Wizard -- Over Powered, or Just Right

[wayfare]

So I've been reading up on the tier system (which was linked to me after my 1st post), and I've been hanging out on the Barbarian vs. Fighter thread and I am a bit confused.

Wizards are spoken of as God-level characters -- is this a bad thing? Is this a flaw in the system, and if so, how do you handle it? Are there any responses to the mage that don't completely nerf the class?

I've played as a wizard in 3.5 before and I felt pretty vulnerable. But my group tends to hang around mid level stories, so I've never really played a super high level mage. 13-14 is where I've capped.

Any input is welcome.

[Private-Prinny]

It is bad. Very, very bad. A well-built Wizard can make entire parties completely redundant. The only things that can compete with a Tier 1 are other Tier 1s, and an entire party of those would tear any campaign apart at level 7 or so.

I find Tier 3 the most interesting. Everything has its own trick, is still useful in situations that can't be overcome by that trick (i.e. Beguiler casting Haste on the party when faced with constructs), but not powerful enough to snap a planet in half like a twig.

[wayfare]

It is bad. Very, very bad. A well-built Wizard can make entire parties completely redundant. The only things that can compete with a Tier 1 are other Tier 1s, and an entire party of those would tear any campaign apart at level 7 or so.

I find Tier 3 the most interesting. Everything has its own trick, is still useful in situations that can't be overcome by that trick (i.e. Beguiler casting Haste on the party when faced with constructs), but not powerful enough to snap a planet in half like a twig.

1) you have the best avatar ever.
2) I probably have not been paying close enough attention, but where do classes like the druid fall in terms of power?

[Zaq]

The Druid is one of the Big Five: (in no order) Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, and Artificer. (With certain alternative class features, Erudite sometimes also makes that list.) They're all extraordinarily powerful and have the capacity to snap your campaign in two if you don't have a really skillful party.

Druids have fewer "I win, no questions asked, don't even pretend you're in the same game as me" buttons than the wizard, but they don't really need them. They still have no shortage of options in any situation whatsoever, from 1 to 20.

[Kylarra]

Actually, Tier 2s can play alongside Tier 1s and are in fact equivalent in terms of power, it's simply that Tier 1's can be built to do nearly everything a Tier 2 can do, and still change again in the morning. The real difference between 1 vs 2 is limited spells/powers known vs unlimited, not gamebreaking potential.

[wayfare]

So, are there any viable fixes for the power differential?

[JoshuaZ]

It is bad. Very, very bad. A well-built Wizard can make entire parties completely redundant. The only things that can compete with a Tier 1 are other Tier 1s, and an entire party of those would tear any campaign apart at level 7 or so.


This isn't quite true. Many tier 2 can compete with tier 1. Sorcerer's for example can do a decent job every so often. The truth is that these issues depend to some extent on what the campaigns end up looking like. It would however be fair to say that of the top four classes, if two classes are 2 tiers apart they can't compete with each other, and if they are a single tier apart the higher tier one will shine a heck a of a lot more often. But you are correct that an all tier 1 campaign is asking to have the entire campaign world torn into little tiny pieces if they are being played at all sensibly. And yes, this is bad.

[Zaq]

So, are there any viable fixes for the power differential?

The only one that you can sum up in a sentence is "choose a certain tier and have the party mostly stick to it." Other than that, you need to get into heavy nerfings, homebrew/houserules, and a whole lot else.

Skillful players can voluntarily nerf themselves, but a lot of people find it really frustrating to be forced to do so just because their buddy wanted to roll a monk instead of a real class.

[Knaight]

So, are there any viable fixes for the power differential?

The tier one classes, with the exception of Artificer and Archivist, all have toned down equivalents. There is the Favored Soul, the Sorcerer, and the Wu Jen at tier 2 (Wu Jen might be tier 3), at Tier 3 there is the Beguiler, something Necromancer, War Mage, etc. The Druid has a few lower powered variants. Basically, don't use the tier 1 classes, or go through every spell and cut as necessary.

[Aharon]

Actually, it isn't that frustrating to play down your power, IMO. In fact, I found that for me, it enables roleplaying. I don't ponder making stupid/dangerous/non-gameing the system decisions IC OOC because I know, OOC, that my character will probably be able to deal with the results of those decisions without the DM having to fudge rolls.

There might still be some frustration for other players, though. I deliberately played a bufficer instead of an archificer (which would have overshadowed the rest of the party in terms of damage output), and they still complained - about the fact that I buffed them so much :smalleek:

(They also didn't like that I used Create Lantern Archon (BoED) to teleport us, and glibness)

[Gavinfoxx]

Basically, the thing that makes Tier 1 classes Tier 1 isn't so much "obscure class features" as "A huge gigantic spell list full of awesome spells, and access to large quantities of those spells, changeable each and every day, and the ability to cast a ton of them from scrolls".

Basically, the fact is that spells are the most powerful "class feature" in the game, and access to large quantities of powerful spells, which you can switch out every day as needed, or just cast from scrolls, can break many games in half.

Spend some time looking through the spells in the Player's handbook. Think about how a huge number of these spells can completely and utterly solve most random problems that the party might come across, without the help of, say, other members of the party.

Also, a level 13 wizard, if played correctly, even a *PHB ONLY* level 13 wizard, is perfectly capable of smashing campaigns in two, with absolutely no wealth per level. All it takes is good spell selection, and intelligent application of spellcasting.

[Eldan]

To elaborate on the above:
There are detailed guides out there on how Wizards can create (virtually) infinite money, get (virtually) infinite actions per turn, (virtually) infinite spell slots per day, instant kill spells with no saves or resistances and so on.
For blaster wizards, there are missiles from orbit, metal rods hot enough to induce fusion in the atmosphere, smashing the moon into the planet or summoning tons of antimatter. All possible, often with the core rules alone.

[Gavinfoxx]

NO NO NO. You dont mix real physics with D&D! NO real physics!

You use the RULES to do stuff, which lets you overcome any threat, not real physics! Using real physics just causes arguments; use Rules as Written instead.

Cause apparently if you use real physics to do stuff, catgirls die, though I have nooo idea why...

...the poor catgirls...

[BobVosh]

Tier chart is here for OP's reference: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0

[Gavinfoxx]

Tier chart is here for OP's reference: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0

Yes he mentioned in like, the first sentence, that I linked him to that in another thread. =D

[BobVosh]

Yes he mentioned in like, the first sentence, that I linked him to that in another thread. =D

Shh, no he didn't. ITS A TRAP!

Bluff: [1D20-2]7

I just saw him ask what a few classes were, since I scrolled down I already forgot what was in the first sentence...or something

*edit* No wait, I got it! I don't read inbetween ()'s. Thats it. *nods wisely*

[Morithias]

The real reason I believe the wizard is overpowered is because DM's forget two important parts of the RAW for those who like to use it.

1. The XP system states that as Dm you are allowed to alter xp gain by how much effort the party spends to get through it. In short wizards min/maxed to the point they can literally go through anything with no effort, should get no Xp, mainly because you don't learn quantum physics so to speak by doing 2 + 2 over and over.

2. Random encounters. So the wizard just used some trick to blow away all of his spells to destroy an encounter in one blow? Have a dire bear or something attack in the night, and kill him. Also if they don't say they put anyone on guard or anything, don't assume they did. He's breaking your camp, you have the right to be a jackass. In short, if a player can be a munchkin to counter a killer Dm, a non-killer DM can turn into a Killer one to counter a munchkin.

[Shadowleaf]

The real reason I believe the wizard is overpowered is because DM's forget two important parts of the RAW for those who like to use it.

1. The XP system states that as Dm you are allowed to alter xp gain by how much effort the party spends to get through it. In short wizards min/maxed to the point they can literally go through anything with no effort, should get no Xp, mainly because you don't learn quantum physics so to speak by doing 2 + 2 over and over.

2. Random encounters. So the wizard just used some trick to blow away all of his spells to destroy an encounter in one blow? Have a dire bear or something attack in the night, and kill him. Also if they don't say they put anyone on guard or anything, don't assume they did. He's breaking your camp, you have the right to be a jackass. In short, if a player can be a munchkin to counter a killer Dm, a non-killer DM can turn into a Killer one to counter a munchkin.
Of course DM Fiat will win over the Wizard.

Any munchkin worth his salt won't let a random encounter stop him. At lower levels, there's the Rope Trick. Medium you can switch to Magnificent Mansion, and higher levels there's the Teleport to Genesis plane.

You also forgot 3) While Wizards might not be, Wizards' players are vurnable to thrown books.

[ghost_warlock]

All possible, often with the core rules alone.

Arguably, the worst offenders of all are in core.


Have a dire bear or something attack in the night, and kill him. Also if they don't say they put anyone on guard or anything, don't assume they did.

This really isn't even that much of a problem (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/ropeTrick.htm) for parties with a level 3+ wizard.

[Morithias]

Of course DM Fiat will win over the Wizard.

Any munchkin worth his salt won't let a random encounter stop him. At lower levels, there's the Rope Trick. Medium you can switch to Magnificent Mansion, and higher levels there's the Teleport to Genesis plane.

You also forgot 3) While Wizards might not be, Wizards' players are vurnable to thrown books.

Well I'm sure there are ways to counter those too. I don't know what the rope trick is, but I'm sure one can stop Magnificent Mansion with enough thought.

As for Genesis, well nothing is stopping an enemy of said mage from say plane shifting there and waiting, add in the fact that things like devils called by other devils don't vanish, and you could easily justify an ECL 30+ challenge, after just a few weeks.

[Shadowleaf]

Arguably, the worst offenders of all are in core.Teleport, Polymorph, PaO, Time Stop, Genesis, Shapechange, Gate, and the dozens of utility spells? Yep.

Only Orbs, Celerity and Shivering Touch is really missing.


Well I'm sure there are ways to counter those too. I don't know what the rope trick is, but I'm sure one can stop Magnificent Mansion with enough thought.

As for Genesis, well nothing is stopping an enemy of said mage from say plane shifting there and waiting, add in the fact that things like devils called by other devils don't vanish, and you could easily justify an ECL 30+ challenge, after just a few weeks.
Rope Trick is a spell, you climb into it and rest for the night - it's an extradimentional space, and therefore extremely hard to influence at low levels.

Well, you could just throw the Gods at the Wizard, they're ECL30+ too. I don't see how getting into a pissing contest with the Wizard is going to help in any way - if you're the DM, you can kill your players if you want to. Point it you shouldn't want to, you should be tailoring your campaign to their characters, debuff the Wizard or simply disallowing the Wizard class.

[icefractal]

Although I'd note that while Wizards certainly can smash the world in half, that doesn't mean they have to. While trying to downplay a Wizard to the level of a Samurai or Healer gets difficult, I've had no trouble playing one at the level of Tier 3 classes, and to an extent Tier 4 (the Wizard might be overall more useful, but not to the extent of rendering them obsolete).

And of course, a Wizard with poor spell selection is Tier 4-6, so there's certainly variance in actual play.

[Zeful]

Teleport, Polymorph, PaO, Time Stop, Genesis*, Shapechange, Gate, and the dozens of utility spells? Yep.

Only Orbs, Celerity** and Shivering Touch is really missing.

*Not Core. OGL material yes, Core no.
**Doesn't exist. (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Discontinuity)

[Koury]

1. The XP system states that as Dm you are allowed to alter xp gain by how much effort the party spends to get through it. In short wizards min/maxed to the point they can literally go through anything with no effort, should get no Xp, mainly because you don't learn quantum physics so to speak by doing 2 + 2 over and over.

What?


1. Determine each character’s level. Don’t forget to account for
ECL (see Monsters as Races, page 172) if any of the characters
are of a powerful race.
2. For each monster defeated, determine that
single monster’s Challenge Rating.
3. Use Table 2–6: Experience Point
Awards (Single Monster) to crossreference
one character’s level
with the Challenge Rating for
each defeated monster to
find the base XP award.
4. Divide the base XP award by the
number of characters in the party. This is
the amount of XP that one character
receives for helping defeat that monster.
5. Add up all the XP awards for all the
monsters the character helped defeat.
6. Repeat the process for each character.

You don't get less experiance for a fight that was easier because you ambushed the bad guys, for example. Just like you don't get more for being ambushed.

[Vangor]

Wizards are spoken of as God-level characters -- is this a bad thing? Is this a flaw in the system, and if so, how do you handle it? Are there any responses to the mage that don't completely nerf the class?

Bad if they actively seek out the role, but how about talk to people you chose to play with who are likely your friends or want to play a campaign?


Well I'm sure there are ways to counter those too. I don't know what the rope trick is, but I'm sure one can stop Magnificent Mansion with enough thought.

As for Genesis, well nothing is stopping an enemy of said mage from say plane shifting there and waiting, add in the fact that things like devils called by other devils don't vanish, and you could easily justify an ECL 30+ challenge, after just a few weeks.

Why do you need enough thought when you're the DM purposefully trying to target and kill a character? Just say X happens and be done if this is how the group is playing. If you feel the player, no matter what tier the class is represented as, is being abusive, exploiting, or breaking the campaign, talk about this. No one in my campaign needs to draw my wrath because they are not there to "win" D&D but play through a campaign, as I am there not to kill the party but guide them through a campaign world.

And were I there to kill the party, I make challenging but possible encounters, not throw Faiths and Pantheons at them.

[Eldan]

What?

You don't get less experiance for a fight that was easier because you ambushed the bad guys, for example. Just like you don't get more for being ambushed.

That falls under intelligent planning, sure, it's the kind of thing that nets the same XP.

However, the higher the level gets, the wonkier the CR/EL system becomes. It can be that you make what's supposed to be a balanced encounter and the PCs wipe it away in two rounds, without taking out their big guns, because someone had the right piece of equipment handy, or the right spell prepared, or because they were all highly resistant to acid. On the other hand, it can be that a monster just wipes out the entire party, just because they didn't have the right counter measure. At low levels, a shadow can be absolutely lethal if no one has a magical weapon. The wizard has his one magical missile, then he also runs dry. In those cases, giving a little more or less XP is entirely justified.

[Koury]

In those cases, giving a little more or less XP is entirely justified.

Justified, sure. But its not exactly Da Rulez, as Morithias claimed, as far as I can see.

[AslanCross]

So, are there any viable fixes for the power differential?

Many suggestions have been made. I've seen none that genuinely fixed the problem; most of them seemed like more trouble than they were worth. In practice, I've seen wizards do just fine without making other players feel bad, even with broken spells such as Celerity.

Banning spells should be done carefully---"core only," as has been mentioned, is not necessarily a fix. Lots of core spells are broken. In fact, I'm tempted to say that "all-non-core only" might actually turn up less broken spells than core only, but it kills some spells that are necessary for the continued survival of fellow PCs (Restoration, for example) and some that are iconic (fireball) and decent without being broken (Mage Armor).

