizards aren't OPers. They will try to take the spells they think are "cool", which usually means Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Fly etc, e.g. mostly blasting. With such a "bad" spell selection, even wizards tend to drop in tiers.

And yes, I've actually seen a Monk/Cleric/Sacred Fist consistently outperform a Wizard/Incantatrix.

Mando Knight
2010-01-11, 04:43 PM
The wizard's power is directly proportional to the source books allowed at the table.

Actually, I believe the basics of the God-Wizard are found in core and the Spell Compendium, with some possible other support from Complete Arcane and Complete Mage... perhaps PHB2...

jmbrown
2010-01-11, 04:43 PM
Core, by far, has the highest concentration of unadulterated OPness.

Splatbooks let you get creative, but core has Genesis, Gate, Planar Bindings, Wish, all the Images...

Emphasis mine. Creativity is exactly what puts the wizard above everyone else. Core may contain powerful spells but the splat books give him far greater access to it.

taltamir
2010-01-11, 04:44 PM
I honestly don't think its splat books that are at fault... most of the broken comes directly out of core...

sure things like incantantrix and the like are found out of core. But core has things like polymorph, planar bindings, SLA = no cost, meta reducers (rods of metamagic), abusive spells and metamagic galore, spells that make you practically invulnerable, school specialization, etc.

Core only? bag of holding + shrink item + boulders + flight.
fly over a city and turn it upside down.


Anyone who complains about Wizards hasn't had a StP Erudite in his game yet.

That said, most people who play wizards aren't OPers. They will try to take the spells they think are "cool", which usually means Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Fly etc, e.g. mostly blasting. With such a "bad" spell selection, even wizards tend to drop in tiers.

And yes, I've actually seen a Monk/Cleric/Sacred Fist consistently outperform a Wizard/Incantatrix.

all the worst for those poor souls when they try using a useless spell like fireball... with full ban and nerf lists that take into account a char opper...

which introduces another problem, DMs having to comb through every wizard's character sheet and balance it on a case by case basis

Boci
2010-01-11, 04:44 PM
Quite so. And being a guy who mostly plays sword-swingers, I have powered right through the defences of so many wizards, I've lost count.

Overland flight? (Magic items can be dispelled)

Swordgleam
2010-01-11, 04:45 PM
That said, most people who play wizards aren't OPers. They will try to take the spells they think are "cool", which usually means Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Fly etc, e.g. mostly blasting. With such a "bad" spell selection, even wizards tend to drop in tiers.


Look, if you can't flood a 10' wide corridor full of bad guys and your allies with sheer molten flame, I don't even understand the point of having magic.
:smallbiggrin:

FishAreWet
2010-01-11, 04:45 PM
Emphasis mine. Creativity is exactly what puts the wizard above everyone else. Core may contain powerful spells but the splat books give him far greater access to it.

you're right, but the creativity isn't needed. The creativity is great, but Core alone puts him above everyone else.

Weezer
2010-01-11, 04:46 PM
Yes, if the DM hates wizards then it can be hard to play, of course if the DM bans everything that makes you a good class (apparently all non-buff spells??) then yes you're gonna suck. But a reasonable dm who just gets rid of the utterly broken spells (gate, wish, genesis, polymorph etc.) and game shattering prc's (tainted scholar, Iot7V, Incantatrix) will still leave a valid and very strong class.

ericgrau
2010-01-11, 04:48 PM
Is this true? I know according to the ideas of charOp it's true, but I've never seen a real game play out like that. Usually everyone is about the same power level regardless of class, though player skill makes some characters more useful than others.

Maybe it's because most of the people I game with don't read gaming forums. But I feel like there's a considerable gap in the experiences of those who don't and those who do.

+1. This is what I always experience, and I've seen others mention it dozens of times. Must suck to play after visiting char op if the OP is right. Though I wonder if even the char op people keep things under control for the sake of fun.


Overland flight? (Magic items can be dispelled)
1. See above on char op.
2. This isn't even good char op. There's the maneuverability limitations on overland flight often making it impractical, ranged weapons, dispel checks take a turn and may or may not succeed, who goes first, what your opponents does in the meantime, fighting another group with a caster who can fly the non-casters or just plain flying monsters, etc., etc. It's one thing when players choose not to put char op into practice. It's another when you start getting into the 50 different theoretical counters for 50 possible attacks which means if you want to prepare for everything you must burn more spell slots, gold and/or turns than you have... and then roll well without fail.

jmbrown
2010-01-11, 04:48 PM
I honestly don't think its splat books that are at fault... most of the broken comes directly out of core...

sure things like incantantrix and the like are found out of core. But core has things like polymorph, planar bindings, SLA = no cost, meta reducers (rods of metamagic), abusive spells and metamagic galore, spells that make you practically invulnerable, school specialization, etc.

Core only? bag of holding + shrink item + boulders + flight.
fly over a city and turn it upside down.



all the worst for those poor souls when they try using a useless spell like fireball... with full ban and nerf lists that take into account a char opper...

which introduces another problem, DMs having to comb through every wizard's character sheet and balance it on a case by case basis

And the splat books contain persistent spell, divine metamagic, sudden metamagic, eiditic spellcaster, etc. If core is opening the flood gates then supplements are blowing up the whole dam.

Mongoose87
2010-01-11, 04:49 PM
Honestly, if the DM ever sundered my spellbook for anything less than a good story or dramatic reason, I would probably pack up my dice and leave. Sundering a spellbook is essentially saying "You don't get class features for today."

aje8
2010-01-11, 04:50 PM
No. I'd have to disagree.

I've certaintly seen Wizards be the strongest class at the the table. It's possible, though, for Wizard to be the strongest without anyone knowing it. The God Style Wizard primarily does Battlefiel Control and Buff (with debuff a seocndary role) and niether of those things make it particularty obvious that the Wizard is doing the heavy lifting in party.

For those reasons and others I've never seen anyone nerf a Wizard that hard.

It should be noted though, that Wizards aren't automatically problematic balance wise. Assuming none of the players engage in infinite loops, Wizards are pretty fine in an optimized party. Yes, Wizard 20>>>>>>Fighter 20, but if your part mates are cleric, Warblade and Factotum the difference doesn't show very much. If your part is all optimized tier 1s and 2s, then the difference doesn't show at all. Problems occur only in a part like: Optimized Wizard, Sword and Board Fighter, Rogue, Healer. When party members are of uneven optimization or of uneven or of wildly uneven tiers, there are major problems.

taltamir
2010-01-11, 04:51 PM
Quite so. And being a guy who mostly plays sword-swingers, I have powered right through the defences of so many wizards, I've lost count.

There is one wizard I remember - well, three, but the last two are Azalin and Strahd, and they hardly count, but the ancient elf king from that old Dragon Magazine. What was his name again? Anyways, that's off-topic.

I've never seen wizards as overpowered. Only one contingency, no all-day buffs, and a general consensus that both scrying and teleporting detract from the game - that's pretty much all it takes. Oh, and our games tend to stop around level 14 max. That helps a lot too, I suspect.

you know, I completely forgot about the fact that games don't usually go high enough level...

you typically start level 1... you are not really contributing to the party until level 5 when you get haste. (the ONLY spell worth casting using your SL3 slots, prepare it as many times a day as you can to maximize your contribution)
Oh sure you have glitterdust and grease... but limited castings per day combined with what is an extremely utility spell that serves merely to make things easier on your fighters (the blind guy is still gonna slaughter you if you go against him 1 vs 1).

Teleport and scrying DO horribly detract from the game... and are essential for wizard survival...
Although typically DMs leave some teleport ability in... I have never ever ever gotten scrying that was worth casting. Scrying is used solely as a DM tool in games and you try to scry things yourself you get useless cryptic answers... not the perfect scenarios given by char oppers.

FishAreWet
2010-01-11, 04:52 PM
{Scrubbed}

Vizzerdrix
2010-01-11, 04:54 PM
Yes, if the DM hates wizards then it can be hard to play, of course if the DM bans everything that makes you a good class (apparently all non-buff spells??) then yes you're gonna suck. But a reasonable dm who just gets rid of the utterly broken spells (gate, wish, genesis, polymorph etc.) and game shattering prc's (tainted scholar, Iot7V, Incantatrix) will still leave a valid and very strong class.

I disagree. A reasonable DM won't ban such spells, a responsible player will choose to not use them.

Magic itself scales poorly in D&D. No matter what your using, be it a buffer, blaster or what have you, around level 10 you'll outclass the party. This is a flaw in the system.

taltamir, you say casters don't contribute untill around level 5 or so. I hate to be the guy that says it, but then the players are doing it wrong. Levels 1~4 should be spent putting things to sleep and OHKing them, or using grease, or Summoning flankers for sneak attack, or thinning out the weenies so the beat sticks can get to the bigger baddies, or..... You get the idea.

Chaelos
2010-01-11, 04:54 PM
I've played with DMs that wouldn't hesitate to ban spells after a single usage by our party wizard. I've seen DM's whose creatures miraculously "save" on some ungodly high save-or-die/save-or-suck DC's--emphasis on "", of course, because on at least one occasion I can remember, we could actually see the DM's roll and, based on what we'd already deduced about the monster, there's no way it could have saved without DM fiat. More often, I've seen DMs start dropping in monsters with ungodly high spell resistance that nobody short of the munchkieniest munchkin around could possibly get through.

But I've also played with DM's that rewarded a shrewd usage of enervation or magic jar, and I've seen one wizard pull off all kinds of cheese via planar binding. I love playing wizards/sorcerers, but there's no other class I've ever seen in a real game that's been so consistently susceptible to DM's whimsy. The power of a wizard--more so than other classes, it is my contention--is more related to the DM than any other single factor in the game.

JaronK
2010-01-11, 04:56 PM
This post is describing what new and poor DMs will often do. And you know what? It's pretty true. But it's why communication between DMs and players is important. Don't show up to a game with a full power Wizard (or Archivist, or whatever) without talking the DM first about whether it'll fit in the game. For many games, it's too powerful, and if the DM wasn't ready for it his only response is to slam down banhammers left and right.

Wizards are inappropriate for normal power games, and should never be sprung on a DM without expecting negative results.

In fact, with some DMs the Crusader is by far the strongest class. They'd ban anything that does anything unexpected anyway, all the challenges are assuming kick in the door tactics, and if you kill too quickly they'll just raise the HPs or improve the saves... so a class that kills slower but can't die is perfect.

JaronK

Stegyre
2010-01-11, 04:58 PM
Anyone who complains about Wizards hasn't had a StP Erudite in his game yet.
With a Dweomer of Transference (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/spells/dweomerOfTransference.htm) being powered by eldritch blasts.
Give me this for Christmas, Santa, and I'll never ask for anything else again.

aje8
2010-01-11, 04:59 PM
you know, I completely forgot about the fact that games don't usually go high enough level...

you typically start level 1... you are not really contributing to the party until level 5 when you get haste. (the ONLY spell worth casting using your SL3 slots, prepare it as many times a day as you can to maximize your contribution)
Oh sure you have glitterdust and grease... but limited castings per day combined with what is an extremely utility spell that serves merely to make things easier on your fighters (the blind guy is still gonna slaughter you if you go against him 1 vs 1).
No offense but I'd have to strongly disagree.

At level 1-2, yes a house cat could kill a Wizard.

But at level 3, a Wizard is abosultley fine. Even if you prepare nothing but Glitterdusts and Webs, you're seriously contributing. I don't know if a Wizard could beat a Fighter at that level, but at the very least, Glitterdust is simply ending encounters. And it's not like your dying either..... there is basically no way around Invisibility or Mirror Image at that level so if you want to, it's easy to get out of trouble.

At level 5, a Wizard is probably substatially stronger than a Fighter, again, I don't know if he'd win a duel but he's simply contributing to encounter to a larger degree. He can make a Fighter-lite with Summon Monster 3, he now has access to Stinking Cloud and Sculpted Glitterdust as encounter enders. Also, he's really frickin hard to kill because of fly combined with his previous defensive abilities. He does have access to Haste you mentioned but he also gets access to it's as powerful brother slow.

Seriously Wizard have plenty of options at levels 3-5. Though it's true that they don't outright pwn all other classes until level 7.

taltamir
2010-01-11, 04:59 PM
Honestly, if the DM ever sundered my spellbook for anything less than a good story or dramatic reason, I would probably pack up my dice and leave. Sundering a spellbook is essentially saying "You don't get class features for today."

never happened to, although I Would pack up and leave too if a DM ever sundered my spellbook...

but the forums are full of DMs who say that is exactly what they do. Just recently there was a thread about controlling wizard power discussing exactly that, and it seemed to me that it was 50% saying that it is a jerk move, and 50% saying that it is a valid way to control wizard powers.

BTW... I love warlock, its "wizardish" without the whole "the DM is gonna screw you to heck" bit. Also you don't have to "sit out" during combat.

PS. some are saying "I have never seen people nerf wizards that hard".. this is the general "standard nerf list" I see here on the forums... frankly, I have played with people who nerfed wizards harder then that. (ex: you get 1 and only 1 school to cast spells from - no specialization bonus; see how many levels you can go before dying since you don't have any arcane defenses whatsoever).

and it didn't really balance the games either...

PPS. as for save or die/ save or suck... that is where the entire power of the wizard comes from... this is why WOTC officially said that they gave them d4... and you know what? even if the DM does not nerf those and it WORKS you still suck...
You either insta gibben the BBEG and ruined EVERYONE's fun, everyone in the table now hates you...
or you failed and ended up doing absolutely nothing that encounter...

sonofzeal
2010-01-11, 05:04 PM
The wizard's power is directly proportional to the source books allowed at the table.
......yeah, no. Almost all the best Wizard spells are Core. Seriously, read just about any thread lauding the Wizard's power, and at least 90% of the spells mentioned will be core. Celerity's one of the only major exceptions, but otherwise the vast majority of tricks and builds work pretty much straight off Core.


Contrast with any Fighter thread, where Shock Trooper (CW), Leap Attack (CAdv), Robilar's Gambit (PHB2), and Martial Study/Martial Stance (ToB) all come up regularly. The only "optimized" Fighter builds I know of in Core are Spirited Charge, or Lockdown-oriented, and even the latter practically requires Mage Slayer (CArc).

Wizards do get a boost from extra sources (Celerity, Abrupt Jaunt, Orb spells), but not nearly on the same level.

taltamir
2010-01-11, 05:05 PM
No offense but I'd have to strongly disagree.

At level 1-2, yes a house cat could kill a Wizard.

But at level 3, a Wizard is abosultley fine. Even if you prepare nothing but Glitterdusts and Webs, you're seriously contributing. I don't know if a Wizard could beat a Fighter at that level, but at the very least, Glitterdust is simply ending encounters. And it's not like your dying either..... there is basically no way around Invisibility or Mirror Image at that level so if you want to, it's easy to get out of trouble.

At level 5, a Wizard is probably substatially stronger than a Fighter, again, I don't know if he'd win a duel but he's simply contributing to encounter to a larger degree. He can make a Fighter-lite with Summon Monster 3, he now has access to Stinking Cloud and Sculpted Glitterdust as encounter enders. Also, he's really frickin hard to kill because of fly combined with his previous defensive abilities. He does have access to Haste you mentioned but he also gets access to it's as powerful brother slow.

Seriously Wizard have plenty of options at levels 3-5. Though it's true that they don't outright pwn all other classes until level 7.

a non specialist wizard 5 has the following spells per day before int bonus spells:
SL0: 4
SL1: 3
SL2: 2
SL3: 1

assuming you min maxed like heck and started with an int of 20 you get +1 spell per SL2 and SL3, and +2 SL1 spells.

you are not going to by flying around while dropping other 3rd level spells. You have only 2 level 3 spells per day, entire day!
you will spend most of the time on the sideline skipping turns.

sonofzeal
2010-01-11, 05:06 PM
a non specialist wizard 5 has the following spells per day before int bonus spells:
SL0: 4
SL1: 3
SL2: 2
SL3: 1

assuming you min maxed like heck and started with an int of 20 you get +1 spell per SL2 and SL3, and +2 SL1 spells.

you are not going to by flying around while dropping other 3rd level spells. You have only 2 level 3 spells per day, entire day!
you will spend most of the time on the sideline skipping turns.
Which is why Wizards love being focussed specialists. =P

ericgrau
2010-01-11, 05:06 PM
No offense but I'd have to strongly disagree.

At level 1-2, yes a house cat could kill a Wizard.

But at level 3, a Wizard is abosultley fine. Even if you prepare nothing but Glitterdusts and Webs, you're seriously contributing. I don't know if a Wizard could beat a Fighter at that level, but at the very least, Glitterdust is simply ending encounters. And it's not like your dying either..... there is basically no way around Invisibility or Mirror Image at that level so if you want to, it's easy to get out of trouble.

At level 5, a Wizard is probably substatially stronger than a Fighter, again, I don't know if he'd win a duel but he's simply contributing to encounter to a larger degree. He can make a Fighter-lite with Summon Monster 3, he now has access to Stinking Cloud and Sculpted Glitterdust as encounter enders. Also, he's really frickin hard to kill because of fly combined with his previous defensive abilities. He does have access to Haste you mentioned but he also gets access to it's as powerful brother slow.

His greatest enemy at levels 3-5 is Jack Vance, wherein he only has 2-3 spells at his highest level. There are other limitations too like AoE, rolls, and as said that blind guy could still take down the wizard were it not for his party, etc. So it's more like an encounter contribution than encounter enders. Especially if you're saving spells for a getaway.

EDIT for response: Yeah, I'll bet there are theoretical char op ways around it, but in real games...

peterpaulrubens
2010-01-11, 05:07 PM
(first time poster, been lurking for awhile though..)

As a 1st Edition player who's recently come back to the game to find 3.5, I find it somewhat amusing that the things that kept wizards in check in 1st Ed. are now gone.. and now most people think they're overpowered.

rockdeworld
2010-01-11, 05:08 PM
Since no one else has said it yet,

character who is only good at one thing, buffing. with a dash of crowd control and defensive spells.
That sounds like an exact description of the Batman wizard :smallamused:

More over, in response to this:

you are not really contributing to the party until level 5
Having now played DDO a bit (which has expanded my thinking some :P), I'm pretty sure a level 1 wizard could beat a level 1 optimized fighter by preparing grease and/or sleep, and perhaps summon monster 1. It would probably depend on initiative (and a wizard gets 12+dex w/ a hummingbird and feat investments) in most PvP matches. But that's besides the point.

The point I want to make is that a wizard (or any class's) power is directly proportional to the skill of the player playing that character. I'd venture to guess that most DM's understand this, and accommodate their group, and furthermore that the players with the skill to break the game as a wizard do likewise.

Vizzerdrix
2010-01-11, 05:09 PM
a non specialist wizard 5 has the following spells per day before int bonus spells:
SL0: 4
SL1: 3
SL2: 2
SL3: 1

assuming you min maxed like heck and started with an int of 20 you get +1 spell per SL2 and SL3, and +2 SL1 spells.

you are not going to by flying around while dropping other 3rd level spells. You have only 2 level 3 spells per day, entire day!
you will spend most of the time on the sideline skipping turns.

I don't understand your logic. That is more than enough spells per day to stay off the sidelines.

grautry
2010-01-11, 05:09 PM
DMs will hate their power and brokenness, they will hate how many of their powers (which are essential to the wizard's survival) completely break the campaign. They will hate how they overshadow the others, they will hate the perceived power (since your DM probably read about he tier system and how every char op is about wizards).

I'm confused.

Your point seems to be "wizards are only overpowered in theoretical play". Then you say "DMs will hate their power and brokenness".

So, which one is it? If Wizards are only 'theoretically' overpowered then why should DMs hate their power and brokenness?


So the ban hammer starts dropping. Gone are the good spells (with the exception of buffing), gone are the good feats, gone are the good PrCs, gone are meta reducers, gone are the pathways to real and awesome power...

So your point is that if you take an overpowered class and take away everything that makes it overpowered then it's not overpowered any longer?

Well yeah, that's generally how it works out.

Kind of like if you take away a Fighter's bonus feats, BAB and a good fort save - you end up with a commoner.


And that doesn't even take into account the really extreme DM's who start to fiat away all the wizards powers... aka, someone sunders your spellbook, you need to track every material component, even cheap ones; you wake up bound and gagged and your spellbook and component pouch are gone; spells don't quite work right; everything has insane SR and saves, and spells that ignore either are not allowed... etc.

So, if a DM arbitrarily declares that a Wizard's powers aren't working then they don't have any power?

That's a shocker.

I can't believe that you don't see that you're proving the exact opposite of what you think you're proving.