Psion is a decent replacement, but not everyone uses or likes Psionics.

The best "fix," IMO, is a gentleman's agreement between the players and DM that abuse will not be tolerated. I've been fine with Solid Fog getting dropped on my monsters, frankly---they usually have ways around it anyway (teleportation, reach).

Keeping games below Lv 12 is typically a good way to prevent the really insane things as well (Shapechange, Wish).

Oh yeah: Ban Polymorph. If there's one spell that deserves banning, it's that. I'm sure there are specific fixes for it, but I don't know of one off the top of my head.

[2xMachina]

IMO, Wizards don't break the game, Munckin breaks the game.

Uberchargers can also bore the rest of the players.

But then again I don't see the need for balance. It's not a 1vs1 game. It's a team game. If I build casters, I care about the rest of the team. That prevents most problems.

And unless you're looking to TPK them, the wizard/cleric having something broken up their sleeves can save you from having to fudge to save them when something bad happens.

And another game (MMORPG) I played... personal power isn't important.
The most wanted chars in a team is a class that is useless, but great buffing powers. In fact, the best possible team is has 50% pure support characters.

[Morty]

Many suggestions have been made. I've seen none that genuinely fixed the problem; most of them seemed like more trouble than they were worth. In practice, I've seen wizards do just fine without making other players feel bad, even with broken spells such as Celerity.

Banning spells should be done carefully---"core only," as has been mentioned, is not necessarily a fix. Lots of core spells are broken. In fact, I'm tempted to say that "all-non-core only" might actually turn up less broken spells than core only, but it kills some spells that are necessary for the continued survival of fellow PCs (Restoration, for example) and some that are iconic (fireball) and decent without being broken (Mage Armor).

Psion is a decent replacement, but not everyone uses or likes Psionics.

The best "fix," IMO, is a gentleman's agreement between the players and DM that abuse will not be tolerated. I've been fine with Solid Fog getting dropped on my monsters, frankly---they usually have ways around it anyway (teleportation, reach).

Keeping games below Lv 12 is typically a good way to prevent the really insane things as well (Shapechange, Wish).

Oh yeah: Ban Polymorph. If there's one spell that deserves banning, it's that. I'm sure there are specific fixes for it, but I don't know of one off the top of my head.


I agree. The destructive effect wizards have on parties is exagerrated quite often. Just because the Wizard class can break the game doesn't mean it will. Solutions should be applied after the problem appears.

[Krazddndfreek]

Oh yeah: Ban Polymorph. If there's one spell that deserves banning, it's that. I'm sure there are specific fixes for it, but I don't know of one off the top of my head.

The Giant made a pretty good fix. I don't think it takes care of ALL of the problems, but it's pretty good. Just don't allow infinimorph in your games. It just looks broken.

[WarKitty]

It depends on your game, honestly. I've had good luck pumping the melee fighters into whirlwinds of death (gestalt + extraordinary abilities as needed). Every character in that game was ridiculously broken - it was great fun, and I just broke the monsters as needed.

[AslanCross]

The Giant made a pretty good fix. I don't think it takes care of ALL of the problems, but it's pretty good. Just don't allow infinimorph in your games. It just looks broken.

Oh, wasn't aware of that. Do you have a link on you?

[Sucrose]

It's on the Gaming section of this very website.:smallwink:

[Dralnu]

I've thankfully never seen any problems with "tier 1 classes" in any of my RL games. They usually fit snugly in with the rest of the group, as intended. The wizards cast Magic Missile at the darkness and the paladin assures the group that door is indeed not evil.

Online seems to be way different. Wizards are all focused specialist conjurers that beat campaigns with one spell, melee are all uber chargers that do over 9,000 damage, and the only reason why someone would be a sorcerer is to be a venerable loredrake white dragonspawn dragonwrought kobold or maybe even Pun-Pun. And these are the representatives for their respective classes.

If your RL groups are similar to mine you should have no issues.

[Greenish]

I've thankfully never seen any problems with "tier 1 classes" in any of my RL games. They usually fit snugly in with the rest of the group, as intended. The wizards cast Magic Missile at the darkness and the paladin assures the group that door is indeed not evil.

Online seems to be way different. Wizards are all focused specialist conjurers that beat campaigns with one spell, melee are all uber chargers that do over 9,000 damage, and the only reason why someone would be a sorcerer is to be a venerable loredrake white dragonspawn dragonwrought kobold or maybe even Pun-Pun. And these are the representatives for their respective classes.

If your RL groups are similar to mine you should have no issues.Pun-Pun starts as a paladin.

[BeholderSlayer]

Pun-Pun starts as a paladin.

You're behind the times. It can be also done at level one as a wizard or sorcerer without the Pazuzu trick.

[Greenish]

You're behind the times. It can be also done at level one as a wizard or sorcerer without the Pazuzu trick.Really? Meh, and I've been wasting my time writing essays and calculating how much stuff could a crusher crush if crusher could crush stuff, and missed out all the new TO work. Got a link, perchance?

[BeholderSlayer]

Really? Meh, and I've been wasting my time writing essays and calculating how much stuff could a crusher crush if crusher could crush stuff, and missed out all the new TO work. Got a link, perchance?

I'd have to scramble around for it, but it's pretty simple:
Take Precocious Apprentice, take Summon Mirror Mephit (Drow of the Underdark, I think) as your 2nd level spell.
Summon mephit, direct it use its Simulacrum SLA to make a simulacrum of an efreeti. Then direct it to direct the simulacrum to wish into existence a Candle of Invocation for you.

I'm sure you can figure out the rest from there.

[Greenish]

I'd have to scramble around for it, but it's pretty simple:
Take Precocious Apprentice, take Summon Mirror Mephit (Drow of the Underdark, I think) as your 2nd level spell.
Summon mephit, direct it use its Simulacrum SLA to make a simulacrum of an efreeti. Then direct it to direct the simulacrum to wish into existence a Candle of Invocation for you.

I'm sure you can figure out the rest from there.Oh, Mirror Mephit. I had just forgotten about it. It's from Expedition to Demonweb Pits, if my memory serves.

[BeholderSlayer]

Oh, Mirror Mephit. I had just forgotten about it. It's from Expedition to Demonweb Pits, if my memory serves.

Yeah, I knew it was from something about Drow or Lolth or whatever.

[DragoonWraith]

Where do you find the Efreeti to cast Simulacrum on? A level 1 character has no way to summon one, magic lamps are not typical treasure at that level, etc. I usually expect something a bit more ironclad than that out of TO, especially when Pun-Pun is involved.

[BeholderSlayer]

Where do you find the Efreeti to cast Simulacrum on? A level 1 character has no way to summon one, magic lamps are not typical treasure at that level, etc. I usually expect something a bit more ironclad than that out of TO, especially when Pun-Pun is involved.

SLA's do not require material components.

[true_shinken]

I've thankfully never seen any problems with "tier 1 classes" in any of my RL games. They usually fit snugly in with the rest of the group, as intended. The wizards cast Magic Missile at the darkness and the paladin assures the group that door is indeed not evil.

Online seems to be way different. Wizards are all focused specialist conjurers that beat campaigns with one spell, melee are all uber chargers that do over 9,000 damage, and the only reason why someone would be a sorcerer is to be a venerable loredrake white dragonspawn dragonwrought kobold or maybe even Pun-Pun. And these are the representatives for their respective classes.

If your RL groups are similar to mine you should have no issues.

I completly agree with you.
However, wizards and druids specially are so powerful they can break the game by accident. Their versatility makes it hard for the DM to predict whatever they might do.
Let's say you planned a hard fight against monster X, but the wizard just happen to have bane of X prepared. Monster dies. Puf.
Druids are even worse. You start by trying to predict their spells and throwing challenges... but that forces them to wildshape.
DM: 'The golem is immune to all your druidic magic! He squashes your summons like flies! Your animal companion is busy holding back the horde of minions! What do you do, druid?'
Druid: 'Damn, let me think... I wild shape. Dunno, into a tiger, I guess?'
<a few rounds later>
Fighter: 'Wait a minute, you perform better in melee than I do?!'

[DragoonWraith]

SLA's do not require material components.
*headdesk*

Why on earth didn't they require you to Target the creature being copied?!

Hell, even if it required "Target: A piece of the creature being copied".

[BeholderSlayer]

Here's the skinny on wizards and power level:

It depends.

It depends on the wizard's selection of spells, feats, and prestige classes. It mostly depends on spells, however. A wizard that habitually throws fireball over and over will typically not be overpowering in a campaign. In fact he will likely find it difficult to pull his own weight. A wizard that habitually casts Polymorph, Glitterdust, Web, Solid Fog, Sleet Storm, etc. often easily stomps down enemies in their path without breaking a sweat.

[Greenish]

*headdesk*

Why on earth didn't they require you to Target the creature being copied?!

Hell, even if it required "Target: A piece of the creature being copied".I doubt that anyone in their right mind is able to comprehend what they were thinking when they created that spell.

Probably "hey, snow is cool, right! I made a pun, ha ha haa!"

[Uncertainty]

But you are correct that an all tier 1 campaign is asking to have the entire campaign world torn into little tiny pieces if they are being played at all sensibly. And yes, this is bad.

How does playing your class so that it breaks the game and ruins everybody's fun constitute being 'sensible'?

I have to agree that the best fix for the wizard's godliness is to simply play it the right way. None of the nerfs I have seen even come close to fixing the problem; and I personally would chafe at having my class choices forced into a certain tier because my DM did not trust his players to manage themselves. It's as others here have said - wizards can fit in just fine with a regular party in an actual game, regardless of their theoretical potential.

[Gametime]

How does playing your class so that it breaks the game and ruins everybody's fun constitute being 'sensible'?



How does your character ignoring spells which have the ability to protect himself and his compatriots from life-threatening danger constitute being "sensible?"

Even before you get into some of the morally ambiguous paths to obtaining ULTIMATE COSMIC POWER, there are a whole mess of spells that can trivialize encounters and outshine your party members. From a player perspective, it's totally reasonable to avoid those spells. From a character perspective, it can be a lot harder to justify. I think most people (rightly) feel that, in this case, character realism should take a backseat to everyone actually having fun, but the problem is still there even if we're all really good at ignoring it.

[Tundar]

There are quite alot of ways to keeping the potential powerhouse at bay.

Reduce the access to money is a very good way of hampering the access to scrolls and wands.

Targeting the spellbook is another good way of bombing the wizard back to scratch.
Be sure to get the back up and 2nd back up spellbooks too.

If played right by both sides, wizards are just right. If you let them run too freely, hell will break out.

[Greenish]

There are quite alot of ways to keeping the potential powerhouse at bay.

Reduce the access to money is a very good way of hampering the access to scrolls and wands.Players have an annoying habit of splitting the money even between each others. Low WBL campaigns, in turn, favour spellcasters who are less dependent on magical items.

[Dralnu]

I completly agree with you.
However, wizards and druids specially are so powerful they can break the game by accident. Their versatility makes it hard for the DM to predict whatever they might do.
Let's say you planned a hard fight against monster X, but the wizard just happen to have bane of X prepared. Monster dies. Puf.
Druids are even worse. You start by trying to predict their spells and throwing challenges... but that forces them to wildshape.
DM: 'The golem is immune to all your druidic magic! He squashes your summons like flies! Your animal companion is busy holding back the horde of minions! What do you do, druid?'
Druid: 'Damn, let me think... I wild shape. Dunno, into a tiger, I guess?'
<a few rounds later>
Fighter: 'Wait a minute, you perform better in melee than I do?!'

I agree with this. From my games it seems that druids are the easiest class for players to outshine others without optimization knowledge. Simply wild shape plus animal companion can be hard for a fighter to keep up with.

Keeping with the realistic type of RL game though, such a situation can likely be balanced by adding more encounters / creatures per day. Since most games are at the low-mid levels, adding more things to kill will put a strain on the druid's limited resources and he'll either have to hold back or be less powerful once he's run out of wildshapes and good spells. Either way it helps balance him out with the fighter and is easy for the DM to pull off.

[Uncertainty]

How does your character ignoring spells which have the ability to protect himself and his compatriots from life-threatening danger constitute being "sensible?"

Even before you get into some of the morally ambiguous paths to obtaining ULTIMATE COSMIC POWER, there are a whole mess of spells that can trivialize encounters and outshine your party members. From a player perspective, it's totally reasonable to avoid those spells. From a character perspective, it can be a lot harder to justify. I think most people (rightly) feel that, in this case, character realism should take a backseat to everyone actually having fun, but the problem is still there even if we're all really good at ignoring it.

Ah, I think I see your point now.

Still, there could be plenty of reasons that your character does not use those spells. Who says that you even know about their existence, or that they have even been conceived of in your campaign world? Maybe your character focuses on a different field/type of magic (Blasters, anyone?), and so would not be as interested in learning that cool auto-win conjuration spell.

It's one thing if other characters/classes are using a spell and the wizard is holding back... But if we are talking about some esoteric spell from a random splatbook here, "out of sight, out of mind" could really apply.

[Urpriest]

Wizards, played intuitively by a typical group, are much less of a problem than Druids, for example. (For a Druid, you become better than a Fighter as soon as you decide that bears are awesome and realize that you need natural spell.)

However, it's pretty easy to break things without trying to if you aren't aware of how powerful the class can be. For example, the first game I ran had a Sorceror. He mostly played as a generic blaster-type (who was still fairly effective, because early in the campaign we misread the rules and thought you could take two standard actions in a round). However, later in the campaign they capture a minor villain who promptly escapes. They scry on him, and see him with his allies in his base of operations. The Sorceror promptly declares: I teleport the party to him! All of this is perfectly sensible...and would have wrecked the campaign if they had done so. Being an inexperienced DM and realizing that I had nothing prepared and as such they would trash this encounter, I fudged it so that the teleport didn't work. Still, this is one of those simple situations where just playing the class like it looks meant to be played can throw things out of whack.

[Zore]

Ah, I see your point now.

Still, there could be plenty of reasons that your character does not use those spells. Who says that you even know about their existence, or that they have even been conceived of in your campaign world? Maybe your character focuses on a different field/type of magic (Blasters, anyone?), and so would not be as interested in learning that cool auto-win conjuration spell.

It's one thing if other characters/classes are using a spell and the wizard is holding back... But if we are talking about some esoteric spell from a random splatbook here, "out of sight, out of mind" could really apply.

Very, very few of the 'awesome' spells are esoteric or from splatbooks. Most, I would argue, are almost iconic wizard spells. Polymorph, Time Stop, Glitterdust etc. Thats more the issue than the mostly reasonable splatbook stuff (though there is Celerity...)

[JoshuaZ]

How does playing your class so that it breaks the game and ruins everybody's fun constitute being 'sensible'?


Sensible in this sense means "what would be correct roleplaying for an int 17 wizard?" The problem is that you break the game just acting how a wizard with high int would act.

[Greenish]

Maybe your character focuses on a different field/type of magic (Blasters, anyone?), and so would not be as interested in learning that cool auto-win conjuration spell.Best blasting spells tend to be Conjuration.


It's one thing if other characters/classes are using a spell and the wizard is holding back... But if we are talking about some esoteric spell from a random splatbook here, "out of sight, out of mind" could really apply."Random splatbooks" like Spell Compendium, or heck, PHB?

[RebelRogue]

The best "fix," IMO, is a gentleman's agreement between the players and DM that abuse will not be tolerated.
I agree, but it requires that everybody agrees to what constitutes abuse. I've seen posters here (sensible people, mind you), who considered some cheesy things perfectly fine ways of playing the game. I've seen it myself: In my main group we are relatively casual - we do know some of the cheese of course, but we do have an unspoken rule of not doing too ridiculous things. Still, in these campaigns überchargers and wraith strike gishes has wreaked some havoc on encounters. Nothing major or tier-1-ish, but enough that I thought it took suspense away.

[Nick_mi]

tagged for later reading

[Uncertainty]

"Random splatbooks" like Spell Compendium, or heck, PHB?

Just because it is core does not mean it has to be a well-known spell in your campaign world... Though as Zore pointed out, that does seem like a a problem with the cooler, more iconic wizard spells.

[Greenish]

Just because it is core does not mean it has to be a well-known spell in your campaign world...Oh, that line about "random splatbooks" threw me off.

[Uncertainty]

Oh, that line about "random splatbooks" threw me off.

My bad... I noticed it too late for a last-minute edit.

[WarKitty]

I agree, but it requires that everybody agrees to what constitutes abuse. I've seen posters here (sensible people, mind you), who considered some cheesy things perfectly fine ways of playing the game. I've seen it myself: In my main group we are relatively casual - we do know some of the cheese of course, but we do have an unspoken rule of not doing too ridiculous things. Still, in these campaigns überchargers and wraith strike gishes has wreaked some havoc on encounters. Nothing major or tier-1-ish, but enough that I thought it took suspense away.

This seems to be one of those things that's best decided before you start. Like I said, I've never had a problem in campaigns where *everyone* was oozing cheese, I just gave the weaker classes even more dm-fiat cheese and then added some gouda to the monsters. The problems come when only one character using the uber-cheese.

[Ozymandias9]

Justified, sure. But its not exactly Da Rulez, as Morithias claimed, as far as I can see.

Page 39: "Modifying XP Awards and Encounter Level"

To paraphrase, if it's more or less difficult, it should give more or less XP. They even give a 3x5 entry table.

[Greenish]

My bad... I noticed it too late for a last-minute edit.Anyway, jumping through hoops to de-power one's wizard seems rather counter-intuitive to me. There are better balanced, way cooler classes that'd serve just as well, such as beguiler and dread necromancer.

[RebelRogue]

This seems to be one of those things that's best decided before you start. Like I said, I've never had a problem in campaigns where *everyone* was oozing cheese, I just gave the weaker classes even more dm-fiat cheese and then added some gouda to the monsters. The problems come when only one character using the uber-cheese.
And that's all fine since everybody agreed on the optimization level it seems. But, as I stated, even though you may tentatively agree to an acceptable level of optimization, sometimes you can still be surprised by how that is actually interpreted at the table, even from players you've known for a long time.

[Koury]

Page 39: "Modifying XP Awards and Encounter Level"

To paraphrase, if it's more or less difficult, it should give more or less XP. They even give a 3x5 entry table.

Indeed. Let's look at what they say to do.


• Experience points drive the game.
Don’t be too stingy or too generous.
• Most encounters do not need modifying.
Don’t waste a lot of time
worrying about the minutiae.
• Bad rolls or poor choices on the PCs’
part should not modify ELs or XP
awards. If the encounter is difficult
because the players were unlucky
or careless, they don’t get more
experience.
• Just because the PCs are
worn down from prior encounters
does not mean that later (more
difficult) encounters should gain
higher awards. Judge the difficulty of an
encounter on its own merits.

Points 1 and 2 make it clear this isn't meant to be used often and you should usually follow the XP charts.

Point 3 reinforces that bad luck or bad decisions should not change XP earned. It follows that good luck or good decisions also should not change XP. You don't earn less because you crit the BBEG in round 1.

Point 4 says that you do not take into account that the Fighter is at half life and the Wizard is low on spells.

So, when does this bit come into play then? Well, its for when you plan on a fight being more difficult due to outside circumstances (terrain or equipment advantages on one side). You got a halfling with an orcbane sword? Yeah, that makes fights against orcs easier. Take that into account (or do what Tolkien did and just throw even more orcs at the group). Enemies set the inn on fire and the PCs don't have time to grab their gear before the fight? Yeah, that makes the fight a little bit easier.

However, and this is the importaint part, if the fight is easier or harder then you expected because of clever/stupid playing by the PCs, don't mess with the XP. The PCs take out a whole room in the surprise round because of clever play? They get full XP.

The difference here is importaint. If you planned on the orcs having gliders and dropping rocks (the DMG example) then you decide to give extra XP for the fight. Players kill thier scouts before they can warn the fliers and manage to fight them before they can take off? They get the full extra XP. They don't get penalized for playing well. Basically, you should know how much XP the fight is worth well before the PCs get there. When they do get there, you don't modify it for, really, any reason.

[wayfare]

How would people feel about mandating that Wizards have to be specialists, but gain no benefit from being specialists (no extra spells) with all the restrictions.

On top of that, adding a more stringent school restriction, so that certain schools of magic are denied to you and other schools are capped at level 5 spells.

Is it workable.

[Koury]

How would people feel about mandating that Wizards have to be specialists, but gain no benefit from being specialists (no extra spells) with all the restrictions.

On top of that, adding a more stringent school restriction, so that certain schools of magic are denied to you and other schools are capped at level 5 spells.

Is it workable.

Might drop them to Tier 2. Problem usually isn't that they get too many spells, its that the spells are too good.

[aje8]

How would people feel about mandating that Wizards have to be specialists, but gain no benefit from being specialists (no extra spells) with all the restrictions.

On top of that, adding a more stringent school restriction, so that certain schools of magic are denied to you and other schools are capped at level 5 spells.

Is it workable.
No it isn't. This has been discussed to death. A wizard needs 2 schools to be awesome. He can lose everything but Conjuration and Transmutation and be just as gamebreaking. He can probably be like Conjuration/Illusion or some such and be fine too. And that's banning far more schools than you suggest.

Honestly, I've yet to see a wizard fix that works without modifying every single spell on a case-by-case basis. There are just no quick fixes to this problem.

[JoshuaZ]

How would people feel about mandating that Wizards have to be specialists, but gain no benefit from being specialists (no extra spells) with all the restrictions.

On top of that, adding a more stringent school restriction, so that certain schools of magic are denied to you and other schools are capped at level 5 spells.

Is it workable.

Specialists without the specialist benefits (so really just two schools of magic restricted) are still very powerful. The only issue they'll start to run into will be running out of spells. But even that can be handled by having a fair number of scrolls handy and a pearl + ring of wizardry. Capping out a school at level 5 doesn't do much because wizards start breaking the game around then and can do so easily with out much in another school. It might be doable if you banned two schools and restricted a third school so that any spells you used from that school could not be from your highest level. Even that wouldn't necessarily do much (ban evocation, ban necromancy, restrict necromancy and many wizards would hardly notice the difference.) Simply slowing down the entire spell progression is another option that works well. The casting ultimate classes do that (http://www.liquidmateria.info/wiki/index.php?title=Ultimate_Classes) and they never get 8th or 9th level spells pre-epic. I haven't played them myself but my impression is that a lot of them solves a lot of the issues and are in general a bit more balanced.

[Gametime]

Page 39: "Modifying XP Awards and Encounter Level"

To paraphrase, if it's more or less difficult, it should give more or less XP. They even give a 3x5 entry table.

The problem with that - leaving aside the difficulty of distinguishing between fights that are easier than normal but should still grant full experience because it's the result of good planning and strategy, and fights that are easier than normal because of outside circumstances - is that awarding less experience because spells make fights easier doesn't solve the problem of class imbalance.

If a wizard uses a spell that basically "solves" an encounter, the fight gets easier, period. Not just for the wizard, but for the entire party. If the enemies are blinded by Glitterdust, the fight is easy. If the enemies are stuck in a Solid Fog, the fight is easy. If you're going to penalize the wizard for such spells, you really have to penalize the entire party; it isn't as though the fighter was having a hard time running through the blind orcs stumbling around.

This does provide some incentive to stop using encounter-solving spells (since the party won't advance from encounters where you do), but it doesn't do it in a particularly good way. Wizards will probably hold their top-end spells for the really difficult fights, since losing out on the experience from such fights is better than dying to them, but they've still got the potential to just wreck things.

If you want to use experience as a balancing mechanism, introducing updated versions of the old class experience progressions is probably the best way to do it. It still doesn't fix things - a mid-level wizard is more than capable of competing with high-level challenges - but it makes the slope a little shallower.

[2xMachina]

How about the idea about holding in reserve? Or one does not show their ace till they need it?

And personally, trivializing encounters is not something I'm concerned with. They're already meant to win.

EDIT: Or you know, plain arrogance/for fun. IRL, I've experimented with putting limitations on myself for the heck of it.

As Kenpachi did, it's no fun when you're winning easily. So you only use 1 hand, when you can use both.

[wayfare]

I take it that a more extreme restriction of spell schools still wouldn't make a dent -- Limiting the mage to 1 primary schools that he can get up to rank 9 spells, 2 schools that he can get up to rank 3, and forbidding everything else.

If the problem is too extensive to easily root out on the mage side of things, is it easier to enhance other classes. The fighter, for example -- is it ok to give the fighter abilities out of the Epic of Gilgamesh or modern JRPGs to compensate for his lack of powers?

[RebelRogue]

The fighter, for example -- is it ok to give the fighter abilities out of the Epic of Gilgamesh or modern JRPGs to compensate for his lack of powers?
If it doesn't jar against your idea of what a fighter is, yes. However, isn't this pretty much what the ToB is there for?

[Zaydos]

I take it that a more extreme restriction of spell schools still wouldn't make a dent -- Limiting the mage to 1 primary schools that he can get up to rank 9 spells, 2 schools that he can get up to rank 3, and forbidding everything else.

If the problem is too extensive to easily root out on the mage side of things, is it easier to enhance other classes. The fighter, for example -- is it ok to give the fighter abilities out of the Epic of Gilgamesh or modern JRPGs to compensate for his lack of powers?

There are Tier 3 classes which are wizards limited to 1 school (with minor access to 2 to 4 others) and actual class features. Notably they don't get full access to the Spell Compendium, and just get PHB + whatever book they were introduced in (+ about 5 others from any book).
Beguiler gets Enchantment and Illusion
Dread Necromancer gets Necromancy
Warmage gets Evocation and is lower tier.

[wayfare]

If it doesn't jar against your idea of what a fighter is, yes. However, isn't this pretty much what the ToB is there for?

I've stayed away from it, as one of my former DM's said it ruined fighters. Is it worth picking up?

[RebelRogue]

I've stayed away from it, as one of my former DM's said it ruined fighters. Is it worth picking up?
I haven't really used it myself (mostly because I'm lazy and don't play much 3.5 anymore), but it's my impression that a lot of people really like it.

[Zaydos]

It gives melee combatants per encounter abilities that scale in power from Lv 1 abilities to Lv 9 abilities. They aren't nearly as world shattering as high level spells but they give melee combatants options and versatility which are the biggest problems with normal melee is that they end up as "I hit it with my sword" every round or I twiddle my thumb when that isn't an option.

Haven't really seen it in use much and when I did it was in a high level game on a cohort.

[DragoonWraith]

I've stayed away from it, as one of my former DM's said it ruined fighters. Is it worth picking up?
It's the best book printed for 3.5, bar none. Your DM was incorrect: the Player's Handbook ruined fighters, and Tome of Battle saved them.

[Koury]

I've stayed away from it, as one of my former DM's said it ruined fighters. Is it worth picking up?

Look for yourself. Here are the maneuvers (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a) possible with the book.

Classes are limited in which schools they can learn from, and even more limited in the amount of maneuvers they can know in total.

[Gametime]

I've stayed away from it, as one of my former DM's said it ruined fighters. Is it worth picking up?

It is not necessary if you enjoy fighters (and other martial types) as they are. It is hardly damaging if that is the case, however, since all it presents are options. You are free to ignore them if you don't like them, and nothing in ToB changes how fighters drawing on other books work.

If you are dissatisfied with how fighters work, and more generally with the way melee is handled in 3.5, then Tome of Battle is the book most likely to help with that in all of 3.5's library.

[The Big Dice]

If you are dissatisfied with how fighters work, and more generally with the way melee is handled in 3.5, then Tome of Battle is the book most likely to help with that in all of 3.5's library.

Or you could be daring. As Sun Tzu said, "When you can go no further in one direction, change."

Download Dark Dungeons (http://darkdungeonsblog.wordpress.com/) and incorporate the Weapon Feats concept into 3.5. You could add in the Smash attack for Fighters(I'm not joking about the name) if you wanted too. Though some people might think taking a -5 to hit and adding your entire Strength score to damage is a bit much...

BUt when it comes to the power of Wizards, they're not overpowered at all. They get no synergy between stats and saves, lame hit points and a feeble BAB progression.

The problem is the spells in 3.5.

[balistafreak]

Or you could be daring. As Sun Tzu said, "When you can go no further in one direction, change."

Note: 3rd party material has a (not entirely undeserved) reputation for hiding poorly-thought out concepts that end up being extremely game-breaking. This results in the problem of "I allow Book X" for "Thing Y" and getting blindsided by "Thing Z". While 1st party material is hardly free of such problems as well (CORE, I'M LOOKING AT YOU), it has the advantage of familiarity - more players know about the nuclear bombs in it already, allowing them to circumvent them before they arise. 3rd party material that most players are unfamiliar with usually requires a DM to quickly make on-the-fly decisions about legality, something, let's face it, many DMs are unwilling/uncapable of making.

Tangent: I first I read the quote as "charge" instead of "change", and wondered how kamikaze ever came about in China during that time period. :smalltongue:

[Morithias]

Although sure the XP chart doesn't flat out say you can deny XP I still stand by what I said.

Go pick up every grade x math book in existence, and do all the questions in everyone.