The very fact that a DM would have to resort to such laughably absurd and extreme measures to limit a Wizard's power is undeniable proof of the fact that Wizards are overpowered.

taltamir
2010-01-11, 05:11 PM
that is another thing... almost universally, wizards are measured in their power in a 1v1 match with a fighter.

When you play a game, you do not enter a 1v1 match once per day with consumables chosen specifically to counteract a known opponent.

You enter into multiple a 5vX encounters against unpredictable encounters.

Weezer
2010-01-11, 05:12 PM
I disagree. A reasonable DM won't ban such spells, a responsible player will choose to not use them.

True, good point but the scenario outlines seems like its the aftermath of a non-responsible player using those manner of spells/prc's to shatter the game and the DM reacting quite violently in response.

I agree that any semblance of magic/mundane balance disappears at upper mid/high levels. But its the players who make this divergence seen or keep it obscured. If the wizard players are ignorant of CO (or as i've seen utterly incompetent at applying it) and are playing with people who are just as incompetent then it works out alright. Not perfectly, the wizards still clearly more powerful but its not the end of the world to have unoptimized wizard, fighter, rogue and cleric in the same party.

Its when people start optimizing that the problems begin, especially with lopsided levels of optimization. No one will debate the fact that an optimized tier 1 will totally overshadow any non-magical class but i think that the overshadowing can be easily delt with in situations where skilled optimizers are absent.

taltamir
2010-01-11, 05:15 PM
The very fact that a DM would have to resort to such laughably absurd and extreme measures to limit a Wizard's power is undeniable proof of the fact that Wizards are overpowered.

Ok, then maybe I need to clarify.
1. I am saying that wizards, as written, are lubriciously overpowered
2. I am saying that in order to compensate for that, the DM has to nerf them
3. If the DM doesn't nerf them, then the game is ruined for everyone and no fun is had.
4. When the DM nerfs wizards, he invariably ends up leaving some over powered bits mixed in with a lot of suck... you end up with an unfilfulling experience of suckage and dying punctuated by the occasional violent stealing of the limelight (the dragon rolled a 1, you win instantly! well, I guess we are ending the session early)
5. The bookkeeping is murder.
6. The overpoweredness comes 90% from core. with a few exceptions (which indeed just make them more ridiculous...)

Zen Master
2010-01-11, 05:16 PM
you know, I completely forgot about the fact that games don't usually go high enough level...

you typically start level 1... you are not really contributing to the party until level 5 when you get haste. (the ONLY spell worth casting using your SL3 slots, prepare it as many times a day as you can to maximize your contribution)
Oh sure you have glitterdust and grease... but limited castings per day combined with what is an extremely utility spell that serves merely to make things easier on your fighters (the blind guy is still gonna slaughter you if you go against him 1 vs 1).

Teleport and scrying DO horribly detract from the game... and are essential for wizard survival...
Although typically DMs leave some teleport ability in... I have never ever ever gotten scrying that was worth casting. Scrying is used solely as a DM tool in games and you try to scry things yourself you get useless cryptic answers... not the perfect scenarios given by char oppers.

Overland flight, teleport, scrying - and various others - are there. Only, like I said, by general concensus, we don't use them.

It's kinda simple. Say the GM makes a sort of roadtrip adventure, with various encountes along the road. As a group, we like that style of play - among others. But ... then you cannot teleport.

Same thing goes for overland flight. If you use it - all combats get to be dogfights. So there are a number of spells the wizard in our group does not use, because it tends to force the style of the game in a way we collectively dislike.

I'm not trying to tell you your experiences are other than what you say they are. But the same setup can have different results depending on the people involved.

May I ask: Do you want to be overpowered?

rockdeworld
2010-01-11, 05:17 PM
that is another thing... almost universally, wizards are measured in their power in a 1v1 match with a fighter.

When you play a game, you do not enter a 1v1 match once per day with consumables chosen specifically to counteract a known opponent.

You enter into multiple a 5vX encounters against unpredictable encounters.
Because fighters are the first thing that comes to mind. I could have said barbarian or cleric instead, but I thought fighter was a good choice for toughest core class after optimization at level 1.

To answer your second point - it depends on what kind of DM you have how many encounters you face per day and what difficulty level they are. In the case you mentioned, I would like to note that wizards have more than 1 spell slot per day. Hence they're good for more than one encounter. Most level 1 wizards have some sort of ranged weapon as well, so they can contribute to whatever comes up.

JaronK
2010-01-11, 05:18 PM
that is another thing... almost universally, wizards are measured in their power in a 1v1 match with a fighter.

Really? I usually only see that when someone tries to claim that Fighters are totally as good as the other core classes, or that Wizards are overpowered compared to other core classes. Usually the measure of Wizards I see is "given X situation, there's a spell for that."

JaronK

Amphetryon
2010-01-11, 05:18 PM
The 'Save or Die' issue led to the following (paraphrased) debate in one game I was in, featuring a Warmage and a SoD Sorcerer and some ancillary characters not important to the debate, as they were handling the mooks:

Round 1 - Warmage casts damaging spell, doing damage equal to 1/4 of BBEG A's total. Meanwhile, SoD Sorc casts SoD spell 1, against which BBEG B saves for no damage on an unhidden roll.

Round 2 - Warmage casts damaging spell, doing damage equal to 1/4 of BBEG A's full health total. SoD Sorc casts SoD spell 2, against which BBEG B again saves for no damage in full view of the players.

Round 3 - Warmage casts his boring damaging spell a 3rd time, doing damage that again equals roughly 1/4 of BBEG A's unwounded HP total. SoD Sorc casts a 3rd SoD spell, against lucky BBEG B, who again makes his save.

Round 4 - Warmage predictably casts a blast spell which separates BBEG A from the remaining 1/4th of his starting HP, causing his demise. SoD Sorc casts a 4th SoD spell, and BBEG B finally fails the save, falling over.

Warmage 'instigates' the debate by turning to SoD Sorc and asking earnestly, "Didn't you say blasting was suboptimal? Looked to me like you wasted 3 spells, while I contributed meaningful damage every round...."

rockdeworld
2010-01-11, 05:20 PM
Its not the end of the world to have unoptimized wizard, fighter, rogue and cleric in the same party.
^this. It's how most games are played.

grautry
2010-01-11, 05:21 PM
Ok, then maybe I need to clarify.
1. I am saying that wizards, as written, are lubriciously overpowered
2. I am saying that in order to compensate for that, the DM has to nerf them
3. If the DM doesn't nerf them, then the game is ruined for everyone and no fun is had.
4. When the DM nerfs wizards, he invariably ends up leaving some over powered bits mixed in with a lot of suck... you end up with an unfilfulling experience of suckage and dying punctuated by the occasional violent stealing of the limelight (the dragon rolled a 1, you win instantly! well, I guess we are ending the session early)
5. The bookkeeping is murder.
6. The overpoweredness comes 90% from core. with a few exceptions (which indeed just make them more ridiculous...)

No, not really.

Take a look at the ToS ruleset. Nicely curbs most of the abusive tricks and casters are still amazing under those rules.

Boci
2010-01-11, 05:21 PM
Warmage 'instigates' the debate by turning to SoD Sorc and asking earnestly, "Didn't you say blasting was suboptimal? Looked to me like you wasted 3 spells, while I contributed meaningful damage every round...."

But the end result was the same, and the sorceror could have ended it in round one. The warmage could not have. However, a better plan would be: First round: Enervate
Second round: Fell frighten ray of sickness
Third round: Save or die

taltamir
2010-01-11, 05:22 PM
May I ask: Do you want to be overpowered?

No, I believe I explicitly said that if the DM doesn't ban nerf the heck out of you then you end up with you being the only class the matters, and that is also not fun and terrible gameplay.

Boci
2010-01-11, 05:23 PM
May I ask: Do you want to be overpowered?

No, but I want to use the spells available to me. Shame the game cannot be balanced with that in mind.

Saph
2010-01-11, 05:23 PM
Wizards are inappropriate for normal power games, and should never be sprung on a DM without expecting negative results.

Oh, rubbish. They fit in fine to a normal game. It's only if you show up expecting to pull obnoxious TO moves that it's a problem, and frankly, that applies to every class.

Look, I've DMed a lot of games and I've played a lot of games, and do you know what I've noticed? There's generally an inverse relationship between the amount a poster talks about brokenness and their extent of play experience. The posters who go on the most about how godly Wizards are and how crappy every other class are generally the ones who are absolutely clueless about how an actual game of D&D functions. They spend so much time on forums batting around theoretical optimisation schemes that they lose touch with reality.

In a normal game with a competent DM you don't get to do infinite loops, you don't have perfect knowledge of every encounter, you don't get to use Candles of Invocation or do any of the stupid things that TO assumes, and you can play your Wizard just fine. You will sometimes get beaten, and you'll frequently contribute less than the other party members. You will also have fun. Give it a try. It's not as bad as it sounds.

rockdeworld
2010-01-11, 05:24 PM
Warmage 'instigates' the debate by turning to SoD Sorc and asking earnestly, "Didn't you say blasting was suboptimal? Looked to me like you wasted 3 spells, while I contributed meaningful damage every round...."
I guess the response there was "statistically, he should have died on turn 1.3. Let's see what happens when you consistently get unlucky in our next big battle."

Critical
2010-01-11, 05:24 PM
It's all about what kind of a DM you have. I took an opportunity to play a Wizard in our game because we needed a caster, but when my wizard got munched in the first encounter with a pack of hellhounds and I couldn't even use my Immediate Magic to teleport out of the attack "because I wasn't anticipating the attack(though, I wasn't flat-footed) and I should've wasted a turn to anticipate it". I'm never playing a Wizard with this DM again.

Kylarra
2010-01-11, 05:25 PM
Ok, then maybe I need to clarify.
1. I am saying that wizards, as written, are lubriciously overpowered
2. I am saying that in order to compensate for that, the DM has to nerf them
3. If the DM doesn't nerf them, then the game is ruined for everyone and no fun is had.
4. When the DM nerfs wizards, he invariably ends up leaving some over powered bits mixed in with a lot of suck... you end up with an unfilfulling experience of suckage and dying punctuated by the occasional violent stealing of the limelight (the dragon rolled a 1, you win instantly! well, I guess we are ending the session early)
5. The bookkeeping is murder.
6. The overpoweredness comes 90% from core. with a few exceptions (which indeed just make them more ridiculous...)Well, darn. I guess my games don't exist then, since I've played with wizards that both weren't limited in ludicrous ways and didn't result in me being overpowered compared to the rest of the party. :smallconfused:

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Theoretical power levels of a class don't matter, what matters is relative power level to the rest of the party. Beyond that, "don't be a jerk".

Boci
2010-01-11, 05:26 PM
In a normal game with a competent DM you don't get to do infinite loops, you don't have perfect knowledge of every encounter, you don't get to use Candles of Invocation or do any of the stupid things that TO assumes, and you can play your Wizard just fine. You will sometimes get beaten, and you'll frequently contribute less than the other party members. You will also have fun. Give it a try. It's not as bad as it sounds.

So far in my game the fight have been ended by the following:

1st fight against a warforge fighter: Ranger critted it
2nd fight against acid drowling rats: Druid cast entangle
3rd fight against hound constructs: Wizard cast greace
4th fight against humans: Artificer used a scroll of glitterdust
5th fight against a warforge: Artificer used a scroll of gliterdust

I see a pattern. Now yes, the DM has had bad luck with saves, but a fighter could not have ended the encounter of 3 non-adjacent opponents in 1 round. At all.

Weezer
2010-01-11, 05:28 PM
They spend so much time on forums batting around theoretical optimisation schemes that they lose touch with reality.

Agreed, its far too easy to become stuck in the TO/PO mindset and continuously try to be "best" in a group, happened to me when I was away from any pnp games for a long time. I came back to my usual group, made a way too OP druid and quickly realized I needed to tone it back. I learned you just need to make reasonable use of your CO knowledge, thats all it takes to keep the game fun for all.

Vizzerdrix
2010-01-11, 05:30 PM
So far in my game the fight have been ended by the following:

1st fight against a warforge fighter: Ranger critted it
2nd fight against acid drowling rats: Druid cast entangle
3rd fight against hound constructs: Wizard cast greace
4th fight against humans: Artificer used a scroll of glitterdust
5th fight against a warforge: Artificer used a scroll of gliterdust

I see a pattern.

.....:smallconfused:

Every other fight will be a construct?

taltamir
2010-01-11, 05:31 PM
In a normal game with a competent DM you don't get to do infinite loops, you don't have perfect knowledge of every encounter, you don't get to use Candles of Invocation or do any of the stupid things that TO assumes, and you can play your Wizard just fine. You will sometimes get beaten, and you'll frequently contribute less than the other party members. You will also have fun. Give it a try. It's not as bad as it sounds.

This is a very astute observation... but when your DM reads CharOp forums he might come to play the view that wizard = god and everyone else = suck... and then you get something like what I was describing above

PS. as for "batman wizard"... the batman wizard assumes a whole lot not being banned... the batman wizard firstly utilizes divination to know exactly what he is up against and prepare, he utilizes CC first and buffs second, the batman wizard does have his share of SoD/L and prioritizes just lose without save spells... and the batman wizard is first and foremost untouchable.
Rule 0 means that you are not, in fact, batman.

9mm
2010-01-11, 05:32 PM
Hi, we here at the Test of Spite (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135097), have taken great pride in our wizard nerfage... and have come to the conclusion that wisards, and casters in general, are still as powerful as ever.

Boci
2010-01-11, 05:33 PM
.....:smallconfused:

Every other fight will be a construct?

Theres that, but there is also the amount of encounters ended by a spell. All but 1.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-01-11, 05:33 PM
3. If the DM doesn't nerf them, then the game is ruined for everyone and no fun is had.
Not so. You can make a wizard who doesn't overshadow the rest of the party by setting some rules for yourself (e.g. No chain-gating, let the fighters do the damage, 1 Celerity/day, no planar binding nightmares for free Astral Projection, etc.). In other words, you can avoid ruining the game by not being a jerk.


4. When the DM nerfs wizards, he invariably ends up leaving some over powered bits mixed in with a lot of suck... you end up with an unfilfulling experience of suckage and dying punctuated by the occasional violent stealing of the limelight (the dragon rolled a 1, you win instantly! well, I guess we are ending the session early)
I would hardly say this is always the case. You can play a very fun and powerful wizard without Gate/Timestop/Celerity/Planar Binding.


5. The bookkeeping is murder.
Much simpler than for Cleric or Druid.

Weezer
2010-01-11, 05:36 PM
Theres that, but there is also the amount of encounters ended by a spell. All but 1.

And in 5 encounters 4 different characters gave the encounter ending blow. Seems to me like all the players are contributing, there just appear to be more casters than non-casters

taltamir
2010-01-11, 05:38 PM
Well, darn. I guess my games don't exist then, since I've played with wizards that both weren't limited in ludicrous ways and didn't result in me being overpowered compared to the rest of the party. :smallconfused:

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Theoretical power levels of a class don't matter, what matters is relative power level to the rest of the party. Beyond that, "don't be a jerk".

well... let me give you an example... I played with some guys on a heavy nerf diet (and I was also self limiting myself, a lot). over 2 days of real life sessions we had 6 in game battles. I got to cast essentially: haste, glitterdust, and disintegrate (very heavy nerf diet)...
I ended up casting 6 total disintegrates. the first 5 failed to connect due to SR or simply to hit failure. The last one connected, the enemy failed his save, and thanks to a very hefty houserule boost to "direct damage" spells I manage to one shot dust a powerful opponent (mage slayer living costruct with insane level adjustment and 2 levels higher then me in class levels, and being made with multiple classes and PrCs)

I was unhappy that only once out of six did the damn spell actually do anything at all.
My DM was unhappy that I had complained about disintegrate and that the uber guy he spend so much time building was taken out just like that.
And the other players were none to pleased about my "power" either (I don't think they remembered how many times I actually failed to do anything; although that didn't help either when they couldn't depend on me).

if you manage to have games where the DM and players are all appreciative and ok with it, kudos to you. I am very glad that you are managing to have fun with it.


It's all about what kind of a DM you have. I took an opportunity to play a Wizard in our game because we needed a caster, but when my wizard got munched in the first encounter with a pack of hellhounds and I couldn't even use my Immediate Magic to teleport out of the attack "because I wasn't anticipating the attack(though, I wasn't flat-footed) and I should've wasted a turn to anticipate it". I'm never playing a Wizard with this DM again.

all too common a take... I hear those very very often on the forums

Catch
2010-01-11, 05:41 PM
Wizards, by the RAW, are pure unadulterated power. They are gods among insects. The only thing that can best a wizard is another wizard. Although a few other full casters come close...

Then you get real gameplay...
But with a wizard it is an all or nothing kind of deal, wizards who aren't casting spells are effectively commoners.

DMs will hate their power and brokenness, they will hate how many of their powers (which are essential to the wizard's survival) completely break the campaign. They will hate how they overshadow the others, they will hate the perceived power (since your DM probably read about he tier system and how every char op is about wizards).

So the ban hammer starts dropping. Gone are the good spells (with the exception of buffing), gone are the good feats, gone are the good PrCs, gone are meta reducers, gone are the pathways to real and awesome power...
You are left with a simpering 4HD low bab and 2 bad saves character who is only good at one thing, buffing. with a dash of crowd control and defensive spells.

And that doesn't even take into account the really extreme DM's who start to fiat away all the wizards powers... aka, someone sunders your spellbook, you need to track every material component, even cheap ones; you wake up bound and gagged and your spellbook and component pouch are gone; spells don't quite work right; everything has insane SR and saves, and spells that ignore either are not allowed... etc.

But, you think to yourself... buffing is pretty good, right? you can play god? you can hire hirelings, you can build a golem...
Can you though? DnD is a group game... sure, summoning a monster and then getting out of the way sounds great on paper, but that isn't team playing.

So there you are, trying to sit in the back out of combat, dropping the occasional buff, CC, or summon... You will be skipping turns, a lot; skipping turns is not fun. You will be dying, dying is not fun. You will never ever kill something yourself; not killing anything isn't fun...
And unlike your team mates, your character sheet takes the absolute most amount of work to write and maintain. Many more hours will go into the effort of building and maintaining a wizard then other classes.

And what if the DM allows everything? unless he is dumbing down opponents, then you will end up with every fight being a wizard fight... the PC party wizard vs the NPC wizard. If either has no wizard, it loses. Also not fun... because you are trying to play with people, not against people.

The end result is a class that is theoretically godly and overpowered, and in effect not fun to play, and not all that worthwhile to play either.

You must have Epic ranks in Jump for those leaps of logic. Slippery slope arguments are common around here, but your post is more like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkjhETjstwU).

1/10

Boci
2010-01-11, 05:42 PM
And in 5 encounters 4 different characters gave the encounter ending blow. Seems to me like all the players are contributing, there just appear to be more casters than non-casters

Nope. The druid left after one session and the wizard was only present in the first three encounters. There are 3 melee characters.

jmbrown
2010-01-11, 05:45 PM
......yeah, no. Almost all the best Wizard spells are Core. Seriously, read just about any thread lauding the Wizard's power, and at least 90% of the spells mentioned will be core. Celerity's one of the only major exceptions, but otherwise the vast majority of tricks and builds work pretty much straight off Core.


Contrast with any Fighter thread, where Shock Trooper (CW), Leap Attack (CAdv), Robilar's Gambit (PHB2), and Martial Study/Martial Stance (ToB) all come up regularly. The only "optimized" Fighter builds I know of in Core are Spirited Charge, or Lockdown-oriented, and even the latter practically requires Mage Slayer (CArc).

Wizards do get a boost from extra sources (Celerity, Abrupt Jaunt, Orb spells), but not nearly on the same level.

Notice how I said two sentences later how the wizard is still in a tier of his own. Fighters, monks, and paladins always suck no matter what sourcebooks your using. I don't care how many doors you kick down or how hard you hit, there's a monster with damage resistance/whatever that can fly and has spell like abilities and can kick your sorry ass left and right. The wizard is far more capable of handling every single situation a DM could reasonably throw at him and splat books give him far larger increase in power than any other class. Period.

I can handle a core wizard. Once you start introducing all the books to the table and the game reaches the point where you're flipping through 10 different publications in order to reference some obscure power, I say "Stop. No more."

taltamir
2010-01-11, 05:46 PM
Hi, we here at the Test of Spite (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135097), have taken great pride in our wizard nerfage... and have come to the conclusion that wisards, and casters in general, are still as powerful as ever.

test of spite is a perfect example of what is wrong with char op...

1. level 13... completely unrealistic on both fronts. I once had a DM tell me to level from 6 to 11 to finish a campaign quickly because he is leaving the state in 2 weeks... That makes level 11 the highest level I ever reached. Via actual leveling? I maxed out at 8th level once...