See how long it takes for you to learn more complex maths you don't already know. (Assume you are past grade x but not to the point that you would get no XP)

You don't learn quantum physics by doing basic math, and your wizard isn't going to learn new spells, feats, and so on, by just spamming the same game breakers over and over. He's literally doing nothing new, hence no XP.

That's why we have different levels of the school system, and don't just teach everyone 2 + 2 over and over until they know how to build a car.

Personally I think Hackmaster got it the most right, you have to actually spend time and gold training to level up. Add in World of Darkness where you get no XP from a flaw that doesn't hurt you some way in game, and combine the two, and you would probably have a pretty good counter to "I spam gate spell"

[olentu]

Although sure the XP chart doesn't flat out say you can deny XP I still stand by what I said.

Go pick up every grade x math book in existence, and do all the questions in everyone.

See how long it takes for you to learn more complex maths you don't already know. (Assume you are past grade x but not to the point that you would get no XP)

You don't learn quantum physics by doing basic math, and your wizard isn't going to learn new spells, feats, and so on, by just spamming the same game breakers over and over. He's literally doing nothing new, hence no XP.

That's why we have different levels of the school system, and don't just teach everyone 2 + 2 over and over until they know how to build a car.

Personally I think Hackmaster got it the most right, you have to actually spend time and gold training to level up. Add in World of Darkness where you get no XP from a flaw that doesn't hurt you some way in game, and combine the two, and you would probably have a pretty good counter to "I spam gate spell"

That is going to be rather hard on the fighter since he gets no XP for doing the same actions and considering the limited number of actions that can be taken the fighter is going to be stuck gaining no XP rather fast.

[Morithias]

That is going to be rather hard on the fighter since he gets no XP for doing the same actions and considering the limited number of actions that can be taken the fighter is going to be stuck gaining no XP rather fast.

But the fighter is not based on his book knowledge, but rather his physical training. That's the difference, although doing 2 + 2 won't grant you quantum knowledge, running on a treadmile or lifting weights that are the same weight (although doing it for longer in both cases normally) will make you stronger, faster, etc.

To put it bluntly, knowledge doesn't stack, physical exercise does.

[Koury]

To put it bluntly, knowledge doesn't stack, physical exercise does.

Got a quote to that effect from a book somewhere? Because if you're basing that simply on Real Life logic, well, that doesn't apply in D&D :smallbiggrin:

[DragoonWraith]

A. Practice makes you better at things, period. Yes, there is a limit to how "good" you can get at basic arithmetic, but your general statement that "knowledge doesn't stack" is wrong.

B. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that the Wizard is doing the same thing every time he casts a spell. He's practicing gestures and chants, getting that much more exact, he's varying his timing trying to perfect it so the energy coalesces at the perfect moment, whatever. He's not just blandly going "fireball.", he's manipulating the very fabric of reality. He's getting better at it through practice. Even if the spell's effect is the same.

[Zodiac]

But the fighter is not based on his book knowledge, but rather his physical training. That's the difference, although doing 2 + 2 won't grant you quantum knowledge, running on a treadmile or lifting weights that are the same weight (although doing it for longer in both cases normally) will make you stronger, faster, etc.

To put it bluntly, knowledge doesn't stack, physical exercise does.

That also isn't even RAW. Or even realistic. You may not become smarter doing 2+2 over and over again. But after doing 2+2 the first time you can move on to 2*2... and an 18 int wizard will probably go up to quantum physics in no time. On the other hand, its called experience for a reason, Fighting is just as much about timing and reading an opponent's movements as it is hitting something hard with a sword, and gaining experience partially represents that ability gained (through gaining BAB). So no, a fighter would gain no experience through that logic. But this is starting to get off topic.

On topic: the problem is that a wizard has very easily renewable resources and honestly, because of bonus spells odds are a fighter will run out hp before the wizard runs out of spells, so even in endurance, where the fighter is supposed to have an edge, the wizard comes out ahead.

[Gametime]

Heck, if we're going to try to justify the effects of experience, we might as well start with why killing things make you tougher regardless of whether you ever got hit, or why you can get better at picking locks and identifying plants by stabbing orcs.

Preventing wizards from gaining experience when they use the same (working) tactics is a pretty crude way to solve the problem. It has some connections to common sense, but it raises even more questions.


Or you could be daring. As Sun Tzu said, "When you can go no further in one direction, change."



Tome of Battle is not the only, nor the best, way to fix melee using the d20 system. I stand by my position that no single book offers a more concrete return on your investment if you seek to fix melee, both in the number of solid options it offers and in the number of ideas it inspires.

[Yuki Akuma]

Tangent: I first I read the quote as "charge" instead of "change", and wondered how kamikaze ever came about in China during that time period. :smalltongue:

...It didn't.

For one thing, "kamikaze" is a Japanese word referring specifically to suicide pilots...


Preventing wizards from gaining experience when they use the same (working) tactics is a pretty crude way to solve the problem. It has some connections to common sense

Nope.

If you do the same thing over and over again, you get better at it.

"Practice makes perfect" isn't just a droll phrase repeated incessantly by mothers and teachers - it is literally how the brain works. The brain draws on past experiences for everything it does - physical exercise, mental arithmetic, making sense of what it sees...

Unfortunately, D&D doesn't cover only getting better at one thing, so to show the fruits of practice (experience), you need to get better at lots of other things.

One assumes characters practice everything else 'off-screen'.

[Psyx]

Wizards are spoken of as God-level characters -- is this a bad thing? Is this a flaw in the system, and if so, how do you handle it? Are there any responses to the mage that don't completely nerf the class?

Any input is welcome.

Part of the problem with the system is that people look straight to high level play and to dealing with a very low number of encounters per day, or a duel situation. Yes: A 20th level wizard makes other stuff look puny. Duh!

Now I don't know about you, but I've never bothered playing 3.5 above level 17, and most campaigns have already stopped by around 12-15. And most of the core of the campaign was around 5-8. The idea that wizards and druids dominate the game before 5th level is contemptible. Indeed: They suck. And you die. Lots.

If you run the game until about 12th level things are fine. If you want to run higher than 15th level, then the game just doesn't work well enough on so many levels. So Play Psion or a Superheroes game or something where high level play is supposed to be silly.

[Yuki Akuma]

The Wizard can win entire encounters on his own at level one. By level five he's better than anyone else who isn't tier 1. Whoever said Wizards are only good at level twenty?

[Psyx]

For one thing, "kamikaze" is a Japanese word referring specifically to suicide pilots...



*cough* Actually it refers to the the storms - the divine wind (it's literal translation) - that 'saved' Japan from Mongol invasion a few centuries before anyone thought of aeroplanes. The WW2 military structure just seized use of the word to romanticise and glamorise was was essentially suicide bombing.

[Psyx]

The Wizard can win entire encounters on his own at level one. By level five he's better than anyone else who isn't tier 1. Whoever said Wizards are only good at level twenty?

She can win a couple encounters a day at level one if she wins initiative, everything fails a saving throw and if nothing manages to hit her. A fighter can also win a couple encounters a day at level one if they win initiative and crit someone. I don't know about you, but my GMs don't let me get away with one encounter per day against stuff that has bad saves versus 'sleep'.

Nobody said wizards are only good at level 20.

[Koury]

She can win a couple encounters a day at level one if she wins initiative, everything fails a saving throw and if nothing manages to hit her. A fighter can also win a couple encounters a day at level one if they win initiative and crit someone. I don't know about you, but my GMs don't let me get away with one encounter per day against stuff that has bad saves versus 'sleep'.

Who said one encounter per day? The game assumes four per day on average.
An encounter with an Encounter Level (EL) equal to the PCs’ level is one that should expend about 20% of their resources—hit points, spells, magic item uses, and so on. This means, on average, that after about four encounters of the party’s level the PCs need to rest, heal, and regain spells. A fifth encounter would probably wipe them out.

Low levels (as in, 1-3) is the only time you reasonably have to worry about running out of spells in a day. And with just some basic work, not even then.

[ghost_warlock]

She can win a couple encounters a day at level one if she wins initiative, everything fails a saving throw and if nothing manages to hit her. A fighter can also win a couple encounters a day at level one if they win initiative and crit someone. I don't know about you, but my GMs don't let me get away with one encounter per day against stuff that has bad saves versus 'sleep'.

Nobody said wizards are only good at level 20.

Technically it's not just sleep that's a potential encounter-winner. Color spray and grease are also potential win buttons. Similarly, animate rope and ray of enfeeblement can cripple a single opponent. Obscuring mist, charm person, and silent image can bypass a combat altogether.

[Yuki Akuma]

A Wizard can get five spells per day at level one easily. If she only needs one spell to end an encounter, how is she going to run out if there are only four encounters in a day?

[Koury]

A Wizard can get five spells per day at level one easily. If she only needs one spell to end an encounter, how is she going to run out if there are only four encounters in a day?

If this was to me, I agree with you. Focused Specialist with 20 Int (5 spells at level 1, as you said) is pretty standard, in my opinion.

I just try to base my arguments on core when possible. I honestly don't know why.

[Psyx]

Technically it's not just sleep that's a potential encounter-winner. Color spray and grease are also potential win buttons. Similarly, animate rope and ray of enfeeblement can cripple a single opponent. Obscuring mist, charm person, and silent image can bypass a combat altogether.

A low level mage still spends most of their time sitting on their hands unless they have a reserve feat - which most 'optimised' builds ignore in the eventual aim of building something grimmer later on in levels. And one hit still lays a low level caster low. Isn't colour spray also mind affecting, or am I imagining that? I dropped illusion anyway... And as regards Sleep; almost everyone also drops Enchantment, too.



If she only needs one spell to end an encounter, how is she going to run out if there are only four encounters in a day?

One spell does not end every encounter at low level. Not even close. At these levels the mage is more of an 'in case of emergency; use wizard' type character. Having just spent over a year getting one up to 9th level, I can say with a level of certainty that getting to be that powerful was not a walk in the park, and did not involve me dominating every fight since level one.

[DarkEternal]

Wizards are overpowered, that much is certain. The only good thing is that there are beasties that nullify their spells completely. I remember there being one monstrosity that, when it grapples you(and it will grapple you because it has a huge grappling modifier) it absorbs magic for one, and for second it makes it impossible to cast while in grapple, it's it's special ability or something, like it has an antimagic field or something in it's tentacles.

Also, just last night we fought some diamond golems. In the description it said that they were immune to all magic, every single one(meaning even those that did not require saving throws), with the exception of Shatter and Imprisonment. Now, one could argue that a "well prepared" mage would have those two spells, but really, Shatter and Imprisonment do not jump to mind as spells that mages would usually have prepared on them at all time. Also, said golems had Damage Resistance 30/Adamantine and magic so even a buffed out fighter and cleric couldn't do much to them since people usually forget to remember spells that change their weapon type to adamantium. So who brought the beast down? A lowly ranger with the Quiver of energy. All of the damage came from the arrows(sonic infused) special ability. It took some odd 25 rounds to defeat the pair of golems, but it was a grand battle, still.

[Koury]

Wizards are overpowered, that much is certain. The only good thing is that there are beasties that nullify their spells completely. I remember there being one monstrosity that, when it grapples you(and it will grapple you because it has a huge grappling modifier) it absorbs magic for one, and for second it makes it impossible to cast while in grapple, it's it's special ability or something, like it has an antimagic field or something in it's tentacles.

Also, just last night we fought some diamond golems. In the description it said that they were immune to all magic, every single one(meaning even those that did not require saving throws), with the exception of Shatter and Imprisonment. Now, one could argue that a "well prepared" mage would have those two spells, but really, Shatter and Imprisonment do not jump to mind as spells that mages would usually have prepared on them at all time. Also, said golems had Damage Resistance 30/Adamantine and magic so even a buffed out fighter and cleric couldn't do much to them since people usually forget to remember spells that change their weapon type to adamantium. So who brought the beast down? A lowly ranger with the Quiver of energy. All of the damage came from the arrows(sonic infused) special ability. It took some odd 25 rounds to defeat the pair of golems, but it was a grand battle, still.

Well, a mage isn't exactly helpless there. Grease should still work, for example. Wall of Iron/Stone/Force also. Things like that. I could think of more if it wasn't 4:30 AM :smallredface:

[Eldan]

Actually, magic immunity normally refers to spells which allow spell resistance. I'm not familiar with Diamond golems, but I'd think those are similar.

If not, the classical Batman Wizard is supposed to scry ahead and prepare exactly the spells he needs, which, of course, s an idealizationl

[RebelRogue]

I remember there being one monstrosity that, when it grapples you(and it will grapple you because it has a huge grappling modifier) it absorbs magic for one, and for second it makes it impossible to cast while in grapple, it's it's special ability or something, like it has an antimagic field or something in it's tentacles.
Sounds like an arcane ooze. Those are pretty nasty once they close in!

[Yuki Akuma]

Also, just last night we fought some diamond golems. In the description it said that they were immune to all magic, every single one(meaning even those that did not require saving throws), with the exception of Shatter and Imprisonment.

That's decidedly not how golem magic immunity works. Where did they come from? Golems are usually merely immune to spells that allow spell resistance - which is only about half of all spells. Hardly completely immune.

Besides, there's lots a Wizard can do without targeting a creature directly. Summons, for instance. Walls. Grease. Image spells. Use your imagination.

The only time a Wizard is nearly helpless is when he's in an anti-magic field - and even then there are spells that can break it.

[olentu]

Those sound like they are from a 3.0 book as I remember that was how the phrasing went in 3.0 before the update. And after looking around it seems they were from monsters of faerun.

However from the update booklet web enhancement (found here http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20040313a) it looks like this was a case of improper updating as it should read.

Magic Immunity (Ex): A diamond golem is immune to any spell
or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain
spells and effects function differently against the creature, as noted
in its entry.

[AslanCross]

I've stayed away from it, as one of my former DM's said it ruined fighters. Is it worth picking up?

I daresay it actually saves fighters and melee classes in general from the trap of "I swing my sword. I swing again. I don't want to bother bull-rushing him because really, I should just kill him. So I swing again."

Tome of Battle maneuver progression is tailor made for multiclassing, as half your levels in other classes stack with ToB class levels. Even better is that the Warblade's levels count as Fighter levels -2, so multiclassing the two of them is a great way to qualify for the higher-level Fighter-only feats (Weapon Supremacy, for example).

[Eldan]

It is true after a fashion... after seeing Tome of Battle classes, fighters will look boring in comparison. Not even necessarily underpowered, since they can still dish out damage, but boring.

Before it came out, it would never even occur to me to play a melee character. Even rogues and archers were somewhere in the "boring" zone. I want a character with several options in combat and the ability to actually do things out of it. So, casters, basically.