2. WBL... yea right, good luck with that. Although "no magic mart TM" and "low WBL" actually favor casters, a lot... of course, then you get into uneven loot share "DM: ok... loot time... the wizard gets a +2 headband, the fighter an artifact sword, the paladin a +4 maul, +2 full plate, ring of protection, ring of resistance, cloak of protection, etc"

3. Single guy vs a horde of monsters or PvP... both of them are as far as possible from real gameplay. Real gameplay measures when you are in a balanced group, how much do you contribute to the team. Not you vs a gauntlet or you vs him.

Eldariel
2010-01-11, 05:46 PM
Level 1 Wizards are fine. They should only truly use power in the toughest encounters you face, but when they use power, the impact is pretty incredible. Level 1 attacks are pretty much stat checks so Wizards compare just fine there; they use ranged weapons, of course, but 1d8 or 1d10 actually matters on level 1. Let's not forget how many people your average Color Spray or Sleep knocks out (Sleep has its place too in spite of the 1 round casting time; sometimes you need a longer range effect and it fits right in as opponent's chances of disrupting your casting at such a range tend to be rather poor).

Really, you can play a Wizard and be the most efficient member of your party. You can also do that while not glory-hogging so your party members are likely just glad to have you around. I enjoy that role, and it's likely to not detract fun from the game, so it's fine. But I have seen Wizards cast Planar Binding and Simulacrum in actual game; those spells seem just as good as advertised in practice. Sure, you don't use them for Wishes, but you do get Above Your CR assistant with one spell. That's too good in my books. I have seen Wizards cast Polymorph too; that too is Too Good in my books.


Also, aren't you selling Blindness a bit short? It is pretty crippling; you only move half-speed, you can't charge (you need LoS to charge), you can't cast targeted spells, you have to roll Listen-checks (possibly at penalties, depending on whether combat is considered a distraction) to even locate people at DC 20+distance (and have even more difficulty determining who is who), let alone if people opt to start skirmishing you by attacking and Moving Silently away (making easily for DC 30+distance if opp is untrained in Move Silently).

Do you honestly claim a blind character around level 3-5 would have any chance against a Wizard just shooting him with Bow/Xbow (or tossing Alchemist's Fires), Move Silently a bit to random direction and repeat? You can try to use Breath Weapon in the generic direction and hope if you're a Dragonfire Adept, but that's about it.

Saph
2010-01-11, 05:48 PM
This is a very astute observation... but when your DM reads CharOp forums he might come to play the view that wizard = god and everyone else = suck... and then you get something like what I was describing above

This is why I generally try to discourage the "OMG wizards are so uber all I have to play one and I'll beat everything in the whole world ever and become god k thanks bye" theory that's so popular on these forums. Because you get newbies showing up, then becoming confused when their experiences don't match up with what they've been told is supposed to happen.

Look, I wouldn't worry about it. Experienced DMs are usually smart enough to take "OMG broken hax!" claims with a pinch of salt. Here's why.

Over the course of my time playing 3.0, and 3.5, I have been told the following:

Barbarians are the best class because they can do so much damage.
Wizards are the best class because they have the most options.
Monks are amazing because they're so tough and versatile.
Archivists are the best class because they can learn every spell in the game.
Fighters are the best class because they get the most feats.
Warlocks are broken because they can keep going forever.
All ToB classes are brokenly overpowered because, well, just because.
Druids are the best class because they have like three classes in one.
Warmages are the best class because they can blow up so many things.
. . . and many more. Every one of those statements was completely sincere, and backed up by multiple other people who all agreed that it was true, and that anyone who didn't agree was obviously wrong.

Want to know which one I believed? None of them. (Well, okay, maybe one . . . but only partly.) In every case, the claim about which class is the "best" tells you much more about the poster's preconceptions than it does about the class system.

So I'm not going to nerf a class into the ground just because a bunch of people with too much time on their hands can come up with some infinite combos. I doubt most other experienced DMs will either.

Weezer
2010-01-11, 05:50 PM
Nope. The druid left after one session and the wizard was only present in the first three encounters. There are 3 melee characters.

I stand corrected, what I get for extrapolating from insufficient data I suppose

Boci
2010-01-11, 05:53 PM
I stand corrected, what I get for extrapolating from insufficient data I suppose

I edited the main point in after you quoted me: A fighter could not have ended the encounter of 3 non-adjacent opponents in 1 round. At all.

Kylarra
2010-01-11, 05:57 PM
well... let me give you an example... I played with some guys on a heavy nerf diet (and I was also self limiting myself, a lot). over 2 days of real life sessions we had 6 in game battles. I got to cast essentially: haste, glitterdust, and disintegrate (very heavy nerf diet)...
I ended up casting 6 total disintegrates. the first 5 failed to connect due to SR or simply to hit failure. The last one connected, the enemy failed his save, and thanks to a very hefty houserule boost to "direct damage" spells I manage to one shot dust a powerful opponent (mage slayer living costruct with insane level adjustment and 2 levels higher then me in class levels, and being made with multiple classes and PrCs)

I was unhappy that only once out of six did the damn spell actually do anything at all.
My DM was unhappy that I had complained about disintegrate and that the uber guy he spend so much time building was taken out just like that.
And the other players were none to pleased about my "power" either (I don't think they remembered how many times I actually failed to do anything; although that didn't help either when they couldn't depend on me).
All your post says to me is "my experience says this, therefore it must hold true for everyone". Which is patently false.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-11, 05:58 PM
Honestly, if the DM ever sundered my spellbook for anything less than a good story or dramatic reason, I would probably pack up my dice and leave. Sundering a spellbook is essentially saying "You don't get class features for today."

The DM yesterday asked me "Where is your spellbook at the moment?"

My response was "My real spellbook, my backup spellbook, or my fake, trapped to hell, spellbook?"

He then did absolutely nothing to my spellbook.

onthetown
2010-01-11, 05:58 PM
My DM doesn't disallow any of my spells, and pretty much all I play these days are wizards. If I can afford them, I'm allowed to buy them and memorize them. He usually adjusts challenges accordingly.

It helps that it's a solo campaign between him and me, though. I don't play wizards in groups... it's too tedious. The Fireball will hit the fighter without fail. The Charm will be ruined the turn after I cast it because the barbarian will be trying to destroy the creature in a rage head on, and how dare I ask the player to back off one of the enemies and go for any of the others so I can try to use the monster; he's a barbarian, he destroys things, and he's not going to change plans just because the wizard might have a way to possibly make the battle easier. Long, hard battles give you manly battle scars and that makes it worth it! The Abjurations will be useless because we will have a cleric. Etc.

I don't have any particularly terrible experiences similar to those; it's just that it's tedious to try to work around other characters. You need to make sure that your spell isn't going to hit anybody else. You know that the others won't want to wait for you to finish playing with the Charmed monster. Abjurations are nice, but a proficient cleric will be on top of protection spells and ready to heal you up if you get damaged outside of those protections. Again... etc.

Edit: Not to mention that Necromancy, save-or-die spells, and instant death spells will "steal the party's kills" or spotlight or whatever they want to call it. Wizards are most definitely a spotlight class when they stock up on all those awesome spells that makes squishyness worth it.

Vizzerdrix
2010-01-11, 06:03 PM
My response was "My real spellbook, my backup spellbook, or my fake, trapped to hell, spellbook?"


I, I.... <3 :smallredface:


All joking aside, how can one afford to have several books in game? :smallconfused:

Honestly if I tried to have a backup book the cost would ruin me and the group would leave me behind for taking twice as long to add a single spell. And having a trapped book? Is it just full of rune spells or something:smallconfused:?

onthetown
2010-01-11, 06:07 PM
And having a trapped book? Is it just full of rune spells or something:smallconfused:?

There are some "trigger" spells... Explosive Runes is one. Sepia Snake Sigil paralyzes you when you read it, as far as I remember. Imagine having one page full of Explosive Runes AND Sepia Snake Sigil. I don't think you'd ever get a Reflex save.

jmbrown
2010-01-11, 06:08 PM
(first time poster, been lurking for awhile though..)

As a 1st Edition player who's recently come back to the game to find 3.5, I find it somewhat amusing that the things that kept wizards in check in 1st Ed. are now gone.. and now most people think they're overpowered.

What's amusing about that? Wizards could always stop time, shape change, craft magic items, and blow up the universe but 3.5 removed the side-effects and doing so became easier. It's not amusing, it's just a fact.

FatR
2010-01-11, 06:08 PM
So the ban hammer starts dropping. Gone are the good spells (with the exception of buffing), gone are the good feats, gone are the good PrCs, gone are meta reducers, gone are the pathways to real and awesome power...
You are left with a simpering 4HD low bab and 2 bad saves character who is only good at one thing, buffing. with a dash of crowd control and defensive spells.
I, personally, banned 2 core arcane spells (Astral Projection, Shapechange) and nerfed/stealth nerfed 7 more (Polymorph/Any Object, Gate, Wish, Planar Binding chain). There are about 3-4 wizard PrCs that I will only allow for trusted players and if the general power level of the game is over 9000. All feats are acceptable.

taltamir
2010-01-11, 06:10 PM
All your post says to me is "my experience says this, therefore it must hold true for everyone". Which is patently false.

I am (at least I think I am) mostly drawing from the slew of threads posted by DMs and players here in the playgrounds. with my own being secondary. Including some speculation.

Can you please elaborate on what is specifically wrong with what I am saying instead of acting so offended or just saying "conjecture". I would like to be corrected if wrong.

Twilight Jack
2010-01-11, 06:13 PM
I, I.... <3 :smallredface:


All joking aside, how can one afford to have several books in game? :smallconfused:

Honestly if I tried to have a backup book the cost would ruin me and the group would leave me behind for taking twice as long to add a single spell. And having a trapped book? Is it just full of rune spells or something:smallconfused:?

There's a bit of a debate in the world of 3.5 as to whether the precise wording of secret page allows you to replicate all your spellbooks for free. For those who say that it does, and play with a DM who allows it, multiple spellbooks are easy-peasy.

FatR
2010-01-11, 06:15 PM
What's amusing about that? Wizards could always stop time, shape change, craft magic items, and blow up the universe but 3.5 removed the side-effects and doing so became easier. It's not amusing, it's just a fact.
Only changing shape had real side effects in AD&D 2E, and then only until 9th level spells. But, then, you didn't care about it anyway at the time. You crafted items while borrowing some peasant's body and Con score through Magic Jar (in exchange for paying him a fortune, if you weren't Evil). Time Stop wasn't nearly as good, true, but other spells were far better, in particular everything that did HP damage.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-11, 06:15 PM
All joking aside, how can one afford to have several books in game? :smallconfused:

Well, here's the thing. Your trap book is nearly free. Blank spellbooks are dirt cheap. Casting fun stuff on every page requires only time.


Honestly if I tried to have a backup book the cost would ruin me and the group would leave me behind for taking twice as long to add a single spell. And having a trapped book? Is it just full of rune spells or something:smallconfused:?

You don't back up everything into your backup book. It's basically for the few spells you really, really can't live without. You can spend scribing time practically every day, since it's extremely rare that adventuring literally takes all day long. Even better, when you loot spellbooks from fallen enemies, you can use them as backups. There are disadvantages to this method, of course, but it's a relatively easy method.

As for traps, Explosive Runes is the obvious choice. Abuse heavily. At lower levels, Fire Trap will also work. At higher levels, Symbols are awesome, due to you being immune to them, and not destroying the book. You should put these in your regular spellbook too, just to be vengeful. Also, a permanent Sepia Snake Sigil is awesome.

Gnaeus
2010-01-11, 06:16 PM
And the splat books contain persistent spell, divine metamagic, sudden metamagic, eiditic spellcaster, etc. If core is opening the flood gates then supplements are blowing up the whole dam.

Persistent Spell=only really usable with heavy metamagic reducers or at obscene levels.
Divine Metamagic=Helps a wizard how?
Sudden Metamagic=barely worth the feat choice.
Eidetic Spellcaster=you trade your familiar, or your other class feature that you could trade your familiar for, for the ability to operate without a spellbook like every other caster in core. Only useful in campaigns where the DM will actually sunder or steal your spellbook, and even then only if you somehow fail to protect it. Hardly broken.

Try again.

JaronK
2010-01-11, 06:18 PM
Persistent Spell=only really usable with heavy metamagic reducers or at obscene levels.

Part of the problem is how easy it is to get said reducers. Tainted Sorcerer/Anima Mage, for example. Once you've got that, everything goes nuts.

But I agree that in general, core alone made Wizards insane. Other books just add a bit of fun. And there are a number of extremely good non core spells (Shivering Touch, Genesis, Celerity, Haunt Shift) but core is where the majority of the insane spells are.

Actually it's Clerics that get a big boost outside core (DMM, Persistant Spell, and a host of awesome spells like Righteous Wrath of the Faithful, Lesser Vigor, and so on.

JaronK

Tyndmyr
2010-01-11, 06:18 PM
There are some "trigger" spells... Explosive Runes is one. Sepia Snake Sigil paralyzes you when you read it, as far as I remember. Imagine having one page full of Explosive Runes AND Sepia Snake Sigil. I don't think you'd ever get a Reflex save.

Technically, the reader of Runes never gets a reflex save...only those close to him do. Great way to respond to "feh, I have evasion".

You do have to take some care with them to not make the book lethal to you, though. It's surprisingly easy to kill everyone within range with stacked traps. This may or may not be desirable.

Fire Traps and enough Fire resist to be safe may be preferable for safety, albeit sacrificing lethality.

taltamir
2010-01-11, 06:20 PM
I, I.... <3 :smallredface:


All joking aside, how can one afford to have several books in game? :smallconfused:

Honestly if I tried to have a backup book the cost would ruin me and the group would leave me behind for taking twice as long to add a single spell. And having a trapped book? Is it just full of rune spells or something:smallconfused:?

crafting a blessed book (12,500gp cost) takes 6250gp and 500xp. And allows you to scribe 1000 pages for free...
As a bonus, it allows you to sell the full book for 56250gp (50gp per page + half market price of blessed book).

Another thing is that DMs don't like it when you actually try to earn money doing non combat stuff... fabricate and wall of iron are flat out of course, but there are about 6 or 7 spells that let you build a castle in a week. Then there is the pricing on selling spell casting services (you cast a spell for someone for lots and lots of gold), and finally there is crafting to sell... since you auto start with scribe scroll, if you can find a buyer (must be someone who custom orders stuff from you, so that you can sell it at market price instead of half price) you can make a 12.5gp per 1XP spent gold profit on any item you craft (with some notable exceptions)...

not to mention things like planer binding and forcing creatures to cough up items, or simple plane shifting to a spot in the elemental plane of earth made out of pure giant diamonds and plucking a few.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-11, 06:21 PM
Persistent Spell=only really usable with heavy metamagic reducers or at obscene levels.
Divine Metamagic=Helps a wizard how?
Sudden Metamagic=barely worth the feat choice.
Eidetic Spellcaster=you trade your familiar, or your other class feature that you could trade your familiar for, for the ability to operate without a spellbook like every other caster in core. Only useful in campaigns where the DM will actually sunder or steal your spellbook, and even then only if you somehow fail to protect it. Hardly broken.

Try again.

This is completely correct. Also, heavy metamagic reducers tend to require being of a reasonably high level. Arcane Thesis only works on one thing...yay, you can now persist a spell at only +5 levels...not really going to matter. The fastest way to start using persist spell is incantatrix with spellcraft optimization, but that still takes what, 9th level before it's available?

Sudden metamagics are underrated, I feel. I think they're a reasonable choice. Most optimizers consider them to be nearly worthless.

The others...yeah. No self-respecting wizard is going to bother with them.

taltamir
2010-01-11, 06:22 PM
Technically, the reader of Runes never gets a reflex save...only those close to him do. Great way to respond to "feh, I have evasion".

You do have to take some care with them to not make the book lethal to you, though. It's surprisingly easy to kill everyone within range with stacked traps. This may or may not be desirable.

Fire Traps and enough Fire resist to be safe may be preferable for safety, albeit sacrificing lethality.

actually:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/explosiverunes.htm

You and any characters you specifically instruct can read the protected writing without triggering the runes.

Doc Roc
2010-01-11, 06:23 PM
Actually, I play and have played wizards consistently.
Your problems are not our problems.
Your failings are not our failings.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-11, 06:23 PM
Can you please elaborate on what is specifically wrong with what I am saying instead of acting so offended or just saying "conjecture". I would like to be corrected if wrong.

You think Kylarra sounds offended? :smallconfused: Well, here are counterpoints (note: I do not necessarily believe all these counterpoints. Just throwing them out there)



But with a wizard it is an all or nothing kind of deal, wizards who aren't casting spells are effectively commoners.
Reserve feats. Also, if your buffs are still active, you're contributing without casting spells at the moment.


DMs will hate their power and brokenness, they will hate how many of their powers (which are essential to the wizard's survival) completely break the campaign. They will hate how they overshadow the others, they will hate the perceived power (since your DM probably read about he tier system and how every char op is about wizards).
No, they won't. This is the part where your perception is being advertised as a general experience. DMs only tend to hate wizards who step out of line, and in that case the wizard is more of an enabler than the actual problem. Wizards just magnify the problems of problem players.


So the ban hammer starts dropping. Gone are the good spells (with the exception of buffing), gone are the good feats, gone are the good PrCs, gone are meta reducers, gone are the pathways to real and awesome power...
Yes, the powers to "real and awesome" power are gone. You still have real non-awesome powers (see: buffing). And this is assuming the banhammer drops at all - hardly a given.


You are left with a simpering 4HD low bab and 2 bad saves character who is only good at one thing, buffing. with a dash of crowd control and defensive spells.
So you're a one-trick pony. Hooray. Welcome to what all fighters live through.


And that doesn't even take into account the really extreme DM's who start to fiat away all the wizards powers... aka, someone sunders your spellbook, you need to track every material component, even cheap ones; you wake up bound and gagged and your spellbook and component pouch are gone; spells don't quite work right; everything has insane SR and saves, and spells that ignore either are not allowed... etc.
Again, this is a problem with the person, not the game. If a DM is willing to do things like this to do, the DM is not a very good person. Even if the player is trying to abuse his wizard power.

And now I run out of willpower. Because while I think that your points are stated too firmly and ought to be moderated, I don't actually object to most of them. And taking time to refute points I don't really want to is... eh

FatR
2010-01-11, 06:24 PM
you typically start level 1... you are not really contributing to the party until level 5 when you get haste. (the ONLY spell worth casting using your SL3 slots, prepare it as many times a day as you can to maximize your contribution)
Oh sure you have glitterdust and grease... but limited castings per day combined with what is an extremely utility spell that serves merely to make things easier on your fighters (the blind guy is still gonna slaughter you if you go against him 1 vs 1).
Even a humble bard was vital in our low-level games, precisely because of Grease and then Glitterdust (and sometimes Hideous Laughter).



Teleport and scrying DO horribly detract from the game... and are essential for wizard survival...

They aren't. From my experience (this time as a player), the wizard can tank better than most other classes.

Eldariel
2010-01-11, 06:25 PM
Part of the problem is how easy it is to get said reducers. Tainted Sorcerer/Anima Mage, for example. Once you've got that, everything goes nuts.

But isn't that more of an issue with the meta reducers than metamagic itself? I think Metamagic School Focus is a nice baseline for a relatively fair metamagic reducer that's useful without breaking things over.

PrCs with related abilities? Well, Ultimate Magus is relatively fair thanks to the spell level cap, but the rest have issues. I think there simply aren't strict-enough restrictions in place in most metamagic reducers.

taltamir
2010-01-11, 06:26 PM
And that doesn't even take into account the really extreme DM's who start to fiat away all the wizards powers... aka, someone sunders your spellbook, you need to track every material component, even cheap ones; you wake up bound and gagged and your spellbook and component pouch are gone; spells don't quite work right; everything has insane SR and saves, and spells that ignore either are not allowed... etc.
Again, this is a problem with the person, not the game. If a DM is willing to do things like this to do, the DM is not a very good person. Even if the player is trying to abuse his wizard power.

Perfect example of things that did not happen to me personally, but I heard a lot of people complain their DM did that to them... or DMs come and brag about how wizards are not overpowered at all because this is what they do to them.


Actually, I play and have played wizards consistently.
Your problems are not our problems.
Your failings are not our failings.

a fair number of those come exactly out of a variety of other people who do have those problems.

Doc Roc
2010-01-11, 06:28 PM
a fair number of those come exactly out of a variety of other people who do have those problems.

A fair number and a variety. Stack those weasel words, stack 'em high!