Tome of Battle at least solves the first of these two problems. Manoeuvres, stances, counters etc. at least something half-interesting to do every turn. You still don't get much out of combat utility.

[The Big Dice]

The Wizard can win entire encounters on his own at level one. By level five he's better than anyone else who isn't tier 1. Whoever said Wizards are only good at level twenty?

If you're using a battle mat, the power of low level wizards drops dramatically. Three of this forum's favourite first levels spells, Sleep, Glitterdust and Grease, only affect a 10 foot radius area.

Which means at the most they can affect twelve individuals of Medium size. If those individuals are stupid enough to be packed together like sardines in a can. In other words, those spells are good in a dungeon corridor, but the moment there's room to move, they suck.

The truth is, low level Wizards are dead meat the moment they have to make Spot or Listen checks. Fighters and Clerics are in trouble too when that happens, but their combination of better armour and better hit points gives them a chance of surviving a surprise round salvo of crossbow bolts.

[Tyndmyr]

Part of the problem with the system is that people look straight to high level play and to dealing with a very low number of encounters per day, or a duel situation. Yes: A 20th level wizard makes other stuff look puny. Duh!

Now I don't know about you, but I've never bothered playing 3.5 above level 17, and most campaigns have already stopped by around 12-15. And most of the core of the campaign was around 5-8. The idea that wizards and druids dominate the game before 5th level is contemptible. Indeed: They suck. And you die. Lots.

You can do some serious god-moding by level 12 as a wizard, if you want. It ain't hard. You can also try to avoid such problems, as many do, but that applies to any level.

And druids DO dominate often and early. It's a class that starts off good, and just keeps getting better. Granted, wildshape is a decent boost at level 6, but even before that, druid is no joke.


If you run the game until about 12th level things are fine. If you want to run higher than 15th level, then the game just doesn't work well enough on so many levels. So Play Psion or a Superheroes game or something where high level play is supposed to be silly.

Yeah, at 12th to 15th level, even a moderately played wizard can either destroy a fighter instantly head to head, or vastly outperform him as a member of a party. The same is true of the other tier 1 classes.

Balance isn't just about level 20. Level 6 is decentish, though.

[Yuki Akuma]

Granted, wildshape is a decent boost at level 6, but even before that, druid is no joke.

Wildshape comes at level five. Although you probably won't have Natural Spell until level six...

But there are ways. Oh yes, there are ways.

Edit: Although I guess you have to wait until level 6 to be in wildshape all day.

[DarkEternal]

That's decidedly not how golem magic immunity works. Where did they come from? Golems are usually merely immune to spells that allow spell resistance - which is only about half of all spells. Hardly completely immune.

Besides, there's lots a Wizard can do without targeting a creature directly. Summons, for instance. Walls. Grease. Image spells. Use your imagination.

The only time a Wizard is nearly helpless is when he's in an anti-magic field - and even then there are spells that can break it.


I'll copy it straight from the campaign(it's Anauroch: Empire of Shade)

2 Diamond GolemsMon CR 12
hp 107 each (14 HD); DR 30/adamantine and magic
N Large construct
Init +1; Senses darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision; Listen +1,
Spot +1
Languages cannot speak, understands Thoross
AC 29, touch 10, flat-footed 29
Immune Construct immunities; immunity to magic
Fort +4, Ref +5, Will +5
Weakness vulnerability to ki strike
Speed 30 ft. (6 squares); can’t run
Melee 2 slams +19 each (2d6+10)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 10 ft.
Base Atk +10; Grp +24
Atk Options targeted dispel
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 15th):
At will—true strike
3/day—sunbeam
Abilities Str 31, Dex 12, Con —, Int —, Wis 12, Cha 1
SQ construct traits, immunity to magic
Possessions At the heart of a diamond golem is a perfect
diamond worth 10,000 gp. It can only be recovered if the
golem is destroyed, in which case the golem crumbles to
dust, leaving the gemstone behind.
Targeted Dispel (Su) Any creature struck in melee by a
diamond golem’s slam attack is struck by a targeted
dispel magic effect as if cast by a 16th-level wizard.
Immunity to Magic (Ex) A diamond golem is immune to any
spell, spell-like ability, or supernatural ability except as
follows: A shatter spell affects the golem normally, as
does imprisonment. A mending spell heals the golem of all
damage.
Vulnerability to Ki (Ex) A diamond golem can be struck and
damaged by any character who possesses the ki strike
ability that monks gain at 4th level. Ki strike (magic) is
enough to overcome a diamond golem’s damage
reduction. Any ki strike attack deals an extra 1d6 points of
damage for every version of ki strike the attacker possesses.

One of the rare opportunities when a monk can shine :)

Also, that targeted dispel is awesome. Took all the buffs away from clerics in a few blows.

[Eldan]

Yup, it should refer to spell resistance spells only. If you think about it, it makes sense. No SR spells generally create a non-magical projectile or something similar. I mean, for an easy example, think of Launch Bolt: you magically fire the bolt, but the bolt itself is not magical.

[JoshuaZ]

Yup, it should refer to spell resistance spells only. If you think about it, it makes sense. No SR spells generally create a non-magical projectile or something similar. I mean, for an easy example, think of Launch Bolt: you magically fire the bolt, but the bolt itself is not magical.

Yes, with the obvious exception being the orb spells. Yeah, an orb of electricity shouldn't be magical at all...

[Zaydos]

It's not the only golem with Immunity to Magic that covers SR no and Su spells. The dragon golems in the Draconomicon also have this better version of magic immunity. Completely updated, made directly for 3.5.

[Yuki Akuma]

Yes, with the obvious exception being the orb spells. Yeah, an orb of electricity shouldn't be magical at all...

Because electricity never comes in ball for, no sir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning).

(Besides. All orb spells create acid.)

[DarkEternal]

It's not the only golem with Immunity to Magic that covers SR no and Su spells. The dragon golems in the Draconomicon also have this better version of magic immunity. Completely updated, made directly for 3.5.

Funny you should mention that, since just earlier in the adventure they faced a dragonflesh golem which did have the "Spells that allow SR" stated in it:

Dragonfl esh GolemMM2 CR 14
hp 205 (30 HD); DR 15/adamantine
N Huge construct
Init +0; Senses blindsight 150 ft., darkvision 60 ft., lowlight
vision, Listen +3, Spot +3
Aura frightful presence 30 ft.
Languages cannot speak, understands Common
AC 24, touch 7, flat-footed 24
Immune ability damage, ability drain, critical hits, death
effects, death from massive damage, disease, energy
drain, exhaustion, fatigue, magic, mind-affecting spells
and abilities (charms, compulsions, phantasms,
patterns, and morale effects), necromancy effects,
nonlethal damage, paralysis, poison, sleep effects,
stunning, any effect that requires a Fortitude save
unless it also works on objects; immunity to magic
Fort +10, Ref +9, Will +13
Speed 40 ft. (8 squares) (can’t run), fly 120 ft. (poor)
Melee bite +30 (3d6+10) and
2 claws +25 each (2d6+5) and
2 wings +25 each (1d8+5) and
tail slap +25 (2d6+15)
Space 15 ft.; Reach 10 ft. (15 ft. with bite)
Base Atk +22; Grp +40
Abilities Str 30, Dex 9, Con —, Int 4, Wis 17, Cha 17
SQ construct traits, immunity to magic
Frightful Presence (Ex) A dragonflesh golem can unsettle
foes with its mere presence. The ability takes effect
automatically whenever it attacks, charges, or flies
overhead. Creatures within 30 feet are subject to the
effect if they have fewer than 30 HD. A potentially
affected creature that succeeds on a DC 28 Will save
remains immune to that golem’s frightful presence for
24 hours. On a failure, creatures with 4 or less HD
become panicked for 4d6 rounds and those with 5 or
more HD become shaken for 4d6 rounds.
Immunity to Magic (Ex) A dragonflesh golem is immune to
any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance.
In addition, certain spells and effects function
differently against the creature, as noted below.
A magical attack that deals cold or fire damage
slows the golem (as the slow spell) for 2d6 rounds with
no saving throw.
A magical attack that deals electricity damage
breaks any slow effect on the golem and heals 1 point
of damage for every 3 points of damage the attack
would otherwise deal. A dragonflesh golem gets no
saving throw against attacks that deal electricity
damage.


It was probably a typo then, or something since the diamond golems just simply said "All magic, with the following exceptions" with no regard to SR, while the dragonflesh golem had the "All magic that allow SR".

[Zaydos]

Strange, checking the MMII dragonflesh golem has Magic Immunity that works against all spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities except fire and cold effects and electric effects which have special effects. Also has blindsight which you left out.

[olentu]

Now that I think about it I am remembering that all abilities named Immunity to Magic were overridden by the rules compendium to be immune to any spell or spell-like abilities that allow SR and the specific different effects though I would have to check to be sure.

[Yuki Akuma]

Strange, checking the MMII dragonflesh golem has Magic Immunity that works against all spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities except fire and cold effects and electric effects which have special effects. Also has blindsight which you left out.

Monster Manual 2 is 3.0e. That stat block he posted seems to be 3.5e, judging from the DR 15/Adamantine.

[Eldan]

Because electricity never comes in ball for, no sir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning).

(Besides. All orb spells create acid.)

Elecricity works. Force, however?

"It's a nonmagical ball of magical force."

[Yuki Akuma]

Elecricity works. Force, however?

"It's a nonmagical ball of magical force."

No, it's a nonmagical ball of force. Who says 'force' isn't a thing? Stranger things happen on the Great Wheel every day.

[Eldan]

Right, true. It's still silly. And seriously infringes on Evocation's right to blast. I still think spells which move non-negative, non-positive energy around should all be evocation, while Conjuration moves matter.

[Yuki Akuma]

But acid is an energy type.

But acid is matter.

Fire is an energy type too, and is composed of plasma (which is a form of matter).

Hell, everyone knows that matter and energy are really the same thing.

[Zeful]

Elecricity works. Force, however?

"It's a nonmagical ball of magical force."

It's also magically targeted and propelled, yet somehow works in an antimagic field.

The Orb of X line are some of worst designed spells in the game, right after this thing called Celerity (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Discontinutiy), and Gate.

[Eldan]

But Celerity and Gate work with the fluff. That means they are merely rule problems and I can work with them. Spells which don't work with the fluff are far worse.

And yes, yes, Acid is matter. I guess it's a kind of energy which protonates normal matter, then. There.

[Zeful]

But Celerity and Gate work with the fluff. That means they are merely rule problems and I can work with them. Spells which don't work with the fluff are far worse.

And yes, yes, Acid is matter. I guess it's a kind of energy which protonates normal matter, then. There.

Celerity pretty much makes the game rocket tag, it's one of the few things on my list of stuff that will never see play at my table, ever, right along with Collegiate Wizard and the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting.

[Psyx]

You can do some serious god-moding by level 12 as a wizard, if you want. It ain't hard. You can also try to avoid such problems, as many do, but that applies to any level.

And druids DO dominate often and early. It's a class that starts off good, and just keeps getting better. Granted, wildshape is a decent boost at level 6, but even before that, druid is no joke.


I don't begrudge wizards being awesome by level 12. It makes up for those early levels of being useful a fairly limited number of times per day and potentially getting pulversied by anything that melees them.

Druids don't really kick in hard until wildshape. But they are enormously solid up until then, still. Although a lot of utility goes out the window if playing in the 'wrong' setting. But we weren't discussing druids by OP.

[Eldan]

Well, at level one, a wolf companion is a pretty solid melee fighter. A little low AC, but pretty good HP and offence. Also, very fast compared to a humanoid. And the druid has that included.

Wizards can't work alone on the low levels, but with the right spells, they can still make encounters a lot easier. Sleep can still remove a low-level boss monster on a lucky roll.

[Psyx]

But then so can a crit with a battleaxe, or a good sneak attack. The wizard isn't overpowered when facing the range of low-level monsters that can also be 'one shotted' with conventional attacks.

[SigCorps]

Agreed that Wizards are not the issue but munchkins are.

Though the problem is Wizards are so versatile it is hard not to have those spells that can and will break an encounter. Personally I am working on some home brew rules for the tier 1 and 2 characters. It mainly comes down to editing spells (alot of them) and having the wizards specialize.

Most of the spells cans can be fixed by making their casting time something other then a standard action. For example teleport, give it a 10 minute casting time and a focus of some sort. Although there are still some spells that just need to go, like wish.

I currently just play and E6 game till I can get these rules in place. There are also a few clases that need to be raised up a bit. Trying to get all, or at least the ones I allow, the classes to the tier 4/3 area is going to be a long road.

[Eldan]

But then so can a crit with a battleaxe, or a good sneak attack. The wizard isn't overpowered when facing the range of low-level monsters that can also be 'one shotted' with conventional attacks.

I didn't mean overpowered, really. More like "still able to contribute". Which is how it should be, really. It's why I DM at low levels and play at high :smalltongue:

[Yuki Akuma]

...Why would you say Wish is overpowered? If anything, it seems to be about right for a ninth-level spell.

Gate, on the other hand...

[The Big Dice]

...Why would you say Wish is overpowered? If anything, it seems to be about right for a ninth-level spell.

Gate, on the other hand...

Gate isn't the problem. People assuming that extra planar beings are just a stat block with abilities rather than a unique entity, on the other hand...

[SigCorps]

Since it can acomplish anything...it can be game breaking. That and I have never actually seen anyone use it. Most of the spells are going to become rituals. Take more time to cast and that seems to "fix" alot of the issues with those high power spells. Though your attack spells are mainly fine, damage output my need to be tweaked. I do agree with gate, extending the casting time and adding a few material componets balances it out. It's a summoning so a circle and protective wards would need to be used...those take time and materials to complete. Not to mention the battle of wills / negotiations that would take place when the being arrives.

[Yuki Akuma]

Wizards can only prepare so many Wishes - and Wish cannot under any circumstances imitate any other ninth-level spells, so he's not going to want to fill his slots with it.

And Wish very specifically cannot do "anything". It has a list of options, and trying to get something better is explicitly spelled out as inviting your DM to screw you over.

And it doesn't matter whether or not the Solar you gated in is just a stat block or a unique individual - for one round per level you can order him to use any of his abilities, and he doesn't get a say.

If you want it to stay for longer? That's what mind control is for.

Edit: And even if the DM doesn't let that fly (for some reason), you can always pay him to use the SLAs. You're a Wizard capable of casting 9th level spells. You have a lot of money and power at your disposal.

[JoshuaZ]

Elecricity works. Force, however?

"It's a nonmagical ball of magical force."

Except electricity doesn't work like that. But yes, I agree that force makes even less sense.

[2xMachina]

For me, Orb or Force is a blob of matter that flies really fast. Getting hit by one is like getting punched.