More seriously, which, who, and why?

Tyndmyr
2010-01-11, 06:29 PM
actually:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/explosiverunes.htm

The problem isn't that. The problem is what happens if someone triggers the runes within range of you. Say...a dispel that fails badly. Now granted, I wear a ring of counterspell with dispel magic loaded in it, just to be sure....but if you're not careful, it *could* be a real problem.


Anyhow, I see this as a thread complaining mostly about how DMs can handle wizards badly. Not all DMs do so. Im playing in a campaign currently, started at level 1, currently at 10, and my incantatrix is doing great. Knows all those broken spells you hated, and uses some of them on occasion. Sure, bad DMs are probably more likely to ban wizard stuff...but that's because noob DMs tend to wield the banhammer very clumsily in the first place.

The better the DM, the more subtle the fix used for a given problem.

Doc Roc
2010-01-11, 06:31 PM
Also, we offer the ToS banlist for a reason.

taltamir
2010-01-11, 06:32 PM
The problem isn't that. The problem is what happens if someone triggers the runes within range of you. Say...a dispel that fails badly. Now granted, I wear a ring of counterspell with dispel magic loaded in it, just to be sure....but if you're not careful, it *could* be a real problem.

ouch, that would hurt a lot... you can easily have a fake book with 100 of those (one per page), a single dispel by anyone and you are a splatter.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-11, 06:34 PM
ouch, that would hurt a lot... you can easily have a fake book with 100 of those (one per page), a single dispel by anyone and you are a splatter.

Right.

Be very careful that whatever nasty trap you lay isn't one you can fall into.

Vizzerdrix
2010-01-11, 06:36 PM
ouch, that would hurt a lot... you can easily have a fake book with 100 of those (one per page), a single dispel by anyone and you are a splatter.

I must build spellbook bombs now! Yes! A kobold Sorc that plays at being a wizard. Fleeing the field of battle in such a hurry that the throws down his spell book, only to sneak up to the enemy camp at night as set it off! :smallbiggrin:

And of course I shall go elder two headed Dragonwrought loredrake white dragonspawn halfdragon kobold while I'm at it.

Doc Roc
2010-01-11, 06:39 PM
Salutations Sillyheads,
Here, I'd like to talk a little about what reasonable expectations are.
Until now, it didn't occur to me that people would use some of my tricks as serious examples of what a wizard can do.
Truth told, some of those stories are jokes that were told on the wizards boards, not actual player experiences.

Useful parables, nothing more. No one actually chain gates, for example.
Please stop treating them like they're good examples.

JaronK
2010-01-11, 06:49 PM
Meanwhile, I've actually pulled off tons of crazy tricks in games.

JaronK

Longcat
2010-01-11, 06:51 PM
No one actually chain gates, for example.


Truth be told, I did actually chaingate once. And Hilarity ensued! :smallcool:

Shorten Jacob
2010-01-11, 06:56 PM
Meanwhile, I've actually pulled off tons of crazy tricks in games.

JaronK

And your name alone can conjure flame-wars on some boards. Best role-model ever!

Boci
2010-01-11, 06:58 PM
And your name alone can conjure flame-wars on some boards. Best role-model ever!

At least he doesn't make a new account to post an insult.

Slayn82
2010-01-11, 06:58 PM
There's a bit of a debate in the world of 3.5 as to whether the precise wording of secret page allows you to replicate all your spellbooks for free. For those who say that it does, and play with a DM who allows it, multiple spellbooks are easy-peasy.

Will-o’-wisp essence isnt something that comes around cheap. Actually, it used to cost (in 2nd Edition) the exactly same as the cost to scribe a page in a spell book. Why they forgot to add that bit i dunno.

Doc Roc
2010-01-11, 06:59 PM
At least he doesn't make a new account to post an insult.

Unfortunately for me, I am on the same apartment building's junction box as that Jacob, so we will often have the same IP due to comcast related weirdness. Besides, knowing Jaron's feelings regarding the Den, he may not consider that an insult.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-11, 07:00 PM
And your name alone can conjure flame-wars on some boards.

What?

Well, since JaronK is not an ******* of epic proportions, this actually seems like a compliment to him. Sort of. In a weird way.

Doc Roc
2010-01-11, 07:01 PM
Actually, given that I think we're talking indirectly about TGD, you could definitely see it as a compliment. :smallbiggrin:

Kylarra
2010-01-11, 07:02 PM
Can you please elaborate on what is specifically wrong with what I am saying instead of acting so offended or just saying "conjecture". I would like to be corrected if wrong.Oh I'm not offended, not in the least bit. I thought about addressing your points one by one, but essentially, they mostly come down to player-DM communication issues. Yes, played straight in a theoretical RAW-land, your wizard could break the game. In practice, the majority of people aren't playing D&D to try to break the game.

If the player is a jerk about being a wizard <x can happen>. If the DM is a jerk in response <Y can happen>. You frame this in absolutist terms, the DM must do this. The DM will do that. Your fun will be ruined.

In short, I don't necessarily disagree that these things can and do happen, but I disagree that they must and strongly disagree with your absolutist choice of wording.

Doc Roc
2010-01-11, 07:03 PM
Also, I have had a lot of fun in Crazy RAW Land, running the ToS. It's been absolutely incredibly cool to see some of these tricks. It's like a free mental jungle-gym.



If the player is a jerk about being a wizard <x can happen>. If the DM is a jerk in response <Y can happen>. You frame this in absolutist terms, the DM must do this. The DM will do that. Your fun will be ruined.




If this is my fun ruined, jesus, please ruin it moar.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/101/253298167_df0fc7cd60.jpg

Fail
2010-01-11, 07:03 PM
Also, we offer the ToS banlist for a reason.Surely not solving problems in games, because that it doesn't. Unless you mean problems never seen instead of problems seen.


And your name alone can conjure flame-wars on some boards. Best role-model ever!Well, Jaron made the same tier "system" everyone here loves. :D

taltamir
2010-01-11, 07:03 PM
I must build spellbook bombs now! Yes! A kobold Sorc that plays at being a wizard. Fleeing the field of battle in such a hurry that the throws down his spell book, only to sneak up to the enemy camp at night as set it off! :smallbiggrin:

And of course I shall go elder two headed Dragonwrought loredrake white dragonspawn halfdragon kobold while I'm at it.

isn't it just a ranged touch attack to throw a book at someone?
wizard/cleric delays action until after fighter.
fighter throws book with hundreds of explosive runes at the dragon.
wizard or cleric casts dispel on it... from a scroll to ensure minimum level and maximum failure rate (if the wizard is casting, another wizard had to have cast those explosive runes, you auto succeed dispelling your own spells).

Result? instagib :)

Saph
2010-01-11, 07:05 PM
And well, Jaron made the same tier "system" everyone here loves. :D

Meh, I've never found it much use, honestly. It's based on assumptions which don't apply to the vast majority of games. The Test of Spite tier system (ranking by power, not by class) is a lot more useful in my experience.

Doc Roc
2010-01-11, 07:06 PM
Surely not solving problems in games, because that it doesn't. Unless you mean problems never seen instead of problems seen.

Well, Jaron made the same tier "system" everyone here loves. :D

Mmm, well, this is a matter of some pretty serious debate. Combined with the other patch-set, it ties off a lot of general imbalances. I'd be delighted to hear about what you think we could do better, though. I've been sort of stumped for a while now, to be honest. I think that should probably be a new thread, but it's a conversation I'd really love to have.

Kylarra
2010-01-11, 07:07 PM
Also, I have had a lot of fun in Crazy RAW Land, running the ToS. It's been absolutely incredibly cool to see some of these tricks. It's like a free mental jungle-gym.





If this is my fun ruined, jesus, please ruin it moar.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/101/253298167_df0fc7cd60.jpg:smalltongue: Mmm delicious strawberries.

taltamir
2010-01-11, 07:07 PM
In short, I don't necessarily disagree that these things can and do happen, but I disagree that they must and strongly disagree with your absolutist choice of wording.

That was an unintentional mistake on my part. I should have not used absolutist language when framing the issue.

Eldariel
2010-01-11, 07:08 PM
isn't it just a ranged touch attack to throw a book at someone?
wizard/cleric delays action until after fighter.
fighter throws book with hundreds of explosive runes at the dragon.
wizard or cleric casts dispel on it... from a scroll to ensure minimum level and maximum failure rate (if the wizard is casting, another wizard had to have cast those explosive runes, you auto succeed dispelling your own spells).

Result? instagib :)

Congratulations; you now came up with the warhead of the D&D Cruise Missile.

jmbrown
2010-01-11, 07:08 PM
Persistent Spell=only really usable with heavy metamagic reducers or at obscene levels.
Divine Metamagic=Helps a wizard how?
Sudden Metamagic=barely worth the feat choice.
Eidetic Spellcaster=you trade your familiar, or your other class feature that you could trade your familiar for, for the ability to operate without a spellbook like every other caster in core. Only useful in campaigns where the DM will actually sunder or steal your spellbook, and even then only if you somehow fail to protect it. Hardly broken.

Try again.

Try again with what? Proving that splatbook wizards are more powerful than core wizards? I proved that by virtue of it being true. You proved that by trying to downplay the additional options. Imagine a core caster is 1+1; a splatbook caster is 1+2. If the core caster is broken, then the splatbook caster is completely shattered.

And I'm going far beyond wizard here. I'm talking casters down the board. How many splatbooks have no extra spells in comparisons to one that do? Even books based on fighters have spells in them. Casters can use both magic items and spells. Non-casters can only use magic items. Whose more powerful in this scenario?

Persistent spell lets me do things like 24 hour vigor or fox's cunning. Divine metamagic allows clerics to use an easily compounded class feature to powerful abilities you shouldn't have for several (sometimes a dozen) levels. I've seen 1st level builds opening up persistent vigor. Eidetic spellcaster is another versatile ability which is more than I can say for anyone else.

I don't even know what your argument is, but if you're trying to prove that splatbooks don't increase a caster's power at a greater increase than non-casters you have absolutely no ground to stand on.

Doc Roc
2010-01-11, 07:09 PM
:smalltongue: Mmm delicious strawberries.

I really need to never make posts like that before heading to the grocery store. I'm going to regret that post so hard after dinner tonight.

Also, Fail:
Thread is going up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7673990#post7673990) for discussion of direction for ToS banlist.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-11, 07:16 PM
You proved that by trying to downplay the additional options. Imagine a core caster is 1+1; a splatbook caster is 1+2. If the core caster is broken, then the splatbook caster is completely shattered.

I suspect that, much like with taltamir, the actual argument is against the use of hyperbole. Core caster is broken. Splatbook caster is not "completely shattered", merely slightly more thoroughly broken. Saying that splatbooks make casters completely shattered is an unnecessary insult to splatbooks. See, for example, a specific statement:


If core is opening the flood gates then supplements are blowing up the whole dam.

That's a division of effort that I consider highly inaccurate. The step from closed floodgates -> open floodgates is much less than the step from intact dam -> blown-up dam. You're implying that supplements do more towards making wizards broken than Core does, an implication I reject.

Doc Roc
2010-01-11, 07:19 PM
I suspect that, much like with taltamir, the actual argument is against the use of hyperbole. Core caster is broken. Splatbook caster is not "completely shattered", merely slightly more thoroughly broken. Saying that splatbooks make casters completely shattered is an unnecessary insult to splatbooks. See, for example, a specific statement:



That's a division of effort that I consider highly inaccurate. The step from closed floodgates -> open floodgates is much less than the step from intact dam -> blown-up dam. You're implying that supplements do more towards making wizards broken than Core does, an implication I reject.

I side with FG here, though he may find my alliance unpalatable ;)

jmbrown
2010-01-11, 07:21 PM
I suspect that, much like with taltamir, the actual argument is against the use of hyperbole. Core caster is broken. Splatbook caster is not "completely shattered", merely slightly more thoroughly broken. Saying that splatbooks make casters completely shattered is an unnecessary insult to splatbooks. See, for example, a specific statement:



That's a division of effort that I consider highly inaccurate. The step from closed floodgates -> open floodgates is much less than the step from intact dam -> blown-up dam. You're implying that supplements do more towards making wizards broken than Core does, an implication I reject.

I've also said each and every time that casters are broken in comparison to non-casters from the get go.

Hyperbole aside, 1+2 is still higher than 1+1. You could argue that the increase isn't that great but the fact remains it's still one extra factor you have to keep track of...

Or multiple factors in the case of DMs who point to their shelf and say "Have at it." In my play experience, and this goes back to AD&D, I've found that the length of a campaign is inversely proportional to the number of additional material used (or as I describe it "The number of books splayed across the table"). Shortest lived game I played in was a level 20 game where all published 3rd edition material was allowed.

Ended in 10 minutes.

taltamir
2010-01-11, 07:22 PM
Actually, I noticed people saying in this thread that you should just "no be a jerk" when playing a wizard... that is another problem.
"not be a jerk" means "don't steal the spotlight" and "don't abuse magic".

problems:
1. You must constantly self limit and self nerf what you are doing.
2. Sometimes the DM is doing something that you thought is "too powerful" with other casters; leaving you behind.
3. The whole "in character" thing breaks down when you figure out an amazing combo and have to metagame decide not to use it because its too game breaking. This is really annoying where it is a completely obvious and legit application of the spell that anyone could think of, and would significantly alter the world (ex: fly + bag of holding + boulders + shrink item)

constantly thinking "ok, I can do this, but if I do it might make the fighter feel useless, so I better not" is stressful, annoying and detracts from the fun. I don't want to play such a character where it is my job to balance it during play. thats play-testing and game development, while it can be fun, it is not what I expect from a product / game.
And the moment I try to actually utilize its given powers in full I am "mean" and a "jerk".

Doc Roc
2010-01-11, 07:24 PM
I don't think so, actually. A big part of being the batman wizard is using powerful battlefield control to line things up for your less...advantaged party members.

It's really unfortunate that a lot of the spirit of CO has been lost in the distillation of its strategies. CO is about making the game better and cleaner and faster, really, in the end. We used to say that "We optimize for fun."

Fail
2010-01-11, 07:35 PM
Saph: assuming the "system" in question is this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7653810&postcount=304) ... it doesn't actually impart any data - it separates broken/win/proper/weak/total fail/maybe other categories, but it gives exactly 0 information on what constitutes which. Thus, it doesn't have an actual use. Jaron's would have uses if wasn't wrong enough to be perhaps as bad as just not using it, because it supposedly does impart data. Only wrong. Also, this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7673067&postcount=50) looks like you also don't believe in qualitative analysis working, so (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Salt_production_Uyuni.JPG) ...

Doc Roc: in short, that ban list, seemingly being made for PvP, can be excused to only solve problems that are actually best solved in a real game by opening new orifices in the player's cranium (i.e. a player going knowingly and strictly for breaking the game), but are of course the logical progression of PvP. A real game, however, requires solving real problems like wizards being qualitatively better than non-spellcasters (even psion, at most data points) by orders of magnitude, and that it can show up by accident, instead of by use of calling magic. Granted, I wager it's better solved by changing non-spellcasters instead, but it not being addressed by the ToS ban list at all is the point. As for the other thread: that ban list might have nothing wrong for the PvP it was made for use in; it just doesn't seem like even an attempt at a start of balancing characters in real play, so I'm not sure of the connection between one issue and the other.

JaronK
2010-01-11, 07:40 PM
Unfortunately for me, I am on the same apartment building's junction box as that Jacob, so we will often have the same IP due to comcast related weirdness. Besides, knowing Jaron's feelings regarding the Den, he may not consider that an insult.

I really don't. There's some fine people at the Den, but the people that are so aggrivated at me are A) a fanboy who tried to latch on to me and then got bitter when I disagreed with him and has since freaked out and is now banned from nearly every other forum and B) a guy who prides himself on being a troll and was also kicked out from every other D&D forum (and who lives right near me, interestingly enough, though I don't think he realizes that). I'm quite okay with that.

JaronK

Doc Roc
2010-01-11, 07:41 PM
Doc Roc: in short, that ban list, seemingly being made for PvP, can be excused to only solve problems that are actually best solved in a real game by opening new orifices in the player's cranium (i.e. a player going knowingly and strictly for breaking the game), but are of course the logical progression of PvP. A real game, however, requires solving real problems like wizards being qualitatively better than non-spellcasters (even psion, at most data points) by orders of magnitude, and that it can show up by accident, instead of by use of calling magic. Granted, I wager it's better solved by changing non-spellcasters instead, but it not being addressed by the ToS ban list at all is the point. As for the other thread: that ban list might have nothing wrong for the PvP it was made for use in; it just doesn't seem like even an attempt at a start of balancing characters in real play, so I'm not sure of the connection between one issue and the other.

We offer replacements and upgrades for the non-casters, as well as the ban list. Our philosophy is that we should offer a number of different layered options which can be mixed and matched to produce the desired game. But more than that, we want to make sure that you can change as little as possible to get that desired game.

There's now a thread where we can continue this conversation, so I'd prefer to try and end this hilarious derail.

peterpaulrubens
2010-01-11, 07:57 PM
What's amusing about that? Wizards could always stop time, shape change, craft magic items, and blow up the universe but 3.5 removed the side-effects and doing so became easier. It's not amusing, it's just a fact.

Err, I think you missed my point. It's not amusing because of the wizard's current power, it's amusing that 20 years of "improving" a game has created a giant rift of power between the fighter and the magic-user (wizard) where previously it was pretty close to even.

It's a "well.. yeah, no DUH!" moment for me when I read threads about how wizards are OP. The game took out all the checks that kept spells from totally dominating (like flat-percentage magic resistance, or saves that were based on the saver's level but NOT the attacker's level) and then OH LOOK!
After you take out all the rules preventing spellcasters from being awesome then lo and behold... spellcasters are AWESOME!

See? Very amusing! :D

jmbrown
2010-01-11, 08:07 PM
Err, I think you missed my point. It's not amusing because of the wizard's current power, it's amusing that 20 years of "improving" a game has created a giant rift of power between the fighter and the magic-user (wizard) where previously it was pretty close to even.

It's a "well.. yeah, no DUH!" moment for me when I read threads about how wizards are OP. The game took out all the checks that kept spells from totally dominating (like flat-percentage magic resistance, or saves that were based on the saver's level but NOT the attacker's level) and then OH LOOK!
After you take out all the rules preventing spellcasters from being awesome then lo and behold... spellcasters are AWESOME!

See? Very amusing! :D

I guess. What I find truly funny is that by adding options all you do is benefit the class that had the most options to begin with. Like I said earlier, spellcasters can benefit from almost every single splatbook. I can't say the same for noncasters. In this case I prefer how 2E and 4E handled splat books. You knew you were getting a book on fighters when you picked up "The Complete Book of Fighters." In 3E, Complete Warrior benefits the caster more than it does the fighter by virtue of there being more stuff for the caster.

That's truly funny for me.

onthetown
2010-01-11, 08:17 PM
"not be a jerk" means "don't steal the spotlight" and "don't abuse magic".

Mmhm, and wizards and sorcerers are the only classes where it seems to apply in my experience -- the only classes where you are a jerk if you steal the spotlight. (If you have a good D&D group, they might actually love seeing you steal it.) With other classes, it's considered acceptable because you either don't get a chance to often, you're interesting, or you're just fulfilling your role.

Consider this (and ignore the redundancy; I like everything to blend together)...

Bards are meant to steal the spotlight every once in awhile with skillful use of their abilities and some spells, but they're bards so we don't complain - they don't get the spotlight enough, so let it go a few times, right?

Barbarians are meant to steal the spotlight with their Rage and awesome strength. Fighters are meant to steal the spotlight with their awesome strength and good use of feats. Both of these classes, by an unspoken rule, are not stealing the spotlight if they deal the finishing blow; the mighty evil falls to the last strike of the strong warrior's blade, felling dark forces once and for all.

Clerics are meant to steal the spotlight by casting their flashy spells like Flamestrike and Harm. Hey, they're high level -- they've spent the entire campaign healing us. Let them have a bit of time in the limelight.

Druids are meant to steal the spotlight because they are mysterious, they are the unknown, they are one with the nature. They're cool, right? Their spells are kind of neat, too. Especially once they start casting Flamestrike as a wolf shape through Wild Spell or whatever it's called. Let 'em have a go.

Monks are meant to steal the spotlight because they are the perfect martial artists: the epitome of our childhood kung-fu practising dreams. One hit after another with nothing but their bare hands and some clothes to protect themselves. They are simply, apparently, too cool to not let have some spotlight, much in the same way as the barbarian and fighter.

Paladins are meant to steal the spotlight because they are Knights In Shining Armour. They are the champions. They will, with the fighters and barbarians and monks, fell evil in one swift cut of their blade, smiting the BBEG and repudiate his/her ways. In a good campaign, or even in an evil one as an enemy of the party, they will get the spotlight for their righteous beliefs.

Rangers are meant to steal the spotlight because, not only are they one with nature and protect it with their very lives, but they also get cool abilities. Two weapons? Sharpshooter? Always a plus. Hanging from trees and lodging arrows with unquestionable accuracy into their opponents' skulls, they deserve the spotlight, too.

Rogues are meant to steal the spotlight because they're silent and sneaky, clever and witty, charming and full of grandeur. Some of them could sell you your own grandmother for a quick profit. From rooftop to alleyway to stabbing somebody in the back, they're a favoured class for beginners (I even played my first character as a rogue) because they're mainstream and interesting. How could they not get the spotlight?

Sorcerers and wizards-- wait, what? You want to help us destroy the enemy? You want to cast a Fireball here, some Lightning Bolts there, and ultimately steal our kills? How dare you steal our spotlight! We work ourselves to death gaining our abilities and feats -- you just waltz into your class, get some cute abilities, then unlock arcane secrets of the universe! How is that fair? Oh my god, you just Disintegrated the Frost Giant that was about to pound me into the ground which would kill the character I love and have spent weeks creating and optimizing! How dare you steal my spotlight!!!

Or something like that.

Because of the mentality of a lot of groups, wizards aren't able to be played to their full potential. You may be saving their characters, but your spells do it in a way that takes away from their heroic efforts to stay alive. I've also noticed that some players tend to be selfish, so when they realize that you've got the hand of god in your back pocket they won't be as impressed with their sneak attack bonuses as they were before. To them that equates, of course, to you being a power hungry jerk who's stealing their spotlight.

Fail
2010-01-11, 08:39 PM
There's now a thread where we can continue this conversation, so I'd prefer to try and end this hilarious derail.You say it like the OP actually constituted a set of thoughts. That said ... (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7674680&postcount=7)

Tinydwarfman
2010-01-11, 08:42 PM
I completely disagree. In our core only game, it has recently come to the dm's attention the wizards have cheese coming out the wazzo. Beginning when the wizard shut down all the wolves attacking us (level 7), and the orcs, and bandits, and freaky flying things that shot lightning at us... but what really topped it off was when he sucessfully brought down 2 of the red dragons out of 4 that were supposed to be scaring us away:smalleek:
meanwhile, the rest of us just twidled our thumbs hiding in the forest.

Yeah.

In our non-core game however, our melee was a warblade and swordsage, with a very non-optimized wiz, very non-optimized cleric (more of healbot that likes to run into melee), and a slightly min-maxed beguiler. The party was quite evenly balanced, even if our first few encounters were absolutly SMASHED through (dm needs to learn to balance at high party tier).

Also - you're dm sounds like ass for banning everything except buffs. What were you doing before, or was it a previous player he had?

taltamir
2010-01-11, 08:51 PM
*lots of stuff*

Because of the mentality of a lot of groups, wizards aren't able to be played to their full potential. You may be saving their characters, but your spells do it in a way that takes away from their heroic efforts to stay alive. I've also noticed that some players tend to be selfish, so when they realize that you've got the hand of god in your back pocket they won't be as impressed with their sneak attack bonuses as they were before. To them that equates, of course, to you being a power hungry jerk who's stealing their spotlight.

You know, it didn't even occur to me to look at it that way.
why is it that wizards are forbidden from killing stuff or else they are jerks?

T.G. Oskar
2010-01-11, 09:03 PM
Let's see if I can place my 2 cp in this. I'll start with the basics: I've not played a Wizard. I have seen what a Wizard can do, given that it's hard, if not impossible, to see an arcanist in play. Anything an honest to goodness arcanist can do, a Wizard is expected to do since the arcane spellcasting list draws insanely from the Wizard spell list, barring some differences.

First, before defining how a Wizard plays on a "real game", it's proper to define what entails exactly a "real game". If the "real game" is comprised of the group of friends that play with actual paper, hardcover books, and at least a few bags of munchies and some soft drinks to the side, well... Wizards still have a good advantage in game, quite more than Fighters even while disregarding most of the stable calculations and introducing the random variable. Fighters still struggle. It's just that it's not as notable.

"Real game" should be considered as true as "forum play by post", or "online chatroom" gaming, since aside from the media, you're playing the exact same game. If the Dungeon Master says "we'll start at 8th level, with WBL as established on the DMG and MIC guidelines, and with all books open", the difference is quite notable as "same thing, but we start at 1st level". Real game shatters depending on the level range you're playing. If you're at the first levels, then the differences aren't as notable. If you're playing high-level, then those who take the right choices undoubtedly gain the advantage. When advancing a character artificially through levels, you can make choices that may seem a bit arbitrary, but that are nonetheless legal: getting various copies of gloves of Dexterity +2 and headbands of Intellect +2, for example. That remains just as much a "real game" as it does starting from the beginning, mind you: you're just beginning from a different level.

There's also something that needs to be stressed out, I believe. There is no unwritten rule that says "you can't take Fireball". There is enough evidence that states that Fireball isn't comparable to spells of equal level such as Haste (which benefits everyone) or Dispel Magic (which nulls the buffs of an enemy, which allows everyone else to improve). Casting Glitterdust, or Stinking Cloud, or Web, or even Grease isn't "standing back and doing nothing"; quite the contrary, it is contributing to the party's victory and actually improving the chances of victory. Batman Wizard doesn't imply that you can single-handedly win every battle: it does imply that you make the battle much easier, and eventually, you get ways to bypass some of the defenses built for Fighters. That Wizards gain far more ways to bypass defenses than Fighters is a design flaw: a Fighter with Ring of Invisibility and Brilliant weaponry can pretty much strike anything on its path, so as long as the enemy actually lives and is made of flesh; Rogues launching flasks of Alchemist's Fire while using Greater Invisibility deal far much more damage. But Wizards have ways to counter specifically that, which in theory make them much more dangerous: a Fighter can't, by itself, counter a Wizard's flight abilities, or illusive defenses. A Fighter *can*, with some effort, find a way to ignore certain defenses by itself (invisibility, illusions, but as long as it has Wis 19, Blindsight and this feat over here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#blindsight5FtRadius).)

Perhaps the most important is that the Wizard is always prepared. It's a myth, but not a myth without fundament. A Wizard can, with all the time of the world, prepare for an opponent and sweep the floor with it. The myth is evident when you speak of time constraints, which can be enforced pretty much everywhere: a Wizard doesn't have enough downtime to get all the spells they want, Nor have days upon days to analyze everything. Not to say that isn't available: a DM that asks split-second plans from their players isn't exactly aiding the party itself. However, if the Wizard knows that it's playing with time constraints, it will try to get something to work out. Which the BBEG can do as well.

Another is spell accessibility. Going to a magic shop shouldn't mean you get every single spell in existence; heck, most games nowadays don't give you the entire spell list, instead using quests and minigames to expand the spell list. A DM is well on its way to ban any spell it considers dangerous or overwhelming, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't give the player the idea that it cannot exist. Call it a compromise between "it's on Core/splatbook, hence it exists" and Rule 0: if you want, say, Fimbulwinter, prepare to make the trip of your lifetime to Faerun and hope the sole owner of the spell ever allow you to copy it. Spell selection is one of the things that makes a Wizard more powerful; banning the entire list is roughly equal to banning key feats for a Fighter, and a Fighter without feats suffers even more.

Perhaps the most important is that Wizards have their own playing style, and not everyone will be capable of playing an effective Wizard. This gets closer to the idea of an actual, honest to goodness "real game" than anything else: when the DM and the player match wits. Just as it's unfair for the Wizard player to nuke the fun of his/her friends by playing a Wizard with the latest broken build, so it is a DM that doesn't know how to play his/her monsters and rules far too much at the fly. Not all DMs will manage the monsters in the same way: some will play them smarter (such as those who actually know how to play Kobolds), and some will just fail to play them correctly (such as those who don't use Dragons to their maximum degree). This is what I feel Taltamir refers to "real gaming": outside from the theory and the number-crunching, what actually happens in a battle. In the end, a Wizard with several disabilities and almost as close as a Commoner can still win if it manages to outwit the DM. That, right there, is real gaming. And the Wizards have better tools than most other classes for that (not to say Clerics and Druids can't: in fact, in theory, Druids should be the strongest class given just how much they can do with their class abilities).

But in conclusion: Wizards aren't the worst classes you can play on a real game. Buffing and battlefield control are contributions, just as much as one strike from a weapon is a contribution; it aids to end the battle. And that's just as much "real game" as it can be. Builds aren't impossible to follow, even more when you're playing from 1st level and making the build from actual earned experience: it will show some impracticalities of the system, but it doesn't mean it won't be doable. That Wizards are hilariously strong: that comes with the package, but it also comes with the player's skill. That is also something important to consider on a real game.

As for this:

And I'm going far beyond wizard here. I'm talking casters down the board. How many splatbooks have no extra spells in comparisons to one that do? Even books based on fighters have spells in them. Casters can use both magic items and spells. Non-casters can only use magic items. Whose more powerful in this scenario?

Tome of Battle doesn't have new spells, and it's fighter-based. It has new magic items, but those are mostly Items of Legacy for martial characters or the martial scrolls. Much better for use to Fighters than to Wizards. Complete Warrior has spells, but only for the Hexblade AND Cleric domains: it DOES have guardian familiars, but those aren't exactly spells for Wizards or Sorcerers.

In the same way: how many books for mages or divine casters have feats or magic items for martial characters? Complete Arcane has the Mage Slayer feat chain, Complete Divine has relics that most spellcasters wouldn't dare to get because they don't use the weapon or the armor applied, Races of Stone has the Dwarven Armor and Shields and the Exotic Shieds, Races of the Wild has exotic weapons and whatnot...

I'd say that it's mostly impact. A spell has far more impact than a feat in several cases, and a magic item works far better in one side than in another. Also, creeping: a Fighter rarely can step on the toes of a spellcaster, but a spellcaster can step on the toes of a Fighter. For example: how many martial-character exclusive feats are there? If you say the Weapon Focus line, that's about it. When the Wizard was capable of having equal stepping on the use of magic items, experience, and feats, the Fighter lost the few equal ground it had. Spells that emulate other classes just spit on it (and even then, only Divine Power; Tenser's Transformation is too much of a gamble for a spellcaster).

Not disagreeing with you, just expanding the opinion.

In the realm of ToS: the Test of Spite wasn't meant to be an actual PvP arena. It was meant to continue with an actual, honest-to-goodness dungeon crawl. However, circumstances made the PvP section far more enjoyable than the dungeon crawl. If you want to see an actual, honest to goodness dungeon crawl done using ToS rules, might as well look at the Monkening, which is still running IIRC. It's the only instance in which the actual entry rules were dispelled, but it's as much of a real game as possible. And yes, most of the rules are developed by finding various exploits in game: that doesn't mean it's any less effective. It forces the optimizers to be creative, though, which I find is as much of a noble endeavor as trying to homebrew or trying, somehow, to "balance" the game. You (note I'm using royal "you" in pretty much any case) may say that the ToS banlist is only workable at a PvP environment where everybody is suspected of being optimizers: I would say to give it a second look and use it as a guideline, more than a hard cover. Part of what makes the banlist so memorable is that it at least attempts to be dynamic, and it attempts to make solutions other than banning: care to take attention at some of the times in which a PrC has an altered function instead of an outright ban. Persistent Spell, for example, hasn't been banned even though many of the DMs would think about banning it: however, the main method of working that out (Nightsticks) were cleverly limited. That's different from saying "Nightsticks and Divine Metamagic and Persistent Spell are banned because they're broken".

taltamir
2010-01-11, 09:16 PM
I completely disagree. In our core only game, it has recently come to the dm's attention the wizards have cheese coming out the wazzo. Beginning when the wizard shut down all the wolves attacking us (level 7), and the orcs, and bandits, and freaky flying things that shot lightning at us... but what really topped it off was when he sucessfully brought down 2 of the red dragons out of 4 that were supposed to be scaring us away:smalleek:
meanwhile, the rest of us just twidled our thumbs hiding in the forest.
What level was it and how was it done?


Also - you're dm sounds like ass for banning everything except buffs. What were you doing before, or was it a previous player he had?

My DM is a great guy and there is no need to insult him. Also, he didn't actually ban everything but buff; heck he actually boosted direct damage spells... (even if he would have banned everything but buffs that wouldn't make him an ass)

My current and previous DM both banned wizards and sorcerers outright, and allow only single school wizard variant (has as many slots per day as a generalist wizard, may only take spells from a single school (except abjuration and divination which are combined) plus a few thematic ones) as well as some but not all of the bans I listed in this thread.
For example, the "transmutation" variant:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99314&highlight=rearranger

I do think its going too far though, to the point that I just don't want to play an arcanist in such an environment... but this thread is not all specifically things that happened to me; a lot also comes from reading threads here by players and DMs. I was told this is "weasel words" earlier in this thread so to be specific:

Here is an example:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7674772&postcount=9

Collegiate Wizard is mandatory in my group, as wizards never get down time in any way, shape or form.
Pretty damn common, I keep on hearing people say that this happens to them. I can tell you that I am not buying scrolls typically (due to availability, funds, and downtime) so I love collegiate.

Another is the thread about "controlling" wizards by having their books sundered (by a DM that does that).
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137283

Another is by a DM that wants to give all casters wands (harry potter style) that he can disarm or sunder and which must be used to do magic:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137945


Not cast a spell fifty times wands, but Harry Potteresque, you channel your magic through this item to cast spells, wands. Something sunder and disarm vulnerable. I'm thinking it would replace mundane spell components, but not the costly ones.

Would something of that sort be too out of line do you think?

Wand- you need one of these to cast a spell.

The consensus seems to be that this is a completely fine mechanical change... everyone now must use a wand or they can't cast magic, and the DM will try to sunder it or disarm them.

those two last threads are what set off this entire thread and my original post... one is from yesterday (jan 10th) and one is from a week ago (jan 4th), and they are not the first nor will the be the last. It seems like every week someone decides to post about how wizards are handled well in his campaign since you can make them commoners by DM fiat.

Doc Roc
2010-01-11, 09:46 PM
In the realm of ToS: the Test of Spite wasn't meant to be an actual PvP arena. It was meant to continue with an actual, honest-to-goodness dungeon crawl. However, circumstances made the PvP section far more enjoyable than the dungeon crawl. If you want to see an actual, honest to goodness dungeon crawl done using ToS rules, might as well look at the Monkening, which is still running IIRC. It's the only instance in which the actual entry rules were dispelled, but it's as much of a real game as possible. And yes, most of the rules are developed by finding various exploits in game: that doesn't mean it's any less effective. It forces the optimizers to be creative, though, which I find is as much of a noble endeavor as trying to homebrew or trying, somehow, to "balance" the game. You (note I'm using royal "you" in pretty much any case) may say that the ToS banlist is only workable at a PvP environment where everybody is suspected of being optimizers: I would say to give it a second look and use it as a guideline, more than a hard cover. Part of what makes the banlist so memorable is that it at least attempts to be dynamic, and it attempts to make solutions other than banning: care to take attention at some of the times in which a PrC has an altered function instead of an outright ban. Persistent Spell, for example, hasn't been banned even though many of the DMs would think about banning it: however, the main method of working that out (Nightsticks) were cleverly limited. That's different from saying "Nightsticks and Divine Metamagic and Persistent Spell are banned because they're broken".

Thank you. Your approval means a hell of a lot.

FlamingKobold
2010-01-11, 09:46 PM
At the point that a had a venerable loredrake dragonwrought kobold ultimate magus and the campaign was fun for everyone (myself, the DM and everyone else) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this is blatantly false.

Akal Saris
2010-01-11, 10:15 PM
I'd say that the potential for a DM to screw over a druid is almost greater than the potential for the DM to screw the wizard.

Most really good druid feats after Natural Spell tend to be in obscure books, and a lot of the awesome forms and animal companions are also rare animals or dinosaurs.

Thankfully, the "myth" that wizards are OP is far more widespread than that of druids, so it's generally a moot point.

On a sidenote, the 13th level game I've been playing in has been fairly regularly "won" by the wizard and cleric of the group, but I get a sort of vicarious joy out of watching those 2 players enjoy their power, so I don't really mind it that much.

taltamir
2010-01-11, 10:17 PM
yea, druids are another often nerfed class... just not as often because its not as well perpetuated that druids are OP.

Interestingly, druids are probably more viable at lower levels and make for smoother game play, from level 1 though 20.

Telonius
2010-01-11, 10:19 PM
Wizards, worst class you can play in a game with an ass of a DM.

I think that prize goes to Paladins.

taltamir
2010-01-11, 10:21 PM
I think that prize goes to Paladins.

ouch... poor paladins.
but no... I don't think its DMs who mean to be mean to players who make the rulings that make wizards unbearable. Because their intention is to genuinely balance the game for all (aka, their road to hell is paved with good intentions), they tend to boost the paladin and the monk, and other other sad classes (and I don't mean single attribute dependency)

Tinydwarfman
2010-01-11, 10:45 PM
What level was it and how was it done?



My DM is a great guy and there is no need to insult him. Also, he didn't actually ban everything but buff; heck he actually boosted direct damage spells... (even if he would have banned everything but buffs that wouldn't make him an ass)

My current and previous DM both banned wizards and sorcerers outright, and allow only single school wizard variant (has as many slots per day as a generalist wizard, may only take spells from a single school (except abjuration and divination which are combined) plus a few thematic ones) as well as some but not all of the bans I listed in this thread.
For example, the "transmutation" variant:


Sorry, I didn't mean to insult him, but the way I read it, it sounded like he was irrationly banning everything except incredibly weak spells, and even cutting off entire wizard schools. I am all for stuff like your transmutation variant, as long as both player and dm talk about it first. (instead of it just being "you can play a swordsage, but you cannot take Diamond Mind maneuvers." "why?" "Time Stands Still is obviously broken." "but-" "NO DISCUSSIONS!")
I will take back my assetion of your dm being an ass. I do, however, think that it is bad dming to just kill all straight caster classes without player approval, as long as the player promises not to be ridiculously optimized.

The encounter was a while ago, so I cannot remember any exact details, but we were probably 5th-6th level. We were pretty wounded, and the wizard was blinding the dragons with glitterdust, while hiding in the trees.

Croverus
2010-01-11, 10:53 PM
Wow, hearing a lot of "Wizards are overpowered!"... yeah, after a few levels. I've lost count how many of my players have had their Lv 1 and 2 Wizard die from setting off an arrow trap or getting hit by a kobold with a good crossbow shot. By far more of my players' fighters and rouges live to see past 3rd level.

taltamir
2010-01-11, 10:56 PM
I agree that I think it is a mistake to ban entire schools. To be honest, I thought it was a good idea until we played a game with this rule, now I no longer thing it was a good idea.

It is better to play a wizard who isn't abusive. That type of single school requires you to milk every single advantage and trick you got... give wizards martial weapon prof and partial bab and you will see even less abusive wizards. (and more wizards who wield something like a sword or a bow or other variants.)
None of us is trying to pun pun or chain gate solars...


The encounter was a while ago, so I cannot remember any exact details, but we were probably 5th-6th level. We were pretty wounded, and the wizard was blinding the dragons with glitterdust, while hiding in the trees.
ok so he didn't take down 2 dragons, he made 2 dragons not able to slaughter you for 5 rounds in which you can escape; but fully capable of doing so later on... And required some luck on saving throws...

actually it also depended on a mistaken interpretation of the rules. Did you guys remember that dragons have blindsense and can thus freely attack you even while blinded?

Mushroom Ninja
2010-01-11, 11:01 PM
constantly thinking "ok, I can do this, but if I do it might make the fighter feel useless, so I better not" is stressful, annoying and detracts from the fun. I don't want to play such a character where it is my job to balance it during play.

In my experience, if you stick mainly to utility, buffs, and BC, the party rarely feels overshadowed. The other players get to have fun doing most of the actual killing. You get to sit back and play chessmaster, positioning and empowering your pieces from the back of your phantom steed as you stroke your white cat familiar.

Runestar
2010-01-11, 11:09 PM
This makes me wonder - does the OP even know what is so overpowered about wizards? This reminds me of those "Fix fighter suggestions" threads where all the solutions proposed do absolutely nothing to remedy what is wrong with it. :smallyuk:

T.G. Oskar
2010-01-11, 11:11 PM
ok so he didn't take down 2 dragons, he made 2 dragons not able to slaughter you for 5 rounds in which you can escape; but fully capable of doing so later on... And required some luck on saving throws...

actually it also depended on a mistaken interpretation of the rules. Did you guys remember that dragons have blindsense and can thus freely attack you even while blinded?