[BeholderSlayer]

It's magic, and it's a fantasy setting. Real world physics need not apply. Think of the catgirls!

[Greenish]

For me, Orb or Force is a blob of matter that flies really fast. Getting hit by one is like getting punched by Newton!Fixed that for you. :smalltongue:

[Terumitsu]

And it doesn't matter whether or not the Solar you gated in is just a stat block or a unique individual - for one round per level you can order him to use any of his abilities, and he doesn't get a say.


It states in the spell description that unique beings don't have to answer to the call and that if it is used as a CALLING spell, there is still the XP cost to consider reguardles of if they come through or not. That, and any proper DM would rule that mindcontrolling a Solar or other angelic being would definitely earn the ire of said being's buddies.

Note: I might be thinking of something else but... Calling effects are different than just regular ol' summoning. As such, they keep their minds rather than being controlled by the caster...

But I didn't come here to be all nitpicky and I'm sorry if I was.. I'm sure many of us know the urge to make sure that given information is correct..

Anyway, The way I see it, yes casters are powerful but the fun of the game is not inherently due to if your character can turn the moon to some cheese/adamantine mixture on a whim or whatever. In my many games, I've found that my players, be they munchkinly or not, find that it is more fun to play the game as a person with people rather than a bunch of numbers. Because although it can be fun to come up with a hypothetical super death combination there is very little fun in it's application. Unless it is well applied and everyone can get a kick out of it.

I'd tell you my friend's story of the Lightning Gun that his fighter came up with (He likes playing smart fighters) that managed to one-hit a red dragon. Really, all that story shows is that it is not the class but player inginuity that is the reall factor here..

But I think such has been said already.

Anyway, I guess what I am trying to say is that balance is ultimately based on How we play the game rather than a series of numbers and figures. Besides, the dice might hate you one day and love you the next. It's all part of the game.

[Greenish]

Anyway, I guess what I am trying to say is that balance is ultimately based on How we play the game rather than a series of numbers and figures.But "numbers and figures" do play a part. (Otherwise, why even bother with them?)

[Terumitsu]

You make a silly point with that particular quote. Your question is answered by the very quote you took!

Numbers and figures are a PART of the game. Not ALL of it.

It is who is applying them, how, for what reason, and so on is the ultimate determinator is what i was getting at.

Also: My two bits on the force thingy... I've always thought that Force was just a nifty name for suddenly imparting kenetic energy on an object. Though why some spells only work on critters and not objects is beyond me...

Well.... Actually.. If that is true, then perhaps as solid objects have less fluid components (Like us squishy humans) then our differentiating consistancy makes us more apt to take damage rather than something with uniform consistancy...

Anyway, just a thought.

[Greenish]

You make a silly point with that particular quote. Your question is answered by the very quote you took!My question was a rhetorical one (not that the quote would answer it).


Numbers and figures are a PART of the game. Not ALL of it.Balance, I believe we were talking of. Though it does appear our definitions of it differ, it seems.

The game can be fun, it can be rewarding, but balanced it is not.

[Terumitsu]

I suppose my subconcious pressures on knowing what I intended with that phrase influenced my responce there. Sorry if that caused any undue confusion by not granting a more proper answer. If you feel I should reiterate in a fasion more condusive for understanding, please tell me and I will gladly do so.

Also, my definition of balance means that it is the players who are responsible as much as, if not moreso, than the numbers. It is how you play with what you have.

But heck. If we can both agree that it's a fun game despite all it's flaws, then I'd say that's a pretty nice common ground to stop at. Cause that's really all that matters.

[SigCorps]

Wizards can only prepare so many Wishes - and Wish cannot under any circumstances imitate any other ninth-level spells, so he's not going to want to fill his slots with it.

And Wish very specifically cannot do "anything". It has a list of options, and trying to get something better is explicitly spelled out as inviting your DM to screw you over.


Seems to me you reall like this spell. Yes while it can not "do anything" it can do enough to break a campaign. Can the DM over ride it, ofcourse, but to me, this is a case of prevention. Yes it is a fantasy setting and magic is very powerful, but when a class can dominate the whole game and detract from the fun of the rest of the party. it is broken. Do most of my players aviod doing this, aye. Do I have on occasion the munchkin who wants to dominate becasue he/she can, aye. So prevention is the word of the day.

Wish is just one spell and one that, in my mind, needs to go. I would rather acomplish what the spell can with RP and plot.

Remember I am trying to bring the classes into balance, bring the upper tiers down and the lower teirs up. The former being the easier of the two. While alot of folks just say stick to E6, I would still like to play those "Epic" campaigns and still have even the fighter useful and not have every situation dominated by one or two character classes.

[true_shinken]

For one thing, "kamikaze" is a Japanese word referring specifically to suicide pilots...

Not at all. The word kamikaze (divine wind) was first used to designate the typhoons that dispersed the mongolian invasion ships in the late 1200s.
The actual suicide attacks were called shinpu, using the other reading of the kanji for divine wind. Kamikaze is a mistranslation.

[BeholderSlayer]

I really don't understand why Wish is so popular on this board as an iconic overpowered spell. Is it open ended? Yes. That doesn't mean it's overpowered when used based on the rules presented in the spell (and often isn't worth it to do so).

Right now I'm doing some work on a particular wizard build, and at ECL 20 I've been able to get caster level up to 163 and have something stupid like 250+ ninth level spells memorized as 20th level spells. This is why wizards are so overpowered (but even playing an normal wizard without tricks, using the good spells, you are vastly more powerful than a melee class).

granted the above wizard build would never be allowed in an actual gaming session. I've been working on it for fun trying to see how many caster levels I can pack into it.

[Tyndmyr]

Im curious to see this build.

I'm highly suspicious that tainted casting is involved.

[RebelRogue]

I really don't understand why Wish is so popular on this board as an iconic overpowered spell. Is it open ended? Yes. That doesn't mean it's overpowered when used based on the rules presented in the spell (and often isn't worth it to do so).

Right now I'm doing some work on a particular wizard build, and at ECL 20 I've been able to get caster level up to 163 and have something stupid like 250+ ninth level spells memorized as 20th level spells. This is why wizards are so overpowered (but even playing an normal wizard without tricks, using the good spells, you are vastly more powerful than a melee class).

granted the above wizard build would never be allowed in an actual gaming session. I've been working on it for fun trying to see how many caster levels I can pack into it.
It isn't so bad, really, unless you can get it as a SLA to avoid the XP cost.

[SigCorps]

I really don't understand why Wish is so popular on this board as an iconic overpowered spell. Is it open ended? Yes. That doesn't mean it's overpowered when used based on the rules presented in the spell (and often isn't worth it to do so).


Aye I agree, and since I have never seen it use in my 21 years of playing, it's no big deal to drop it. Maybe because it is one of the iconic spells that it gets picked on. It's just the one that popped into my head during this conversation.

Lets take another example, Druids being able to cast spells while shapeshifted. Elliinate 1 feat and thats gone. As for packing in all those caster levels, that highlights how some areas of this game are broken.

[Malakar]

If you're using a battle mat, the power of low level wizards drops dramatically. Three of this forum's favourite first levels spells, Sleep, Glitterdust and Grease, only affect a 10 foot radius area.

Which means at the most they can affect twelve individuals of Medium size. If those individuals are stupid enough to be packed together like sardines in a can. In other words, those spells are good in a dungeon corridor, but the moment there's room to move, they suck.

??

So? All you need is to hit 1-2 enemies, and you win the fight.

I mean, sure if my Wizard at level one is facing 4 kobolds with the rest of the party, I'm not going to use Color Spray if they are spread out.

But since I have a +3-4 attack with a Crossbow that kills one in one hit, who cares? If you are facing something actually tough that can hit you back, like an Ogre, or two Battle Axe Orcs, then the fact that I can drop the whole encounter in a single round is impressive.


The truth is, low level Wizards are dead meat the moment they have to make Spot or Listen checks. Fighters and Clerics are in trouble too when that happens, but their combination of better armour and better hit points gives them a chance of surviving a surprise round salvo of crossbow bolts.

Let's see:

Level 1 (Gray) Elven Wizard with 8 Wis making a spot check: +5.
Level 1 Halfling Rogue with 8 Wisdom making Spot check: +3.
Level 1 Orc Fighter: -1.
Level 1 Human Druid: +8.
Level 1 Human Cleric: +3.

If a Wizard is bad at who, counts as good? I mean, besides the Druid.

And how does that Armor protect Fighters against amubushes from Color Spraying Wizards?

Oh right, it doesn't.


Aye I agree, and since I have never seen it use in my 21 years of playing, it's no big deal to drop it. Maybe because it is one of the iconic spells that it gets picked on. It's just the one that popped into my head during this conversation.

I agree that Wish as a spell isn't a problem. It's Planar Binding used to get a Wish SLA that gives you a Rod of Wishes that is the problem.


Lets take another example, Druids being able to cast spells while shapeshifted. Elliinate 1 feat and thats gone. As for packing in all those caster levels, that highlights how some areas of this game are broken.

Yeah, and Fighters are so weak that no one can play them because of that houserule that all fighters instantly die the second you right the word Fighter on your character sheet.

A houserule is a houserule. To say that "Druids casting spells while Wildshaped is not a problem if you just change the rules so that they can't cast spells while Wildshaped." is exactly the same as saying "Druids casting spells while Wildshaped is a huge problem, so big that I literally can't play the game with them doing that."

[Gametime]

If you do the same thing over and over again, you get better at it.

Sure, but that raises the question of why we need to be affecting creatures with the spell. Why not just use the spell over and over at home? Set up an hourglass and time yourself, if speed needs to be a consideration. Have your fighter buddy spar you with blunted weaponry, if threats need to be a consideration. Why is mortal peril a necessity?

The experience system is an abstraction. Making changes to it based on what seems to "make sense" is well-intentioned, but a poor idea in practice because of all the other issues it raises. Making changes to it based on a nebulous idea of untested balance and then retroactively justifying it with what "makes sense" is just asking for trouble.

(To clarify, I am very much against preventing wizards from gaining experience like every other class. I just think I see where the impulse to do it comes from.)


Because electricity never comes in ball for, no sir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning).

(Besides. All orb spells create acid.)

My problem is less with the orb spells in a vacuum and more with what they imply about spells like Fireball and Lightning Bolt. You're telling me that Orb of Lightning involves summoning up a ball of real lightning and aiming it at someone, but Lightning Bolt involves evoking up a line of not-real lightning and aiming it at someone? :smallconfused:

[Tyndmyr]

Replace the word "real" with "magical", and you are correct.

In the world of D&D, magic IS real.

[Gametime]

Replace the word "real" with "magical", and you are correct.

In the world of D&D, magic IS real.

Well, yeah, but what exactly is Lightning Bolt, then? What makes it a bolt of magical lightning? Why is it different from mundane lightning? How it is even possible to get enough fire for an Orb of Fire, considering mundane fire isn't supposed to deal that much damage all in one go?

Really, the Orb spells have few detrimental effects on gameplay, but their implications for the way magic works in the setting are bizarre.

[Tyndmyr]

It's magical lightning that's being created all the way along the line.

The orb of electricity is magical lightning created in your hand, then shoved in a direction. This sort of thing is actually not unheard of in fantasy. It's basically how wizard's fire in the sword of truth series worked, for instance. The other kind also has justifications. D&D 3.5 embraces both options.

[BeholderSlayer]

As for packing in all those caster levels, that highlights how some areas of this game are broken.

For what it's worth, I've already worked out getting the character a caster level of 259 since my last post.

[Zaydos]

??

Let's see:

Level 1 (Gray) Elven Wizard with 8 Wis making a spot check: +5.
Level 1 Halfling Rogue with 8 Wisdom making Spot check: +3.
Level 1 Orc Fighter: -1.
Level 1 Human Druid: +8.
Level 1 Human Cleric: +3.

If a Wizard is bad at who, counts as good? I mean, besides the Druid.



How did the elf wizard get a +5 spot check at Lv 1 with -1 Wis? Max ranks is 2, +2 racial, and then -1 Wis. Even assuming they invested ranks in it they should only have a +3.

[BeholderSlayer]

How did the elf wizard get a +5 spot check at Lv 1 with -1 Wis? Max ranks is 2, +2 racial, and then -1 Wis. Even assuming they invested ranks in it they should only have a +3.

2 ranks + 2 bonus for being an elf - 1 wisdom +2 alertness for familiar = 5

[SigCorps]

For what it's worth, I've already worked out getting the character a caster level of 259 since my last post.

Thats just sickening and funny. My point is being able to play at the higher levels ( read 13+ ) and having everyone being able to contribute with no one class being able to donimate every encounter. With 3.5 that means house rules.

Some folks do not care that much about it, which is their prerogative. Myself I have seen and played with folks who want to min max everything, so I create house rules to fix those holes I have found. Bringing balance to all the classes is a tall order, doable though. Some folks will not agree with my way of doing things, so be it.

[The Big Dice]

Some folks do not care that much about it, which is their prerogative. Myself I have seen and played with folks who want to min max everything, so I create house rules to fix those holes I have found. Bringing balance to all the classes is a tall order, doable though. Some folks will not agree with my way of doing things, so be it.
My way of dealing with those kind of people is to tell them, if you can do it, so can the NPCs. If it's a ridiculously powerful option, word is GOING to get out and other people are GOING to start doing the same sort of thing. To you.

And if that doesn't get people to tone it down, take their sheets, copy them. Change the names and Alignments, then hit the party with themselves doing exactly the kinds of things they've been doing.

Players usually only need that doing to them once in their playing career.

[Yuki Akuma]

Well, yeah, but what exactly is Lightning Bolt, then? What makes it a bolt of magical lightning? Why is it different from mundane lightning? How it is even possible to get enough fire for an Orb of Fire, considering mundane fire isn't supposed to deal that much damage all in one go?

Really, the Orb spells have few detrimental effects on gameplay, but their implications for the way magic works in the setting are bizarre.

Evocation draws energy from the Elemental Planes - when a Wizard casts Lightning Bolt, he's drawing elemental Electrical energy from the Plane of Air. If magic doesn't work, the planar pathway isn't there, so nothing happens.

Conjuration (Creation) makes things out of magic. The things they make, however, are Material things (as in, of the Material Plane), and aren't in and of themselves magical. The spell won't work in an area where magic doesn't work, but their effects will - because their effects aren't magical.

[SigCorps]

@ The Big Dice - Aye that works also, my main problem is I am a problem solver. If I see something broken I have to try to fix it, so off I go on class balancing. Gives me something to do when I am not doing one of the other 4000 things I am working on.