That's called survival. If in any case that was used offensively, that meant something. But yeah, dragons have very high Fortitude and Will so it's probable they went for something else. Believe me, I've tried, and it was helluva difficult to actually land one, while being 8th level characters.

However, recall something. Blindsense =/= Blindsight. Blindsense means you know they're around, and their exact location, but they are concealed against you. Even if you have blindsense, the concealment is enough to penalize you. Unless the dragon has Blind-Fight, it will be hard for a dragon to dent them: only the breath weapon would be powerful enough, and it mostly depends if the party was prepared with the right resistance or not. Otherwise, it's 50% chance of missing any hit, and that's nothing to chafe at. Plus, no AoO for the dragon: free movement is golden. The fact that it limits the battle choices to one of the most dangerous creatures around means a lot. Add to the fact that the creature is still blinded, and that blindsense still denies your Dex bonus to AC (which doesn't mean a lot for Fighters but it means a LOT for Rogues), and you get the idea.

For purposes of threat determination, it's like going from DEFCON 1 to DEFCON 3. Still dangerous, but not that dangerous. Just clearing that out.


In my experience, if you stick mainly to utility, buffs, and BC, the party rarely feels overshadowed. The other players get to have fun doing most of the actual killing. You get to sit back and play chessmaster, positioning and empowering your pieces from the back of your phantom steed as you stroke your white cat familiar.

Amen, Reverend. The party won't feel overshadowed if they still get the kill, and you won't feel overshadowed if you know that you contributed to the victory. That eventually you become much more invaluable is what may seem troubling, but that's when HP damage becomes less important and instant killing becomes far more important.

Now, that of the chessmaster...let the DM BBEG do that. Still, a wizard that gets on the frontlines, or that disregards the safety of the party is a Wizard suddenly found dead. Mostly because of an angry party that knows the Wizard's tricks, and a DM that may take advantage of the event (which isn't always recommendable, mind you)

Tinydwarfman
2010-01-11, 11:26 PM
ok so he didn't take down 2 dragons, he made 2 dragons not able to slaughter you for 5 rounds in which you can escape; but fully capable of doing so later on... And required some luck on saving throws...

actually it also depended on a mistaken interpretation of the rules. Did you guys remember that dragons have blindsense and can thus freely attack you even while blinded?

We are aware that dragons have blindsense, but we were in the middle of a fairly large battle with lots of people, and even if they could separate us from the many commoners, they would havehad 50% miss chance. Glitterdust was also not the only spell he used. I can't remeber though... might have been slow? We did get lucky on the saving throws though.

Foeofthelance
2010-01-11, 11:35 PM
In my experience, if you stick mainly to utility, buffs, and BC, the party rarely feels overshadowed. The other players get to have fun doing most of the actual killing. You get to sit back and play chessmaster, positioning and empowering your pieces from the back of your phantom steed as you stroke your white cat familiar.

It shouldn't even necessarily come down to that, though. It's the DM's job to challenge the players as much as entertain them, and he has access to the Wizard's spell list, just as he does a Druid's or Cleric's. There are a few simple tips to remember.

1) If a player is spamming a Winspell all over the place, find something immune to that spell. How many of the Save-or-Suck spells don't work on undead or golems, again? Is Protection from Arrows and Overland Flight really gonna help all that much against lancers mounted on gryphons?

2) What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It shouldn't happen often, but why not let the BBEG take a few metamagic rods and maybe a spell absorber or two for a ride into battle?

3) Occasionally make it difficult for the caster to cast. Interrupt the wizard's rest or the cleric's prayers; after all, the monsters have their own schedules to keep. DO NOT OVER DO THIS, HOWEVER. Routinely denying a caster their spells is like breaking the fighter's sword every time he wades into a melee.

There are plenty of source materials to draw from, and if you really can't find something, just make it up, get creative! Players hiding on another plane via Genesis? Send something that can hop planes like you cross the street after them! Angels, Planars, Demons, Devils, Inevitables, all make fine opponents and many would absolutely love their own little pocket dimension to rule over, even if it means clearing out the locals first.

Why ban spells and abilities? Why not just have fun with it, and see what it makes you come up with instead?

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-11, 11:42 PM
This makes me wonder - does the OP even know what is so overpowered about wizards? This reminds me of those "Fix fighter suggestions" threads where all the solutions proposed do absolutely nothing to remedy what is wrong with it. :smallyuk:

Oh thank god someone else pointed this out.

taltamir
2010-01-11, 11:50 PM
This makes me wonder - does the OP even know what is so overpowered about wizards? This reminds me of those "Fix fighter suggestions" threads where all the solutions proposed do absolutely nothing to remedy what is wrong with it. :smallyuk:

I am not trying to fix wizards. I am complaining about fix attempts made for wizards. particularly the "sunder his spellbook" type "fixes"

Roland St. Jude
2010-01-11, 11:54 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: It seems to have died down now, but please leave all the baggage from other boards at the door.

JaronK
2010-01-12, 02:37 AM
yea, druids are another often nerfed class... just not as often because its not as well perpetuated that druids are OP.

Interestingly, druids are probably more viable at lower levels and make for smoother game play, from level 1 though 20.

Funnily enough, in the games I've seen Druids were one of the least nerfed classes, because everyone knew exactly what Wild Shape was supposed to do, and since it's so clear that was intentional no DM would touch it. The Animal Companion would occasionally get the arbitrary "and your creature can't be here because animals aren't allowed" but that was about it. As such, Druids have been pretty much dominant in games where the DMs are playing fast and loose with the banhammer, especially when they had animals that were medium sized and had some method of getting around other than running (climb or fly speed will do it).

I'll definitely agree that Paladins often get royally screwed, usually due to people absolutely abusing the moral code. Sorcerers often take a beating too if there's a Wizard in the group... the Wizard causes the spells to be banned, and now the Sorc has no good options.

JaronK

Kurald Galain
2010-01-12, 03:02 AM
Shortest lived game I played in was a level 20 game where all published 3rd edition material was allowed.

Ended in 10 minutes.

Please elaborate!

Tyndmyr
2010-01-12, 03:19 AM
huh, I would have imagined that building the characters would have taken longer than ten minutes alone.

JaronK
2010-01-12, 03:21 AM
I could absolutely see it happening. One player says "great, I play a Wizard. I want to cast Genesis. Planar traits will be Timeless, Flowing Time 10,000, and Minorly Positive Dominant." Another player says "I want to be a Druid 10/Planar Shepard 10... hey, I can make a field of flowing time!" DM suddenly realizes how bad an idea this is.

JaronK

Zen Master
2010-01-12, 03:28 AM
No, I believe I explicitly said that if the DM doesn't ban nerf the heck out of you then you end up with you being the only class the matters, and that is also not fun and terrible gameplay.

So ... if I'm reading you correctly, you want to strike a balance. Like my group has done - though the balance you aim for may be different. Ok. The question wasn't meant as an insult or anything - some people truly do want wizards to dominate, believing that to be right. Which is completely valid, but just not how I play the game.


No, but I want to use the spells available to me. Shame the game cannot be balanced with that in mind.

But what spells are those? The ones in core? Those in all the many books of dare I say wildly varying quality? Or the ones the group has agreed upon?

Personally, when I've played casters, I shy away from anything I consider overpowered. It is tempting to fly when everybody else can only walk - but I don't do it.

I'm not saying you should do the same - to each their own, right?

Emmerask
2010-01-12, 03:53 AM
Wizards, by the RAW, are pure unadulterated power. They are gods among insects. The only thing that can best a wizard is another wizard. Although a few other full casters come close...

Then you get real gameplay...
But with a wizard it is an all or nothing kind of deal, wizards who aren't casting spells are effectively commoners.

DMs will hate their power and brokenness, they will hate how many of their powers (which are essential to the wizard's survival) completely break the campaign. They will hate how they overshadow the others, they will hate the perceived power (since your DM probably read about he tier system and how every char op is about wizards).

So the ban hammer starts dropping. Gone are the good spells (with the exception of buffing), gone are the good feats, gone are the good PrCs, gone are meta reducers, gone are the pathways to real and awesome power...
You are left with a simpering 4HD low bab and 2 bad saves character who is only good at one thing, buffing. with a dash of crowd control and defensive spells.

And that doesn't even take into account the really extreme DM's who start to fiat away all the wizards powers... aka, someone sunders your spellbook, you need to track every material component, even cheap ones; you wake up bound and gagged and your spellbook and component pouch are gone; spells don't quite work right; everything has insane SR and saves, and spells that ignore either are not allowed... etc.

But, you think to yourself... buffing is pretty good, right? you can play god? you can hire hirelings, you can build a golem...
Can you though? DnD is a group game... sure, summoning a monster and then getting out of the way sounds great on paper, but that isn't team playing.

So there you are, trying to sit in the back out of combat, dropping the occasional buff, CC, or summon... You will be skipping turns, a lot; skipping turns is not fun. You will be dying, dying is not fun. You will never ever kill something yourself; not killing anything isn't fun...
And unlike your team mates, your character sheet takes the absolute most amount of work to write and maintain. Many more hours will go into the effort of building and maintaining a wizard then other classes.

And what if the DM allows everything? unless he is dumbing down opponents, then you will end up with every fight being a wizard fight... the PC party wizard vs the NPC wizard. If either has no wizard, it loses. Also not fun... because you are trying to play with people, not against people.

The end result is a class that is theoretically godly and overpowered, and in effect not fun to play, and not all that worthwhile to play either.

Well I think you are kind of right although I do disagree with your conclusion.
Wizards in theory are gods and can do anything any reasonable dm won´t let that happen.
So he(they) balance the wizard (either by gentlemens agreement between wizard player and the dm, or by banning certain spells or uses of spells) one of the two must be done otherwise all none arcanist players can go watch tv or something during the game.
But where I strongly disagree is that you are left with an unplayable character.
You will still bring the most utility to the group (even with many spells banned or chosen to not use) you are still needed for battlefield control spells (and to counter enemy spellcasters battlefield control) and you can still blast for okayish damage sometimes(occasionally it is fun :smallwink:).

You are no god anymore true after all playing a game as a god is only fun for an hour maybe after that it gets boring quite fast.

Gorbash
2010-01-12, 05:59 AM
(since your DM probably read about he tier system and how every char op is about wizards).

Soooooo not true. Do you really think that EVERY SINGLE DM hangs around charop forums? Maybe 10% of them do. And that's me being generous for the sake of the argument, because in my D&D group, me and one another guy frequent charop forums and no one else, and I know at least 20-30 people who play D&D IRL.

Runestar
2010-01-12, 06:45 AM
I am not trying to fix wizards. I am complaining about fix attempts made for wizards. particularly the "sunder his spellbook" type "fixes"

You didn't sound like you were complaining, honestly. Upon reading your post, my impression is "Uh yeah, so...what's your point?".

All I can gather is that "Wizards are worthless once the DM nerfs them to the point of utter uselessness". I do not see any concrete examples of what the wizard might have done to warrant such a move, nor how said move might address the aforementioned issue. What did he do - use snowcasting to nuke an entire city?

Did you just come from a game with a paranoid DM who just did all of the above to your wizard or something? I am not quite seeing the merits or the purpose of your rant. :smalleek:

Kesnit
2010-01-12, 06:57 AM
You know, it didn't even occur to me to look at it that way.
why is it that wizards are forbidden from killing stuff or else they are jerks?

Because every case where he listed another class shining, it was a set circumstance. WIZ can shine ALL THE TIME. It isn't a matter of "hey, we're the ones who are supposed to kill things." It's a matter of "will you let us do anything?"

Edit:
Well I think you are kind of right although I do disagree with your conclusion.
Wizards in theory are gods and can do anything any reasonable dm won´t let that happen.
So he(they) balance the wizard (either by gentlemens agreement between wizard player and the dm, or by banning certain spells or uses of spells) one of the two must be done otherwise all none arcanist players can go watch tv or something during the game.
But where I strongly disagree is that you are left with an unplayable character.
You will still bring the most utility to the group (even with many spells banned or chosen to not use) you are still needed for battlefield control spells (and to counter enemy spellcasters battlefield control) and you can still blast for okayish damage sometimes(occasionally it is fun :smallwink:).

You are no god anymore true after all playing a game as a god is only fun for an hour maybe after that it gets boring quite fast.

^This.

Killer Angel
2010-01-12, 08:24 AM
That said, most people who play wizards aren't OPers. They will try to take the spells they think are "cool", which usually means Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Fly etc, e.g. mostly blasting. With such a "bad" spell selection, even wizards tend to drop in tiers.


Totally true.
Once I played a sorcerer. My first choise for the 3rd lev spells, was Haste.
The 2 players of melee character, blame me 'cause they "need fire support". :smallsigh:


......yeah, no. Almost all the best Wizard spells are Core. Seriously, read just about any thread lauding the Wizard's power, and at least 90% of the spells mentioned will be core. Celerity's one of the only major exceptions, but otherwise the vast majority of tricks and builds work pretty much straight off Core.
(snip)
Wizards do get a boost from extra sources (Celerity, Abrupt Jaunt, Orb spells), but not nearly on the same level.

While I agree that Core is broken for wizards, it's undeniable that splatbooks give another huge boost to casters. Craft contingent spell is Broken (capital letter), and all the metamagic reducers are one of the worst thing against balance I can imagine.
And 24 hours/day CoDzilla, are available only outside Core.

Gnaeus
2010-01-12, 09:22 AM
Core wizard v. Core Melee

Core wizard has the option to break the game as much as he wants.

A core fighter 20 can't even fill all of his vaunted feat slots with decent feats. His best prestige classes are things like Horizon Walker and Dwarf Defender. He can't get full attack against enemies more than 10' away. Unless he is a paladin or ranger he can't heal himself. Large races include 4 racial HD.

Splatbook wizard v. Splatbook Melee

The melee can now fix many of his most glaring holes with now available magic items or class options (anklets of translocation or chronocharm or pounce variant barbarian let him get full attacks, healing belt provides him with dependable low level healing etc.) He actually has enough good feat choices to make a decent specialized combatant, and if tome of battle is in play he can actually compete with casters through low-mid levels. He actually gets a few tier+1 or 2 prestige classes. Admittedly, not nearly as many as the caster gets, but at least he gets some good options.

The wizard gets more spells than he is ever likely to scribe into his spellbook. If you assume a DM who bans or limits metamagic reducing effects and classes (not in my opinion an unreasonable assumption, nor difficult to enforce), the + in wizard power is really not that great.

Clerics and Druids do clearly gain power with every splatbook added. Even there, once you cut out the real problem children like DMM, I really don't think that I would say that Splatbook CoD> Warblade or Crusader more than Core CoD > Core Fighter or Barbarian.

Killer Angel
2010-01-12, 09:47 AM
If you assume a DM who bans or limits metamagic reducing effects and classes (not in my opinion an unreasonable assumption, nor difficult to enforce), the + in wizard power is really not that great.


While I agree that banning things as metamagic reducers in splatbooks it's not difficult (and limiting Core is very hard), by RAW those things exists and we cannot assume a banning for commodity.
Otherwise, I could say that many DMs allow Incantatrix but ban the whole ToB because "OMG wuxia-OP". (:smallsigh:)
My opinion is that going outside Core and considering the options at disposal, you can have meleers fun and more effective to play, but the gap between them and the casters, is almost the same that in Core only.

The Big Dice
2010-01-12, 10:53 AM
Whenever I start up a new campaign, no matter what system, I always tell the players the same thing: If it's a tactic, spell or combo that you're going to use, abuse and repeat ad nauseum then I'm going to do the same thing back at you.

It's only fair after all that the NPCs can use the same methods as the PCs.

You'd be amazed how many people tone down their initial ideas when they realise that the BBEG sees their rules manipulation and then does the exact same sort of things back at them. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

That's my answer to OOT optimisation. Use it against the players as a demonstration of why what they did last week wasn't fun.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-12, 11:12 AM
Totally true.
Once I played a sorcerer. My first choise for the 3rd lev spells, was Haste.
The 2 players of melee character, blame me 'cause they "need fire support". :smallsigh:

Heh, I know the feeling. My party loves the ridiculous amounts of buffs I give them, but if I had a dollar for every time I was told I needed to blast better, or that I was wasting spells(It's a reserve feat...Ive tried to explain this like a dozen times), Id be a very happy player.

There's a very definite steriotype of what a D&D wizard "should be".

Gnaeus
2010-01-12, 11:16 AM
While I agree that banning things as metamagic reducers in splatbooks it's not difficult (and limiting Core is very hard), by RAW those things exists and we cannot assume a banning for commodity.

Depends. I mean this thread was started with the assumption that wizards are likely to be nerfed into oblivion. By RAW the wizard can leave the laws of reality in smoking ruins in core. I think we are looking at DMs banning stuff either way, no?



Otherwise, I could say that many DMs allow Incantatrix but ban the whole ToB because "OMG wuxia-OP". (:smallsigh:)
My opinion is that going outside Core and considering the options at disposal, you can have meleers fun and more effective to play, but the gap between them and the casters, is almost the same that in Core only.

I think that that is a more defensible position than arguing that it makes things worse. It certainly does depend on exactly what books are in play, and what the background assumptions of a campaign are (Magic Marts + WBL + Magic Item Compendium for example, are a huge boost to non magic types, but not available in every game). Personally, I would say that fun and effective to play is always better than not fun and gimped by rules.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-12, 11:23 AM
Heh, I know the feeling. My party loves the ridiculous amounts of buffs I give them, but if I had a dollar for every time I was told I needed to blast better, or that I was wasting spells(It's a reserve feat...Ive tried to explain this like a dozen times), Id be a very happy player.

Spend a combat making tea. And laugh. :smallsmile:

Tyndmyr
2010-01-12, 11:24 AM
I think that that is a more defensible position than arguing that it makes things worse. It certainly does depend on exactly what books are in play, and what the background assumptions of a campaign are (Magic Marts + WBL + Magic Item Compendium for example, are a huge boost to non magic types, but not available in every game). Personally, I would say that fun and effective to play is always better than not fun and gimped by rules.

Lets compare Core only to Everything. It's easiest.

In this comparison, core only has a greater wizard/melee gap. Melee has virtually no counters to casters, for example, and very limited magic item selection.

Sure, new options are available in the form of feats, PrCs and spells for casters, but core has some very good PrCs already(Loremaster and Archmage), so there isn't much power shift there.

Feats...casters are less feat dependant than melee, and anyhow, they generally have less to work with. As for power, well, leadership is core. Quicken Spell is core. Fighters will run dry on good feats in a core long before the casters will.

Spells. Feh. It costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time to get all core spells, and core spells probably have a better brokenness ratio than any other source of spells. Even playing in "everythings available" games, the vast majority of my spells known are core. The boost in power here isn't actually that significant.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-12, 11:29 AM
Spend a combat making tea. And laugh. :smallsmile:

Shhh, no, this is good. They can hardly blame me for being overpowered when they're urging me to blast better, now can they?

So I buff like a psycho, do battlefield control, and blast decently.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-12, 11:32 AM
You're causing Brownian agitation of the liquid at an atomic level, ie, blasting.

onthetown
2010-01-12, 11:55 AM
Forgot to add something into my last post, it might still be relevant.

Solely buffing can work, but you have to have a passive, selfless personality (you are, after all, ignoring all those wonderful little blasties that give wizards a trademark).... Alternatively, multiclassing or using Gestalt works incredibly well, because then you aren't forced to stand at the back and blast away their grabs for attention.

I have a great Gestalt Ranger/Wizard whose specialty is Abjuration, and she also particularly loves Transmutation. She does have a good back-up of blasting spells, but I don't end up needing them very often. She'll be fighting with the best of them, up front and center, but as soon as she notices somebody's in trouble she'll take a five foot step back and start casting those protections and transmutations. It's not a terribly powerful Gestalt, but it works.

Then again, we have another Wizard -- my own Enchanter. Another not-focussed-on-blasting character. Whatever the Ranger doesn't protect us from, the full-fledged Wizard charms, manipulates, and/or dips into Necromancy to get rid of the annoyance.

As you can see... they're working well because they're two non-blaster Wizards (who can blast if we're in trouble) that can ultimately take care of things when they work together.

As you can also see, well, they're non-blasters. Fireball is for constructs, oozes, and plants. Undead can be taken care of quietly with Necromancy. A lot of other things can have Enchantments cast on them, and if you fail to successfully charm them then you're being a good little Wizard and just standing there doing cute little hand motions.