A lot of what I see here on the boards is fixing one class, usually by beefing it up. Thats great for the one class but there is still so much more wrong. While most of it is tweaking, abiet a lot of tweaks, it will not be that hard. It's just a big task. Moving a bit of spell casting times about, eliminating a few things here and here, adding a few others, heck fighters are going to be the hardest. By toning down your tier 1s and 2s it changes the game enough that your tier 3's-5 gain a bunch.

[BeholderSlayer]

Evocation draws energy from the Elemental Planes - when a Wizard casts Lightning Bolt, he's drawing elemental Electrical energy from the Plane of Air. If magic doesn't work, the planar pathway isn't there, so nothing happens.

Conjuration (Creation) makes things out of magic. The things they make, however, are Material things (as in, of the Material Plane), and aren't in and of themselves magical. The spell won't work in an area where magic doesn't work, but their effects will - because their effects aren't magical.

I was under the impression Evocation "creates" energy from nothing. So, since the energy was magically created, once it enters an AMF it is "uncreated" as it is of itself magical.

Conjuration, on the other hand, transfers material/energy from one place to another. For support for this, look at teleport, then look at the school. An Orb of Fire is magically transported from a place on the plane of fire to another place (your hand). Once projected, it is not magical fire because it is REAL fire that has been transported from the Plane of Fire. Spells like Stinking Cloud "borrow" noxious vapors from other places. Glitterdust "borrows" its constituent particles from various planes/places.

Since Evocation is literally creating something from nothing, it falls apart once the magic is removed.

Spells of the "creation" type, such as Minor and Major Creation, borrow the constituent particles from other planes and your magic binds them in the shape that you select.

[Gametime]

It's magical lightning that's being created all the way along the line.

The orb of electricity is magical lightning created in your hand, then shoved in a direction. This sort of thing is actually not unheard of in fantasy. It's basically how wizard's fire in the sword of truth series worked, for instance. The other kind also has justifications. D&D 3.5 embraces both options.

No, the Orb of Electricity is completely mundane lightning being conjured to your hand, then shoved in a direction. If it was magical, it would be vulnerable to spell resistance, just like the magical lightning of Lightning Bolt, and if it wasn't conjured but instead magically created energy, it should be an evocation spell.

For that matter, both spells work differently from Call Lightning and Call Lightning Storm, which are evocation spells vulnerable to spell resistance (indicating a creation of magical energy), but can be empowered by local stormy conditions (implying that if the lightning itself isn't mundane, mundane conditions for lightning still make it stronger). Bwuh?

The last objection, at least, is easily explained away by the fact that the universe loves a good dark and stormy night, since it really sets the tone for this sort of spellcasting, but it doesn't change the fact that Orb of Electricity is an outlier in what is already a pretty poorly-defined subset of spells.


Evocation draws energy from the Elemental Planes - when a Wizard casts Lightning Bolt, he's drawing elemental Electrical energy from the Plane of Air. If magic doesn't work, the planar pathway isn't there, so nothing happens.

Conjuration (Creation) makes things out of magic. The things they make, however, are Material things (as in, of the Material Plane), and aren't in and of themselves magical. The spell won't work in an area where magic doesn't work, but their effects will - because their effects aren't magical.

Fair enough. I'm still not sure why Conjuration-created fire can burn several times hotter than the hottest fire ever without the fire being considered magical, post-creation, or why mundane weather conditions impact the mage's ability to open a planar pathway to the Elemental Plane of Air*.

*Remember when lightning was a demielemental plane? And when there were quasielemental planes of things like dust and salt? Good times, good times.

[Tyndmyr]

My way of dealing with those kind of people is to tell them, if you can do it, so can the NPCs. If it's a ridiculously powerful option, word is GOING to get out and other people are GOING to start doing the same sort of thing. To you.

And if that doesn't get people to tone it down, take their sheets, copy them. Change the names and Alignments, then hit the party with themselves doing exactly the kinds of things they've been doing.

Players usually only need that doing to them once in their playing career.

{{scrubbed}}

[Yuki Akuma]

why mundane weather conditions impact the mage's ability to open a planar pathway to the Elemental Plane of Air*.

For the same reasons that portals to the Elemental Plane of Fire naturally open inside volcanoes.


I was under the impression Evocation "creates" energy from nothing.

evoke –verb (used with object), e·voked, e·vok·ing.
1.
to call up or produce (memories, feelings, etc.): to evoke a memory.
2.
to elicit or draw forth: His comment evoked protests from the shocked listeners.
3.
to call up; cause to appear; summon: to evoke a spirit from the dead.
4.
to produce or suggest through artistry and imagination a vivid impression of reality: a short passage that manages to evoke the smells, colors, sounds, and shapes of that metropolis.

The third definition is what I'm working from here.

[Tyndmyr]

Fair enough. I'm still not sure why Conjuration-created fire can burn several times hotter than the hottest fire ever without the fire being considered magical, post-creation

Technically, immersion in lava is 20d6 damage, and that's non magical. Orb of Fire caps out at significantly less than that.

Now, there ARE plenty of ways to make conjuration do just that, though, so the puzzlement remains. Then we have searing spell, which, according to the fluff, works by making your spells even hotter!, thus ignoring resistances, and even burning through immunity, allowing you to burn fire elementals to death with fire.

Why this is so is an exercise left to the reader.

[Yuki Akuma]

Well, fire elementals have substance to them, unlike actual fire - so you just burn them so hot that whatever substance they're made of gets damaged?

[Gametime]

Technically, immersion in lava is 20d6 damage, and that's non magical. Orb of Fire caps out at significantly less than that.



That's total immersion. I don't think having a ball of fire thrown at you would quality as "immersing" you in it; it seems more like exposure, which is only 2d6 damage for lava.

[BeholderSlayer]

evoke –verb (used with object), e·voked, e·vok·ing.
1.
to call up or produce (memories, feelings, etc.): to evoke a memory.
2.
to elicit or draw forth: His comment evoked protests from the shocked listeners.
3.
to call up; cause to appear; summon: to evoke a spirit from the dead.
4.
to produce or suggest through artistry and imagination a vivid impression of reality: a short passage that manages to evoke the smells, colors, sounds, and shapes of that metropolis.

The third definition is what I'm working from here.

Not to belittle your efforts, but words don't mean the same in D&D as they do in the dictionary.



Evocation spells manipulate energy or tap an unseen source of
power to produce a desired end. In effect, they create something out
of nothing. Many of these spells produce spectacular effects, and
evocation spells can deal large amounts of damage. Representative
spells include magic missile, fireball, and lightning bolt.

PS to SigCorps - caster level 272

[Koury]

PS to SigCorps - caster level 272

Let me know if you get over 9000! Then we'll see about you constructing your very own Neutronium Golem. :smallamused:

[BeholderSlayer]

Let me know if you get over 9000! Then we'll see about you constructing your very own Neutronium Golem. :smallamused:

Who needs to construct them when you can gate them and control them over 250 times per rest? :smallbiggrin:

[Zeful]

Technically, immersion in lava is 20d6 damage, and that's non magical. Orb of Fire caps out at significantly less than that.

That's total immersion in the substance, and it burns so bad that you continue to take 10d6 damage for three rounds after being immersed. Simple exposure to lava deals 2d6 damage a round and then 1d6 a round for three rounds afterwards. Normal mundane fire only deals 1d6 a round for only one round unless it sets you on fire and then it lasts until you manage to put it out.

Orb of fire creates a self-coherent ball of totally mundane acid fire, that somehow is more powerful than actual fire, but less powerful than lava. Then there's the fact that it's still a ball, and that using it somehow justifies a touch attack over a regular attack roll, but still doesn't qualify as an evocation.

This is why I can't take the spell line seriously.

[Yuki Akuma]

Orb of X (except Force) spells really do create orbs of acid. Just orbs of acid that deal cold, fire, electricity and sonic damage.

Really, says so right in the spell descriptions.

[Zeful]

Orb of X (except Force) spells really do create orbs of acid. Just orbs of acid that deal cold, fire, electricity and sonic damage.

Really, says so right in the spell descriptions.

Which is worse. Also I noted such in my post.

The Orb of X spells break the rules of the conjuration school if you analyze the effects, thus they shouldn't be conjuration.

[BeholderSlayer]

Which is worse. Also I noted such in my post.

The Orb of X spells break the rules of the conjuration school if you analyze the effects, thus they shouldn't be conjuration.

How do they break the rules of Conjuration? I'm sure I could fluff-explain away all the orb spells based on the rules of the conjuration school.

[Zeful]

How do they break the rules of Conjuration? I'm sure I could fluff-explain away all the orb spells based on the rules of the conjuration school.

You probably could, as have others, and quite frankly I couldn't care less. No amount of fluff can change my opinion or my rulings on the subject.

The ball is supposed to be non-magical, but has to rely on magic to some degree or else it should be a cone (given that it's creating a liquid), but it interacts normally with AMFs. Further conjured acid should behave as the acid hazard which only deals 2d6 damage for exposure but it doesn't.

[Koury]

Further conjured acid should behave as the acid hazard which only deals 2d6 damage for exposure but it doesn't.

:smallconfused: Yes, there is clearly only one possible strength of acid. It's not as if fire spells do different amounts of damage from mundane fire, after all.

[BeholderSlayer]

You probably could, as have others, and quite frankly I couldn't care less. No amount of fluff can change my opinion or my rulings on the subject.

The ball is supposed to be non-magical, but has to rely on magic to some degree or else it should be a cone (given that it's creating a liquid), but it interacts normally with AMFs. Further conjured acid should behave as the acid hazard which only deals 2d6 damage for exposure but it doesn't.

More trying to apply real-world physics to magic?

Think of the catgirls, I implore you!

Pretending like the Orb line somehow breaks the game is silly. They are still direct damage spells, and hence are incredibly weak.

[Zeful]

:smallconfused: Yes, there is clearly only one possible strength of acid. It's not as if fire spells do different amounts of damage from mundane fire, after all.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Most fire spells are evocation where it's firmly magic. Conjuration makes real objects that don't fit the reality of the game, in which, yes there only is one strength of acid.


More trying to apply real-world physics to magic?

Think of the catgirls, I implore you!

Pretending like the Orb line somehow breaks the game is silly. They are still direct damage spells, and hence are incredibly weak.

No, it's applying this thing called logic. What it does does not fit with it's own description.

[BeholderSlayer]

No, it's applying this thing called logic. What it does does not fit with it's own description.

Yes it does. You can repeat it over and over, but that doesn't make your claim more true. That requires evidence (and no, invoking real-world physics is not evidence).

[Koury]

You are comparing apples to oranges. Most fire spells are evocation where it's firmly magic. Conjuration makes real objects that don't fit the reality of the game, in which, yes there only is one strength of acid.

I'll be sure to remind my players to roll for damage if they ever encounter a bottle of vinegar then. Pelor help them if they choose to eat something like a lemon. All mundane acid does 2d6 damage, after all.

[RebelRogue]

I'll be sure to remind my players to roll for damage if they ever encounter a bottle of vinegar then. Pelor help them if they choose to eat something like a lemon. All mundane acid does 2d6 damage, after all.
Or you know, just plain ol' beer :smalleek:

[Surrealistik]

Wizard to the rest of the party: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUfxZ1lDyPI

[Gametime]

Yes it does. You can repeat it over and over, but that doesn't make your claim more true. That requires evidence (and no, invoking real-world physics is not evidence).

We discussed the evidence all over the last page. The rules state what mundane fire does (and what boiling water does, and what lava does). Mundane fire deals 1d6 damage at a time, possibly burning for multiple rounds. There's no reason to suppose that magical fire is subject to these rules, but there's no way to justify, within the context of the rules and the fluff used to explain them, why Orb of Fire can conjure up a ball of perfectly ordinary fire that for some reason deals several times as much damage as any other fire.

If the fire isn't mundane, then the arguments for the spell being Conjuration and ignoring spell resistance go out the window. The fire can be normal and summoned by magic, or magic and created by magic, but it can't be magic and not magic at the same time.


I'll be sure to remind my players to roll for damage if they ever encounter a bottle of vinegar then. Pelor help them if they choose to eat something like a lemon. All mundane acid does 2d6 damage, after all.

According to the rules? Yes. Yes it does.

The argument is that the Orb line of spells completely ignores precedents for their "mundane" energy types. It breaks verisimilitude by trying to establish a difference between the Orb spells "summoning" normal versions of a given energy type, and normal Evocation spells creating magical versions of that energy type, but does so without any respect to what the mundane versions already do in the game world.

The game rules are silly. We know that. But the Orb line of spells are silly and inconsistent with previous silliness. That's at least 1.21 gigasillies worse.

[Malakar]

FYI mundane fire also does 3d8 damage sometimes. So it's possible that by concentrating the effect in a smaller space, it becomes more potent. And CL is a measure of how well you can concentrate the effect.

[Koury]

FYI mundane fire also does 3d8 damage sometimes. So it's possible that by concentrating the effect in a smaller space, it becomes more potent. And CL is a measure of how well you can concentrate the effect.

No, it's not possible. There is no line of logic that could possibly make sense. You're doing it wrong. Different strengths and concentrations are impossible.

Exposure to acid causes 1d6 damage (my mistake, I said 2d6 earlier). Therefore all acid does 1d6. Oozes do 2d6, of course, but you know. Oozes entry is wrong, clearly.

EDIT: Lets not even think about Black Dragons.

[Optimator]

Except electricity doesn't work like that. But yes, I agree that force makes even less sense.

In a fantasy world where matter is composed of air, fire, water, and earth maybe it's not so much of a stretch.

[Malakar]

No, it's not possible. There is no line of logic that could possibly make sense. You're doing it wrong. Different strengths and concentrations are impossible.

Exposure to acid causes 1d6 damage (my mistake, I said 2d6 earlier). Therefore all acid does 1d6. Oozes do 2d6, of course, but you know. Oozes entry is wrong, clearly.

EDIT: Lets not even think about Black Dragons.

I know you are just being sarcastic, but I'm serious, the actual mundane fire of the plane of fire does 3d8 damage.

[Gametime]

No, it's not possible. There is no line of logic that could possibly make sense. You're doing it wrong. Different strengths and concentrations are impossible.

Exposure to acid causes 1d6 damage (my mistake, I said 2d6 earlier). Therefore all acid does 1d6. Oozes do 2d6, of course, but you know. Oozes entry is wrong, clearly.

EDIT: Lets not even think about Black Dragons.

Is resorting to sarcasm and scorn really necessary at this point in the discussion?

We are talking about mundane acid and fire. Are oozes "mundane?" Are breath weapons? I don't think so. Maybe they're supposed to be. It's possible. It's certainly not implied by any of the books I've read. No one here is contesting that you can take more than 1d6 or 2d6 or however many points of acid damage; merely that those sources are (nearly certainly) magical and therefore cannot account for the supposedly mundane acid drawn upon for an Orb.