I guess what I'm trying to get at, as I was with my last post, is that (in the minds of some groups and players, not all -- some people love watching Wizards wreak havoc) you can play a Wizard and not offend anybody as long as you're not blasting the heck out of everything. You're not being a jerk, you're just like a Bard! Lending a helping hand so that the other classes can deal with the problem. Just be a nice little caster and stand over there while the big kids do their jobs.

Ultimately, that can take away from your experience, which is why some people find Wizards so frustrating -- you didn't roll up a Bard, after all, you wanted to play a freaking Wizard. I love playing Wizard because I've got an Abjurer and Enchanter, and I absolutely love playing the Enchanter, so I don't usually run into problems... But when you have a spell list that can allow you to rain arcane terror down on your enemies, but using those spells will totally make you an attention grabber. Nevermind the others' attempts to do so (read my other post on page 5 for clarification on that one, but it's long).

Watch out with Enchantments, though. They're deceptively quiet spells. If you're up against 3 goblins and you manage to put all of them to Sleep, and the party just spends the turn doing coup des graces, well... you just stole the spotlight. You're such a jerk. Stop that. How is that fair to the Fighter who was just about to Great Cleave through them in an epic, 10-minute description of his prowess? Why do you have to steal the spotlight when my character more clearly deserves it? Jeez.

Killer Angel
2010-01-12, 12:05 PM
Depends. I mean this thread was started with the assumption that wizards are likely to be nerfed into oblivion. By RAW the wizard can leave the laws of reality in smoking ruins in core. I think we are looking at DMs banning stuff either way, no?


Ah, yes. Sometime, in the discussion I forget the starting point... :smallbiggrin:


It certainly does depend on exactly what books are in play, and what the background assumptions of a campaign are (Magic Marts + WBL + Magic Item Compendium for example, are a huge boost to non magic types, but not available in every game). Personally, I would say that fun and effective to play is always better than not fun and gimped by rules.

Agree. (Wow, on an internet debate!)


There's a very definite steriotype of what a D&D wizard "should be".

Well, one of Taltamir's initial points, was that when you dare to exit from that stereotype to play OP, then the DM starts banning...

Tyndmyr
2010-01-12, 12:55 PM
Well, one of Taltamir's initial points, was that when you dare to exit from that stereotype to play OP, then the DM starts banning...

See, that's where I differ from him. I believe the stereotype exists, but I don't believe that varying from the steriotype will inevitibly lead to mass, crippling bans.

That all depends on your group. A great many groups enjoy wizards that don't rely on "Another fireball, sir" tactics, and there's certainly also a strong fantasy trope of the wise, subtle wizard to play to if you wish. I suspect the "ban everything" is mostly a new DM trait...those familiar with the D&D world are likely to be more comfortable in the high magic, high fantasy world it's potrayed as, and only ban those few things that are truly, mechanically, broken.

Also, the gentleman's agreement is great for keeping balance in practice without bans.

Ormur
2010-01-12, 04:16 PM
Yes, my DM always says that I'm not forbidden from chain gate-ing, disjunctions, contingent celerity and the like per se but that it'll be the first strike in the potential nuclear war that would follow. He is in a far better position to abuse the game than me. As long as I stay away from the broken stuff and help out my teammates it's just his responsibility to keep the encounters fun and balanced. It helps that my wizard is the first character I made so spell selection was somewhat less than optimal at lower levels (a blasting evoker).

Tier differences can be masked by clever DM's, gentleman's agreements and a generous use of buffs and battlefield control.

I'm not a very clever DM myself but it's my own damn players fault because the walking encyclopedias are playing suboptimal melee characters and they keep helping the party sorcerer with char-op.

Flickerdart
2010-01-12, 04:57 PM
Wizards have 1126 unique spells in 3.5 non-setting material. For the sake of argument we'll assume that a full seventy-five percent of those spells are useless. That means the DM still has to ban over two hundred and seventy five spells for the Wizard to actually be useless. This is not even counting the piles of prestige classes and feats that Wizards have available to them. In order to make a Wizard useless, a DM would have to write out an entire book of bans, at which point you switch to Cleric and the process repeats itself. And then you go Psion. But I digress.
On the flipside, making Fighter useless is easy. You ban two feats: Power Attack and Improved Trip. Making archers useless is even easier, because then you just ban Greater Manyshot. These characters would also be useless against a number of enemies straight from the books without banning anything at all, whereas the well-played Wizard will always have a scroll or spell just for the situation.
So, here's my challenge to you naysayers. You want to ban all the Wizard's tricks? Good luck. Until you literally make a Wizard into a commoner with a pet bird, they'll be able to point at almost everyone else and laugh.

Runestar
2010-01-12, 10:29 PM
Whenever I start up a new campaign, no matter what system, I always tell the players the same thing: If it's a tactic, spell or combo that you're going to use, abuse and repeat ad nauseum then I'm going to do the same thing back at you.

Except that I don't believe the DM can manage this for every encounter (unless he includes a wizard in every fight capable of utilizing said tactic). What - is every random encounter going to include a 5th lv wizard capable of casting sculpted glitterdusts, and the makeup perfectly geared towards taking full advantage of that? Is every fight going to consist of grimlocks or other monsters immune to the drawbacks of being blinded?

The party will still likely come out ahead, simply because they is in a better position to milk said combo of all its benefits. And I am pretty sure the party can readily adjust its tactics to counteract a similar strategy against them (simply because they have access to more resources).

To that, the solution is simple - use tactics which favour the PCs over the npcs. IMO, your proposed solution won't even put a speedbump in the plans of a well-coordinated party. :smallsmile:

Crow
2010-01-12, 10:38 PM
The party will still likely come out ahead, simply because they is in a better position to milk said combo of all its benefits. And I am pretty sure the party can readily adjust its tactics to counteract a similar strategy against them (simply because they have access to more resources).

How does the party have even close to the same resources as the DM?

Runestar
2010-01-12, 10:54 PM
I was referring to the resources npcs can access using the npc wealth guidelines. And I am assuming the DM runs monsters straight from the book, not "My kobold suddenly gains the ability to use maximized twinned orbs of acid as a SLA at-will" kind of fiat.

Also, PCs should find it easier to access resistance/immunity to a variety of status effects, either via buffs or eq. Monsters normally can't access them (due to lack of spellcaster support or skewed wealth guidelines). Again, if you want to say the DM can simply houserule that monsters are suddenly immune to whatever the players throw at them for no rhyme or reason, then I concede my case, since nothing short of another houserule may defeat a houserule aimed at completely trashing a certain rule.

My point basically is that while the DM can use the same tactics, he may not be able to fully replicate the conditions which make said tactic so deadly. For example, sculpted cloud of bewilderment entails disabling the foes so the party fighters can whack away without fear of reprisal. This tactic obviously won't work (or at least, not as well) if the npc wizard BBEG is alone. :smallsmile:

I would also argue there is a stark contrast between a wizard being blatantly overpowered and a wizard who is simply doing his job well, but that is another argument for another day.

Crow
2010-01-12, 11:10 PM
I was referring to the resources npcs can access using the npc wealth guidelines. And I am assuming the DM runs monsters straight from the book, not "My kobold suddenly gains the ability to use maximized twinned orbs of acid as a SLA at-will" kind of fiat.

Also, PCs should find it easier to access resistance/immunity to a variety of status effects, either via buffs or eq. Monsters normally can't access them (due to lack of spellcaster support or skewed wealth guidelines). Again, if you want to say the DM can simply houserule that monsters are suddenly immune to whatever the players throw at them for no rhyme or reason, then I concede my case, since nothing short of another houserule may defeat a houserule aimed at completely trashing a certain rule.

My point basically is that while the DM can use the same tactics, he may not be able to fully replicate the conditions which make said tactic so deadly. For example, sculpted cloud of bewilderment entails disabling the foes so the party fighters can whack away without fear of reprisal. This tactic obviously won't work (or at least, not as well) if the npc wizard BBEG is alone. :smallsmile:

I would also argue there is a stark contrast between a wizard being blatantly overpowered and a wizard who is simply doing his job well, but that is another argument for another day.

Well you are correct about the NPC wealth guidelines. I have noticed many times that most people don't even realize they exist, and that they are in fact more limited than what the PC's have.

Still they are nothing to scoff at, and most of the tricks that would seriously break a game can be done without equipment.

JaronK
2010-01-12, 11:31 PM
I have to agree with the idea that coming out of core actually closes the Caster-Melee gap that exists in core in practice, as the insanely broken stuff the Wizard gets outside of core seems more likely to get banned (many DMs seem hesitant to ban core stuff, but happy to ban splatbook stuff) and thus Wizards rarely get anything stronger than what they had in core. Meanwhile, the melee classes definitely go way up with far more options.

With that said, I've seen a few DMs who don't nerf Wizards or Druids because "they're magical, they're supposed to be powerful" while turning around and nailing skillmonkeys and melees for doing anything unrealistic. Consider people going off about how broken diplomacy is but being perfectly fine with Animate Dread Warrior creating endless hordes of undead (yup, seen that one) or nerfing Power Attack while seeing nothing wrong with all sorts of crazy spells (hi Pathfinder!).

So it can go both ways. In the end though going out of core does at least mean it's possible for melees to be more balanced simply by banning the more powerful stuff for casters and letting the melees go nuts.

JaronK

Kelb_Panthera
2010-01-13, 05:08 AM
First, a semi-on-topic response: in theory a wizard's power is nigh limitless, in actual play, human error and luck play fairly significant parts in the game. Even if your wizard character is virtually prescient by way of divination, you aren't. At some point a wizard will be caught with his pants down and either an enemy in position to take advantage of this will be present, or plain-old-fashioned dumb luck will smite you. On the note of using player's tactics against them, there's one thing that's very important to remember: it has to work for the players over and over. It only has to work for the bad-guys once.

Tangentially: You've got to remember something very important when taking forum threads as empirical evidence. People generally only seek advice when something goes wrong. Since D&D is still in production it's safe to assume that a fairly large number of people, in excess of 10000 at least, enjoy playing it. Being pretty generous, let's say that a full 20% of those people actually post on the various forums relating to the game. That's 2000 people (almost certainly a gross underestimate.) With 2000 people posting, how often do you see threads titled "My DM is so great!" or "What an amazing time we had playing tonight!" etc...? I'm willing to bet there are pitifully few if any threads like that on most forums. When most people post a thread on a forum like this one they're asking for advice on A) how to improve their character, B) amusing anecdotes, or C) how to deal with a problem they're having at their gaming table. By and large, you see more detailed information about players' experiences in situation C. This tends to make the pool of "evidence" somewhat biased.

Runestar
2010-01-13, 05:48 AM
On the note of using player's tactics against them, there's one thing that's very important to remember: it has to work for the players over and over. It only has to work for the bad-guys once.

Yet if the party doesn't use said tactic, then they will need to work harder to overcome every challenge. Which may mean the chances of a player dying (or even a TPK resulting) increases. And/Or more resources expended per encounter.

The whole point of the players favouring a particular tactic would exactly be that it works particularly well. So it should have a better chance of succeeding over and over again.

Higher risks, I guess, to compensate for higher payoff. Though personally, I like to play my npcs devious and scheming (or at least, I try to). And to be honest, I never really liked the idea of their enemies suddenly becoming dumber simply because the party opts to play at a fraction of their real potential.

In the long run, I don't see how the PCs are necessarily any better off favouring an inferior tactic.

Kelb_Panthera
2010-01-13, 05:53 AM
Sorry, to clarify my point about using player tactics against players, I meant that if a player or players violate the gentleman's agreement and use a particularly cheap but effective tactic, that it is a valid option to do the same in turn. Not necessarily the best option, but a valid one, and that generally it will come as a surprise that may well result in a TPK.

J.Gellert
2010-01-13, 07:51 AM
The original post reminds me of playing a wizard online - specifically, on Neverwinter Nights servers.

As if the lack of flight/teleportation/contingencies isn't enough, many DMs make a habit of further hitting various spells/summoned creatures with the nerf tree. Including a number of different resting problems (like being able to replenish your spells only once per real-day).

Then all these roleplaying servers start you out as a level 1 wizard, and you need to spend half a year to get to level 7 (yay, stoneskin). And what's the first quest you can do?

Get your wizard to solo a house filled with rats (the CRPG kind, that can kill commoners).

The Big Dice
2010-01-13, 08:29 AM
Sorry, to clarify my point about using player tactics against players, I meant that if a player or players violate the gentleman's agreement and use a particularly cheap but effective tactic, that it is a valid option to do the same in turn. Not necessarily the best option, but a valid one, and that generally it will come as a surprise that may well result in a TPK.

That does depend on the players involved. Some retreat the moment a fight takes a turn for the tough. Others are firmly convinced that they have the divinely given right to win every single encounter. Most probably fall somewhere in between.

You can do things (as a GM) like watch how your players deal with an enemy caster, then use similar methods back at them. If players go for the scry-and-die approach, there's as many ways to protect an NPC from scrying as there is to scry on him and his lair.

The problem with a simple, repeated tactic is, people will come up with ways to counter it. That's how warfare has evolved over the milennia and I don't see why the same wouldn't hold true in a D&D setting.

lesser_minion
2010-01-13, 09:08 AM
The truth is that overpowered wizards can be handled by plenty of methods - among other things, by responding in kind.

I don't have too much trouble with players being jerks, so I know they won't intentionally use something overpowered. From there, it's just a case of looking for problematic spells and telling the players that I've made a couple of changes to them.

Even then, they wouldn't be enormous changes - cutting the duration of Rope Trick and enforcing instagibs if you bring a bag of holding with you.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-13, 02:12 PM
Solely buffing can work, but you have to have a passive, selfless personality
Passive? Maybe. Selfless? What part of "getting a share of the stolen loot" is selfless?


And I am assuming the DM runs monsters straight from the book, not "My kobold suddenly gains the ability to use maximized twinned orbs of acid as a SLA at-will" kind of fiat.
Only one DM I've played under can be described by either of those categories.

Doc Roc
2010-01-13, 03:53 PM
Gains the ability?
You mean your kobolds don't start that way?

JaronK
2010-01-13, 05:00 PM
I dunno about the "if you use these tactics, the NPCs will use them against you" strategy. My players are used to shadowrun and the idea that they may be seen using tactics on camera, so they tend to use tactics only after coming up with a counter strategy against them. In D&D, this might mean laying down holy heck with Glitterdust after giving the main tank a Blindfold of True Darkness, or using Animate Dread Warrior on enemies while they've already got a Dread Necromancer with Turn Resistance reducing items.

Luckily, our group is all mature enough to just negociate for what's allowed and not try to break the game. Awesome tricks are all kinds of fun to pull off, but if it makes the campaign unplayable then it's no fun next session.

JaronK

lesser_minion
2010-01-13, 07:32 PM
I dunno about the "if you use these tactics, the NPCs will use them against you" strategy. My players are used to shadowrun and the idea that they may be seen using tactics on camera, so they tend to use tactics only after coming up with a counter strategy against them. In D&D, this might mean laying down holy heck with Glitterdust after giving the main tank a Blindfold of True Darkness, or using Animate Dread Warrior on enemies while they've already got a Dread Necromancer with Turn Resistance reducing items.

Luckily, our group is all mature enough to just negociate for what's allowed and not try to break the game. Awesome tricks are all kinds of fun to pull off, but if it makes the campaign unplayable then it's no fun next session.

JaronK

That's true.

It's also why, as a DM, you often have to avoid simply copying the players - it's generally worth coming up with your own strategies that exploit the fact that things the wizard sees frequently die.

taltamir
2010-01-13, 07:58 PM
Sorry, to clarify my point about using player tactics against players, I meant that if a player or players violate the gentleman's agreement and use a particularly cheap but effective tactic, that it is a valid option to do the same in turn. Not necessarily the best option, but a valid one, and that generally it will come as a surprise that may well result in a TPK.

problem with the gentlemen's agreement is that it is very vague.
what happens when the DM uses a tactic which he thinks is completely valid, but the players assumed would be "unfair" and has thus intentional did not use (even though they thought about it) and did not protect against?

A tremendous amount of issues are resolved if the classes are balanced and sensible to begin with and you can use the best tactics in your disposal safely without any "gentlemen agreement"


The original post reminds me of playing a wizard online - specifically, on Neverwinter Nights servers.

As if the lack of flight/teleportation/contingencies isn't enough, many DMs make a habit of further hitting various spells/summoned creatures with the nerf tree. Including a number of different resting problems (like being able to replenish your spells only once per real-day).

Then all these roleplaying servers start you out as a level 1 wizard, and you need to spend half a year to get to level 7 (yay, stoneskin). And what's the first quest you can do?

Get your wizard to solo a house filled with rats (the CRPG kind, that can kill commoners).

This is so true, this is exactly why I stopped playing NWN online... the inverse is servers that let you rest as much as you want with no nerfs... it is tedious, but after every small encounter you recast all the many uber buffs making you practically untouchable and then go to town on any opponent.

taltamir
2010-01-13, 08:05 PM
I dunno about the "if you use these tactics, the NPCs will use them against you" strategy. My players are used to shadowrun and the idea that they may be seen using tactics on camera, so they tend to use tactics only after coming up with a counter strategy against them. In D&D, this might mean laying down holy heck with Glitterdust after giving the main tank a Blindfold of True Darkness, or using Animate Dread Warrior on enemies while they've already got a Dread Necromancer with Turn Resistance reducing items.

Luckily, our group is all mature enough to just negociate for what's allowed and not try to break the game. Awesome tricks are all kinds of fun to pull off, but if it makes the campaign unplayable then it's no fun next session.

JaronK


That's true.

It's also why, as a DM, you often have to avoid simply copying the players - it's generally worth coming up with your own strategies that exploit the fact that things the wizard sees frequently die.

These two together eventually destroy the gentlemen's agreement and lead to power creep. As the DM introduces new strategies that the players thought were unfair, they copy him, as the DM allows players to get away with powerful strategies and applies them to his monsters they now become the norm and must be used by players to compete. As new players join, the minor breaches in the "gentlemen agreement" that have happened before they joined are already in effect, and they have to quickly catch up. Will they under optimize? over optimize? either way they are in trouble. Anticipating the level of power utilized becomes a game in of itself.

SurlySeraph
2010-01-13, 08:07 PM
Gains the ability?
You mean your kobolds don't start that way?

Doc, that's just spiteful.

lesser_minion
2010-01-13, 08:10 PM
These two together eventually destroy the gentlemen's agreement and lead to power creep. As the DM introduces new strategies that the players thought were unfair, they copy him, as the DM allows players to get away with powerful strategies and applies them to his monsters they now become the norm and must be used by players to compete. As new players join, the minor breaches in the "gentlemen agreement" that have happened before they joined are already in effect, and they have to quickly catch up. Will they under optimize? over optimize? either way they are in trouble. Anticipating the level of power utilized becomes a game in of itself.

I meant exploiting the PC wizard's ability to kill things. The most basic way to deal with an unstoppable force is to point it in the wrong direction.

Kelb_Panthera
2010-01-13, 08:20 PM
Well, one of the most glaring mistakes the designers made in coming up with the game probably always will be the assumption that people playing will use common sense (a misnomer if I ever saw one.) As for the vagueness of the gentleman's agreement, while it is difficult to pin-down exactly what's fair and what isn't that way, if the DM knows his players he'll probably fall on the right side of the line more often than the wrong and mistakes are for learning. I have had dming accidents where I almost screw-over my players unintentionally. An apology and on rare-occasions a retcon usually squares things quite nicely.

Superglucose
2010-01-13, 08:27 PM
Wizards are perhaps the best class you can play in a real game. I always stay away from using the stupidly uber spells in games where I'm playing with people of less power, but... proper use of say, Glitterdust, is going to make the rogue happy (she gets sneak attack), and proper use of, say, Color Spray, is going to make the cleric happy (he doesn't have to convert his spells to Cures to save the party's butt because the enemy lvl 1 kobolds kept rolling twenties). Add things like Haste making the whole party happy and Bull's Strength/Bear's Endurance keeping your fighter/barbarian happy, and I really don't see your point.

Properly and sanely played, not only are Wizards absurdly powerful, but they can really help make the game fun for everyone else.

onthetown
2010-01-13, 08:49 PM
Passive? Maybe. Selfless? What part of "getting a share of the stolen loot" is selfless?


The fact that you're willing to sit there and use up your spells for everybody else instead of your own glory. You might get a cut of the profit, but unless you really enjoy it (if you're playing a Wizard, I imagine it's not something you'd go, "Oh my god, HEROISM IS MY ABSOLUTE FAVOURITE SPELL EVER TO ABUSE!") then you're just sitting around and watching things while everybody else kicks butt.

Ormur
2010-01-13, 09:13 PM
The versatility and range of options that you have makes wizards very fun to play. Even the just the cantrips and utility spells make for fun roleplay so you don't need the stupidly awesome spells, although they don't spoil if you keep things within the limits of your DM's sanity.

The biggest problem is that you might feel that your lack of imagination limits you from reaching your full role playing potential and the bookkeeping. I have three excel filed just for one character and preparing spells takes up playtime. A spontaneous caster is easier to play.

Doc Roc
2010-01-14, 12:27 AM
Properly and sanely played, not only are Wizards absurdly powerful, but they can really help make the game fun for everyone else.

Hush now, sweet logic, run along and play. :(

J.Gellert
2010-01-14, 12:40 AM
This is so true, this is exactly why I stopped playing NWN online... the inverse is servers that let you rest as much as you want with no nerfs... it is tedious, but after every small encounter you recast all the many uber buffs making you practically untouchable and then go to town on any opponent.

Definitely, the reverse is also true. Though it sometimes happened on servers where immunity items could be found left and right, which again nerfs casters in the sense that if you just cast Hold Person, and generic barbarian guy is immune to it, you just wasted your last 6 seconds on this earthly world.

Basically, playing a wizard online teaches you a few things. One of them is that mages under level 11-12 simply don't walk around buffed - only very rarely. That would also be true in a D&D setting. As was said elsewhere, a wizard who doesn't have time to cast is basically a commoner.

It also teaches you that in a "real" D&D world, character class wouldn't matter. Only levels matter. A level 6 druid is deathly afraid of a level 11 monk, and a level 10 wizard will always be defeated by a level 13 wizard. And because a D&D setting, like the online game, wouldn't follow the "all members of a party are the same level" and "your enemies are a challenge to you" assumption of the player's handbook, it demonstrates how NPC members of these classes still survive on the setting :smallcool:

PS. Good thing there was no immunity: petrification item property on Neverwinter Nights.

Avilan the Grey
2010-01-14, 03:09 AM
I still have to question the OP's statements in general and repeat what have been said a lot: The DM in the example given is a jerk. Or simply a very bad DM. (A better approach would have been to not allow wizard PCs at all, although the DM simpy seems to have an axe to grind).

I have never had any experience like this, but then the times me and my friends play PnP RPGs we do it for the fun and for the company of equally geeky friends, not to "break the game" or "min-maxing". The only Munchkins we play are in the actual Munchkin games.

onthetown
2010-01-14, 08:53 AM
I still have to question the OP's statements in general and repeat what have been said a lot: The DM in the example given is a jerk. Or simply a very bad DM. (A better approach would have been to not allow wizard PCs at all, although the DM simpy seems to have an axe to grind).

I have never had any experience like this, but then the times me and my friends play PnP RPGs we do it for the fun and for the company of equally geeky friends, not to "break the game" or "min-maxing". The only Munchkins we play are in the actual Munchkin games.

Agreed, and if the DM is a jerk and if the players he's DMing for only get their fun out of breaking the game and min-maxing, the combination is kind of toxic.

Oslecamo
2010-01-14, 09:07 AM
I have never had any experience like this, but then the times me and my friends play PnP RPGs we do it for the fun and for the company of equally geeky friends, not to "break the game" or "min-maxing". The only Munchkins we play are in the actual Munchkin games.

That's because powergamers can't believe people cannot have fun whitout playing a super character, and powergamers are precisely the kind of people who love to do optimization and thus come to this kind of boards to discuss optimization and organize 1x1 duels and even make up silly stuff like "tiers" and biased percentage tables nobody really cares about for actual play.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-01-14, 09:09 AM
These two together eventually destroy the gentlemen's agreement and lead to power creep. As the DM introduces new strategies that the players thought were unfair, they copy him, as the DM allows players to get away with powerful strategies and applies them to his monsters they now become the norm and must be used by players to compete. As new players join, the minor breaches in the "gentlemen agreement" that have happened before they joined are already in effect, and they have to quickly catch up. Will they under optimize? over optimize? either way they are in trouble. Anticipating the level of power utilized becomes a game in of itself.

However, when things start getting out of hand, the DM and PCs can simply communicate and come to a balance together.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-14, 09:14 AM
That's because powergamers can't believe people cannot have fun whitout playing a super character

As one who self-identified as powergamer in the recent past, I object to your generalizations. Also, as a fan of language, I object to your blurring the lines between the established terms (munchkin, powergamer, optimizer). There are fairly clear boundaries between the terms, and making the terms muddier than they are now is not the path to progress.

By Pelor, if I generalized like that I'd cast roleplayers as condescending, hostile snobs whose minority status makes their opinions irrelevant.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-14, 09:20 AM
That's because powergamers can't believe people cannot have fun whitout playing a super character
That seems like a rather sweeping generalization, Ozzy.


powergamers are precisely the kind of people who love to do optimization
The horror.


and thus come to this kind of boards to discuss optimization
The HORROR!


and organize 1x1 duels
THE HORROR!


and even make up silly stuff like "tiers"
The ABSOLUTE and UNMITIGATED HORROR!


and biased percentage tables nobody really cares about for actual play.
If you think the next percentage table that comes your way is statistically flawed, you are welcome to try and correct it - something that is probably going to be more productive than taking issue with the practice as a whole.

Runestar
2010-01-14, 09:29 AM
That's because powergamers can't believe people cannot have fun whitout playing a super character, and powergamers are precisely the kind of people who love to do optimization and thus come to this kind of boards to discuss optimization and organize 1x1 duels and even make up silly stuff like "tiers" and biased percentage tables nobody really cares about for actual play.

And it is exactly this sort of irresponsible overgeneralizations that probably give people this funny notion that they somehow have to suck in order to prove that they are roleplayers.

There is nothing stopping me from playing an optimized character with an immersive backstory and roleplaying him to perfection. If anything, I would argue that being optimized lets me roleplay better, since my character will be able to accomplish whatever his fluff implies he be capable of.

And he probably lives longer, which in turn lets him roleplay more. You can't roleplay if you are dead, after all.

Tiers are simply there to give players a quick guide to how effective those classes are expected to be in actual gameplay. This way, people can quickly make informed decisions about what classes to play, and roughly know what to experience. There is nothing in the guide which stops you from playing a samurai, just be mentally prepared that you will suck even more than a fighter and don't be surprised when you are dead weight.

I for one, find the concept of tiers helpful because there are way too many classes and prcs for me to try out. With only so much time to play, I naturally want to make the most out of my limited gaming time (and in any one campaign, you are typically locked into one build). Nothing would suck more than wasting precious time trying out some screwed-up combination that turns out to be too weak and completely mars my gaming pleasure.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-01-14, 09:45 AM
That's because powergamers can't believe people cannot have fun whitout playing a super character, and powergamers are precisely the kind of people who love to do optimization and thus come to this kind of boards to discuss optimization and organize 1x1 duels and even make up silly stuff like "tiers" and biased percentage tables nobody really cares about for actual play.

Which definition of powergamer are you using?

Oslecamo
2010-01-14, 10:35 AM
That seems like a rather sweeping generalization, Ozzy.

Just as valid as "Wizard rulez all the time lolz" Fisty.



The horror.

Some people like horror. Not in my right to judge them.



The HORROR!

Most RPG systems offer horror options for the players and DM.



THE HORROR!

Call of Cthululu is pretty much all Horror focused.



The ABSOLUTE and UNMITIGATED HORROR!

It's even whispered in the net that there are people who enjoy playing FATAL.



If you think the next percentage table that comes your way is statistically flawed, you are welcome to try and correct it - something that is probably going to be more productive than taking issue with the practice as a whole.
No it isn't going to be more productive. 99% of the times, it will only spawn heated arguments, english twisting, and you countering my generalizations with even more generalisated generalisations, like "The DM will throw only slow monsters whitout ranged abilities."

Runestar:Actualy, if you make the character too powerfull, you'll piss off the party, the DM, and end up dead. And then guess what? You can make a new character! I've had and seen plenty of games where new characters were rolled pretty much every session. So no, having a not-uber character will not hinder my roleplaying way in any way.

There's also this thing called "Talking with the DM to solve problems", if you think your experimental build isn't that good.

Mushroom Ninja: Powergamer(POWARHGAMAH!):an optimizer obsessed with power. Will always seek to create characters as powerfull as the campaign allows, automatically dismissing build options that may just look inferior. Tries out new combinations only if they look really good in paper. If this obsession with power grows too far, may degenerate into a munchkin, as he starts to twist the meaning of the rules and/or crosses the campaign power level everybody had agreed on.

grautry
2010-01-14, 10:36 AM
I dunno about the "if you use these tactics, the NPCs will use them against you" strategy.

I agree, but for a different reason.

If your problem is that one party member is overpowered(which in itself is not a bad thing; it's only when combined with hogging the spotlight does it become un-fun) and the others aren't then throwing "the same tricks" at the party won't work.

Why? Because if one player is playing a meta-reducers abusing Wizard or a Planar Shepard Druid while the others have a Monk, a Healer and a Fighter who thinks Weapon Spec is a worthwhile feat, then you just can't do that.

If you throw the kinds of challenges that would actually pose a threat to the optimizer in that situation then the other characters will get ripped apart.

On the other hand, if you don't throw those kinds of encounters then it will be the optimizer that reduces the opponents to a bloody smear.

So no, I don't think that this works at all. Maybe in a situation where the entire party is overpowered and you want to reduce the power level but it's easier and smarter to just talk to the players either way.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-14, 10:44 AM
Just as valid as "Wizard rulez all the time lolz" Fisty.
Which... no one so far has said. And isn't said that often anyways.


No it isn't going to be more productive. 99% of the times, it will only spawn heated arguments, english twisting,
I remain confident that enough diplomacy will help the situation.


and you countering my generalizations with even more generalisated generalisations, like "The DM will throw only slow monsters whitout ranged abilities."
Me personally?

Vizzerdrix
2010-01-14, 10:48 AM
Call of Cthululu is pretty much all Horror focused.


Wrong. It is A Fantasy Erotica game.

Mmmm Tentacles ^_^

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-14, 10:50 AM
Some people like horror. Not in my right to judge them.

So your rights of judgement only extend to those optimizing powergaming munchkins you disparaged in earlier posts?

cupkeyk
2010-01-14, 12:42 PM
Sorry i am late into the thread. I play wizards almost exclusively.

Our DM is nice enough to never pull out the nerf bat but i do keep myself in check. As for sitting out turns, I love it. I usually drop a haste, then a radiant aura then a mass fly(maybe not in that order), off combat I put contingeant spells on my allies like greater magic weapon, blur and displacement/mirror image. After the third round I tell the DM with a bored voice? Is it dead yet? I take a standard action to cast prestidigitation to buff my nails. If (which happens once in a blue moon) the druid and the monk are actually having difficulty, I start pulling out disintegrates/shivering touches. Skipping turns is the ultimate way of telling your DM "*yawn* challenge me, please"

Keld Denar
2010-01-14, 01:20 PM
Oslecamo, I'm playing a nearly fully optimized FS Conjourer Abrupt Jaunting Fog slinging GOD wizard in your PbP game. You don't seem to have any problem with him. I've got nearly all of the major tricks (Greater Mirror Image, all Heart of X spells, Minor Shapeshift, tons of no-save and/or no-SR debuffs, Arcane Mastery to generally auto-overcome the SR of MOST things we encounter, Combat teleports like Benign Transposition and Dimension Hop quickened to give allies maximum combat positioning advantage, etc).

Is there that big of a power difference between Vist and say...Ryli the barbarian? Not really. Vist divides, Ryli conquers. Ask SurelySeraph if he feels his character is overshadowed by mine. I doubt you'll get a positive reply.

Just because a wizard is optimized doesn't mean he automatically makes the game unfun for everyone else. In fact, I think an optimized fighter type (like the ubercharge who does 4 digit damage) has a better chance to overshadow the rest of the group than most optimized casters simply because of the shear difference between a highly optimized melee vs a low optimized melee compared to a highly optimized caster vs a low optimized caster.

If you were a wizard and you were casting Fireball and Cone of Cold, and some new player sat down at your table with BC and debuffs, you probably wouldn't feel overshadowed in your role. If you were a fighter, you do about 50 damage per hit, and some guy joined the table who does 500 damage per hit, you'd feel very inadaquate indeed.

Oslecamo
2010-01-14, 01:49 PM
Oslecamo, I'm playing a nearly fully optimized FS Conjourer Abrupt Jaunting Fog slinging GOD wizard in your PbP game. You don't seem to have any problem with him. I've got nearly all of the major tricks (Greater Mirror Image, all Heart of X spells, Minor Shapeshift, tons of no-save and/or no-SR debuffs, Arcane Mastery to generally auto-overcome the SR of MOST things we encounter, Combat teleports like Benign Transposition and Dimension Hop quickened to give allies maximum combat positioning advantage, etc).

That's because I've got a good DM-fu, and know how to counter that kind of stuff so you don't auto-win battles with a single spell.



Is there that big of a power difference between Vist and say...Ryli the barbarian? Not really. Vist divides, Ryli conquers. Ask SurelySeraph if he feels his character is overshadowed by mine. I doubt you'll get a positive reply.

There's no need to ask such question. You have been a great team player, as D&D should be.



Just because a wizard is optimized doesn't mean he automatically makes the game unfun for everyone else.

Sigh, and when did you see me say that? My post refered to the people who would've said "Straight barbarian suckorz, play a warblade2/ lion totem barbarian2/fighter2/frenzied berseker/bear warrior instead!"




In fact, I think an optimized fighter type (like the ubercharge who does 4 digit damage) has a better chance to overshadow the rest of the group than most optimized casters simply because of the shear difference between a highly optimized melee vs a low optimized melee compared to a highly optimized caster vs a low optimized caster.

If you were a wizard and you were casting Fireball and Cone of Cold, and some new player sat down at your table with BC and debuffs, you probably wouldn't feel overshadowed in your role. If you were a fighter, you do about 50 damage per hit, and some guy joined the table who does 500 damage per hit, you'd feel very inadaquate indeed.

That isn't a fair comparison. The fighter optimized at maximum should be compared with the wizard optimized at maximum.

Or compare fireball wizard with Mr.super metamagic arcane thesis doing 500 damage with a single spell to Mr.Fireball's 50.

In that situation, the game would also become unfun if we had a wizard who would create minions stronger than the fighter, bring them to the fight, and make sure to use his magic to kill(kill, not control) the enemies before anyone else could make a move. Then the fireball wizard would whitout doubt feel overshaddowed.

Neither would be exactly aproved in my game. I don't throw uberchargers at you, but my monsters do try to use their SLAs in smart ways, like a GOD wizard does.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-14, 01:54 PM
That's because I've got a good DM-fu, and know how to counter that kind of stuff so you don't auto-win battles with a single spell.

In fairness, yeah...a big part of the problem is DMs who don't bother to understand magic/psionics/whatever and thus, deem it overpowered and nerf instead of bothering to learn about it.

But that can apply to anything...

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-01-14, 03:41 PM
In fairness, yeah...a big part of the problem is DMs who don't bother to understand magic/psionics/whatever and thus, deem it overpowered and nerf instead of bothering to learn about it.

But that can apply to anything..."No sword-and-board! I'm not sure how they work. They must be overpowered!" :smallbiggrin:

Tyndmyr
2010-01-14, 03:51 PM
I've heard monks described as overpowered, so I wouldn't put it past people.

Starbuck_II
2010-01-14, 03:56 PM
"No sword-and-board! I'm not sure how they work. They must be overpowered!" :smallbiggrin:

I've seen them (Fighters) banned due to being underpowered.

JaronK
2010-01-14, 04:08 PM
... but it's easier and smarter to just talk to the players either way.

This. A thousand times this. Talk to people and everything ends up better! This is always a solid solution. House rules are all fine and well, but at the end of the day being on the same side as the players and talking with them and agreeing to ways to make the campaign work is just so much better. When it's DMs vs Players, it's no fun.

Oh and in response to Starbuck, I've seen that too. One of our DMs complains that he hates having Fighters in the party because then he has to throw combat at us in every gaming session just to give the Fighters something to do. With other classes, he can actually have creative challenges.

JaronK

Runestar
2010-01-14, 06:33 PM
So no, having a not-uber character will not hinder my roleplaying way in any way.

It would hinder me from playing the original character I created, unless the new PCs I roll up are statistically identical to the first one.

Or lets say I want to play a master swordsman type of PC. I like emoting the combat maneuvers he uses in combat, but this is really only contingent on him hitting. If I don't optimize his attack rolls, he will be missing more often than not, which then puts a crimp in my ability to roleplay him the way I envisioned.

Because again, it is not how elaborately I flesh out his attack style which determines whether he hits, but hard cold stats. So yes, I do see some form of optimization as being warranted.:smallsmile:

taltamir
2010-01-14, 06:59 PM
That's because powergamers can't believe people cannot have fun whitout playing a super character, and powergamers are precisely the kind of people who love to do optimization and thus come to this kind of boards to discuss optimization and organize 1x1 duels and even make up silly stuff like "tiers" and biased percentage tables nobody really cares about for actual play.

I don't know about you, but I got sick of spending 5 hours on backstory for a character that:
1. Can't do what his backstory says (which is normal and reasonable to do)
2. Dies right away.
3. Has to work several times as hard to not suck in combat.

also, I don't know why you hate statistics.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-14, 07:13 PM
It's much easier to play a mechanically strong character as flawed than it is to play a mechanically flawed character as strong.

JaronK
2010-01-14, 07:41 PM
And hell, the Tiers were designed to allow people to pick a power level and all play together so the roleplay makes sense. It's really hard to roleplay your Fighter who's supposed to be the champion of many wars when he's standing next to a god that can just make 30 more like him if he gets a day of downtime. Your heroic Fighter is now basically an NPC redshirt in the background... sure you can roleplay him as relevant, but as soon as it's time to actually do something he can't do anything like what you've claimed.

Meanwhile, Tyndmyr is absolutely correct. I've played mechanically powerful characters in a way that made them weak. I did an apathetic DMM Cleric who didn't care about others... he cast his DMM Persistant buffs that helped the whole party, then wandered around with them and demanded loot because he was contributing. In the end, it totally worked as he really was a major player on the team, despite the fact that he was kind of a jerk who spent many of his actions sipping Pina Coladas while hiding in his Persistant Obscuring Mist. In that party, the players got a real kick out of it (and since he was persisting Righteous Wrath of the Faithful, Vigorous Circle, and Recitation they couldn't really complain). I also did a Dragonwrought Kobold DMM Cleric/PrC Paladin who demanded that we always kick in the door and announce our presence because ambushing and scouting was "cheating" and claimed that the might of dragons would give him all the power he needed. Again, that was a party where it fit... we were all playing lawful stupid on purpose and having a blast. And it worked (though the traps in WLD REALLY hurt).

But trying to play a mechanically weak character as strong just looks stupid. "I am the great warrior, master of my sword and veteran of of the great Mindflayer wars!" "Oh yeah? Why haven't you hit anything? And why aren't you able to identify a Mindflayer? And why do you keep ordering us around when you have an Int of 10 and a charisma of 8?"

JaronK

BlackandGold
2010-01-28, 06:22 AM
I have to say, I like playing a Wizard. Mostly I like the many, MANY possibilities. Ok, this round I shoot with my bow, next round I'm casting the fireball and the round after that I'll do X. I've played fighter and it was like "I hit. I hit with Power Attack. I cannot hit, because I'm blinded" Getting overpowered by the Cleric wasn't funny.
But before I started my little Sun-Elf-Wizard, I searched on the almighty Web. And look and behold, one of my favorite Webcomics had such a Fountain of useful information! Since my first days of RPG, I liked to have a character, which is mechanically powerful. So I sucked all the Information in this board up like a sponge. And then I went to my Gaming Group and looked at their Style and Power Level and adjusted. No, I won't oneshot the BBEG. I'll buff the Barbarian so much, he can do it. I won't kill the enemy wizard. I blind him, so the rogue can get him! And so on. Why does my wizard that? Because he doesn't like to get his hands dirty. Because he thinks, that is THEIR job. And because he doesn't like to get the enemy's attention.
To this date, I got killed once, by a shadow dragon. And got from Level 4 to Level 8 (death sucks, all the other ones are level 9). And aside from one disagreement with my DM (can Bull's Strenght, Fly and a barbarian be combinated to get us to safety? Discussed here in the forum) I'm having fun and my group is having fun.
Why? Because I choose to restrict myself (o yeah, I got my DM to nerf Polymorph. :D) with Roleplay-Reasons to the Power Level of my group. That's my tip. Look at your group and adjust accordingly.

P.S.: In my other Group my DM relies heavily on me with Tips on Magic or Optimization. There I play a SkillMonkey Rogue/Cleric. It is still fun, mostly because of the various possibilities.