The rules set up, well, rules for the world. There might be exceptions in a game - there usually are - but the game rules themselves do not account for them. All we are saying is that the Orb spells are internally inconsistent with what the rules say elsewhere. Replacing the rules with common sense is all well and good, but does nothing to change the fact that the rules present an internal contradiction.


I know you are just being sarcastic, but I'm serious, the actual mundane fire of the plane of fire does 3d8 damage.

Is the Plane of Fire made of mundane flames? I thought they were magical. Huh.

This only really changes the question to "Why are reasonably middling wizards able to summon fire more than twice as hot as the fire from the elemental source of fire?", of course, but it's interesting.

[Koury]

Is resorting to sarcasm and scorn really necessary at this point in the discussion?


http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png


We are talking about mundane acid and fire. Are oozes "mundane?" Are breath weapons? I don't think so. Maybe they're supposed to be. It's possible. It's certainly not implied by any of the books I've read. No one here is contesting that you can take more than 1d6 or 2d6 or however many points of acid damage; merely that those sources are (nearly certainly) magical and therefore cannot account for the supposedly mundane acid drawn upon for an Orb.

The rules set up, well, rules for the world. There might be exceptions in a game - there usually are - but the game rules themselves do not account for them. All we are saying is that the Orb spells are internally inconsistent with what the rules say elsewhere. Replacing the rules with common sense is all well and good, but does nothing to change the fact that the rules present an internal contradiction.

Yes, Oozes and breath weapons are very much examples of mundane elemental damage. The effects do not go away in any sort of AMF, after all. So if its possible for mundane elemental damage to be that strong, it is not inconsistent to have a spell create mundane elemental damage that is that stong.

[BeholderSlayer]

We discussed the evidence all over the last page. The rules state what mundane fire does (and what boiling water does, and what lava does). Mundane fire deals 1d6 damage at a time, possibly burning for multiple rounds. There's no reason to suppose that magical fire is subject to these rules, but there's no way to justify, within the context of the rules and the fluff used to explain them, why Orb of Fire can conjure up a ball of perfectly ordinary fire that for some reason deals several times as much damage as any other fire.
Because a wizard did it, of course. There need be no other explanation.


If the fire isn't mundane, then the arguments for the spell being Conjuration and ignoring spell resistance go out the window. The fire can be normal and summoned by magic, or magic and created by magic, but it can't be magic and not magic at the same time.
Of course it can. By this same logic, an anti-magic field would cancel itself out and have no effect.


According to the rules? Yes. Yes it does.

The argument is that the Orb line of spells completely ignores precedents for their "mundane" energy types. It breaks verisimilitude by trying to establish a difference between the Orb spells "summoning" normal versions of a given energy type, and normal Evocation spells creating magical versions of that energy type, but does so without any respect to what the mundane versions already do in the game world.
A wizard did it. That is the only explanation that there needs to be.


The game rules are silly. We know that. But the Orb line of spells are silly and inconsistent with previous silliness. That's at least 1.21 gigasillies worse.
Uh huh....

[The Big Dice]

Using equal amounts of optimization to what the party uses, including the occasional trick that they also use is perfectly fine. If players can optimize, so can the NPCs. However, using exact clones of the party against them is extremely lame. Also, players that have seen this before include very subtle and never used counter-counter measures in their builds in preparation for this. I know I always do.

What comes across as petty and spiteful is players who disrespect the person who has invested hours of time and effort into making sure they have a game to play, just to have them tear it up with "optimisation."

Which is a thinly disguised name for bullying, going by what I read on these forums.

Seriously, if people played the ways I see them described on here, they'd not be invited back to a game session by me. I don't respond well to being told how I should run my table, I don't respond at all well to people who act like it is my duty to keep them amused when it is nothing of the sort. Gaming is a privilege, not a right.

And if you even realised that I had copied your character sheet (which I don't see how you could, as I keep hold of player's sheets in between sessions), the odds are your "subtle counter-counter" would be completely irrelevant. And if you really do drive your GM to the point where he's cloning your own character to use against you, who is really the one causing the problem?

Driving your GM to extremes isn't just lame. It's insulting. Using RAW to beat your GM over the head until he capitulates isn't playing the game. It's gaming the system and bullying. And it's not acceptable behaviour from players.

If you're paranoid enough to not only play in a player-vs-GM style, but to actively plan for going up against your own character, then I genuinely pity you. You are missing out on the things that make gaming fun in favour of turning it into a competitive **** waving session.

Because the only problem with Wizards in D&D is the people who write about them on internet forums. Seriously, I've been playing 3.5 on and off pretty much since it came out and I've never once seen anybody want to play the kind of Wizards that reguarly get described as being normal on here.

[Gametime]

*snip* xkcd *snip*

I honestly have no idea whether this is supposed to be poking fun at you or me or both of us.


Yes, Oozes and breath weapons are very much examples of mundane elemental damage. The effects do not go away in any sort of AMF, after all. So if its possible for mundane elemental damage to be that strong, it is not inconsistent to have a spell create mundane elemental damage that is that stong.

Oozes, I'll give you. Breath weapons (well, dragon breath weapons, anyway, which is what was brought up) are actually supernatural and thus do go away in an antimagic field. They aren't subject to spell resistance, though, so they're still a plausible candidate for the source of an Orb of Acid.

Now the question is whether the dragon's breath weapon is supernatural in the way it creates the fire (or acid, or whatever) or if the energy is itself supernatural. I tend to think the latter, since that better explains the ability's interaction with antimagic fields. Unfortunately, that disqualifies breath weapons as a source again, since Orbs can enter antimagic fields.

So I guess oozes are the most plausible explanation. Weird.


Because a wizard did it, of course. There need be no other explanation.

A wizard used magic to make magic not work like magic?

Makes as much sense as anything else on this tangent, I suppose.


Of course it can. By this same logic, an anti-magic field would cancel itself out and have no effect.

Only if you subscribe to the view that a barrier is within itself, since only spells, etc. "within this barrier" are affected.

[Caphi]

If you're paranoid enough to not only play in a player-vs-GM style, but to actively plan for going up against your own character, then I genuinely pity you. You are missing out on the things that make gaming fun in favour of turning it into a competitive **** waving session.

I don't really care about the particulars of this debate, but who are you exactly to tell anyone else what makes the game fun?

[The Big Dice]

I don't really care about the particulars of this debate, but who are you exactly to tell anyone else what makes the game fun?
Someone who knows that having to stop and open a rulebook to look up something usually makes the game not-fun.

Oh, and someone who knows that nothing I sai on here is going to make anyone stop and think or actually *gasp* revise an opinion.

[Gametime]

Someone who knows that having to stop and open a rulebook to look up something usually makes the game not-fun.

Oh, and someone who knows that nothing I sai on here is going to make anyone stop and think or actually *gasp* revise an opinion.

If you don't care about convincing others of your viewpoint, why are you complaining at an entire community of people of whom only a small subset exhibit legitimately rude or damaging behavior? :smallconfused:

[BeholderSlayer]

A wizard used magic to make magic not work like magic?

Makes as much sense as anything else on this tangent, I suppose.
Something like that, but more like this: a wizard created the spell such that concentrated, mundane fire/acid/cold/force were conjured instantly and propelled.

The concept is no different than Acid Splash (which, for the record, does less damage than exposure to non-magical acid) but since it does d6/level damage, suddenly it becomes broken. This is of course laughable because direct damage is a joke anyway.


Only if you subscribe to the view that a barrier is within itself, since only spells, etc. "within this barrier" are affected.
So you can have a magical field that prevents magic from functioning, but you can't magically call and shape mundane energy.......:smallconfused:

[Koury]

I honestly have no idea whether this is supposed to be poking fun at you or me or both of us. Myself. :smallredface:


Oozes, I'll give you. Breath weapons (well, dragon breath weapons, anyway, which is what was brought up) are actually supernatural and thus do go away in an antimagic field. They aren't subject to spell resistance, though, so they're still a plausible candidate for the source of an Orb of Acid.

Now the question is whether the dragon's breath weapon is supernatural in the way it creates the fire (or acid, or whatever) or if the energy is itself supernatural. I tend to think the latter, since that better explains the ability's interaction with antimagic fields. Unfortunately, that disqualifies breath weapons as a source again, since Orbs can enter antimagic fields.

So I guess oozes are the most plausible explanation. Weird

Hmm, I conceed the breath weapons. I was looking at Half-Dragons at the time, and its not labled as (Su) there, thus my error. It is, of course, under "Breath Weapons" that the blanket (Su) comes from.

However, surely there are more monsters with mundane elemental attacks that deal more then 'normal' damage. I don't see where its inconsistent for there to be a spell which does the same.

[Gametime]

Something like that, but more like this: a wizard created the spell such that concentrated, mundane fire/acid/cold/force were conjured instantly and propelled.

The concept is no different than Acid Splash (which, for the record, does less damage than exposure to non-magical acid) but since it does d6/level damage, suddenly it becomes broken. This is of course laughable because direct damage is a joke anyway.

I would be willing to stake that not once in this entire thread did anyone say the problem was that the spell was "broken," and in fact I personally pointed out at least once that the spells are absolutely fine mechanically (and are some of my favorite damaging spells to use). My entire objection has been with the break in verisimilitude.



So you can have a magical field that prevents magic from functioning, but you can't magically call and shape mundane energy.......:smallconfused:

If you have a system predicated on the notion that Magic Is Magic and Not Magic Is Not Magic, and spell resistance requires that assumption, then magically changing energy to exceed and defy its normal properties without it becoming magic is indeed bizarre.

Perhaps not impossible - I do not, after all, have access to the Big Book of Magic Rules - but certainly not well explained or implied by precedent.


Myself. :smallredface:

It applies just as well to myself, so no worries. :smallbiggrin:




Hmm, I conceed the breath weapons. I was looking at Half-Dragons at the time, and its not labled as (Su) there, thus my error. It is, of course, under "Breath Weapons" that the blanket (Su) comes from.

However, surely there are more monsters with mundane elemental attacks that deal more then 'normal' damage. I don't see where its inconsistent for there to be a spell which does the same.

Possibly. There are a lot of monsters, and at least one of them probably does use energy without being labeled as magical.

The spells aren't unjustifiable, but they just feel off to me. It's also somewhat odd that magically enhancing the properties of magically summoned mundane matter is both more difficult and more rewarding than creating your own out of thin air (since it's a higher level, but much more efficient, spell than Lightning Bolt or Fireball).

[Awnetu]

... to actively plan for going up against your own character, then I genuinely pity you.

I do this because my DM loves conflicts where I am my own worst enemy, typically I get cloned. Also, what happens if you get Dominated?

Otherwise, I do agree, the game should always be at a level where both the DM and the player are comfortable with, but honestly, I only see a few posters ever talk like that, they typically get called on it when they act like a jerk.

Aside from the ToB threads where people decide its your duty to show the dm that they aren't broken, but that can be done in a more, tasteful way too.

But often it is also mentioned that they should do it through talking to the dm and trying to show him the ways in which D&D works with regards to balance.

[Malakar]

@ The rude guy with dice.

Maybe, just maybe, it should be you that revises your opinion. Right as soon as you start telling people that all the fun they had was really fake not fun, and that the things they do that they enjoy are really not fun at all...

You are basically a parody of every DM gone bad ever, and you need to calm down, reflect on the fact that other people are allowed to enjoy things you don't, and either leave the thread, or take it in a different light. I don't find opening a book to ever interfere with my fun, in fact, having my characters do what I planned on them doing is in my experience usually more fun than having the DM make something up that is not what I planned on them doing.

If I built a character to cast a specific spell (Say, wall of Water) then having the DM just decide that Water can't make a wall when I cast the spell is pretty much the exact opposite of fun.


Is the Plane of Fire made of mundane flames? I thought they were magical. Huh.

This only really changes the question to "Why are reasonably middling wizards able to summon fire more than twice as hot as the fire from the elemental source of fire?", of course, but it's interesting.

Of course the Plane of Fire is made of mundane flame. Do you think casting AntiMagic Field on the Plane of Fire makes all the Fire go away?

And once again, Fire, regular old non magical fire, comes from the Plane of Fire. It just does 1d6 damage because that's how much there is/how hot it is.

On the Plane of Fire, regular non magical fire does 3d8 damage minimum, probably because it's everywhere. But it can also do more than that, depending.

So likewise, it seems that regular mundane fire has a range of possible values, and therefore, by expending the power of a level 4 spell slot, and having a high Caster Level, a Wizard or Sorcerer can make Fire that is more concentrated and thus more burny, than most of the fire on the plane of fire (because it has to expand itself out over infinite space).

[The Big Dice]

You are basically a parody of every DM gone bad ever, and you need to calm down, reflect on the fact that other people are allowed to enjoy things you don't, and either leave the thread, or take it in a different light. I don't find opening a book to ever interfere with my fun, in fact, having my characters do what I planned on them doing is in my experience usually more fun than having the DM make something up that is not what I planned on them doing.
You never spent 20 minutes looking up what the secondary effect of something that turned out not to be in the first or second book that you looked for it actually does? In the middle of combat? While someone was waiting to just roll a dice and say "Missed."

And if other people are to be allowed to enjoy something that I don't, why am I, and I quote, "lame" for dealing with a situation in a manner that is both time tested and proven to work through being used in the field?

Some doors have to go in both directions, or they aren't doors at all.


If I built a character to cast a specific spell (Say, wall of Water) then having the DM just decide that Water can't make a wall when I cast the spell is pretty much the exact opposite of fun.
Umm, what?

Here's an argument I've seen take place during character creation for a specific campaign.

Player: "I want to play a Wild Elf."

GM: "There's no such thing in this world. See, its like this..." There then follws a quick explanation about how Elves are basically Minbari from Babylon 5, but with pointy ears instead of sea shell heads.

Player: "I don't care, I want to play a Wild Elf."

And so on until the GM gave up in sheer frustration. The campaign folded after a month or so because that fight had taken all the enthusiasm out of the GM. And the poor guy had worked on his game world for a good three months. Only for it to end up in a bin.

By now you're probably wondering what my point is. My point is, Wizards are fine but only if the player and the GM work together to ensure that they dont get stupid.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. And particularly in 3.X D&D, that applies to any full caster. Show some respect, work with your GM and fellow players and remember that getting up the noses of the other people at the table means that one day you're sat by yourself at that table.

[Awnetu]

If the player was just looking for the stats/abilities of that elf, that could have been fixed easily, but assuming that was covered in that discussion, that sucks.

Especially since any DM who likes Babylon 5 is cool enough to make me wanna try a campaign he runs.

[JoshuaZ]

What comes across as petty and spiteful is players who disrespect the person who has invested hours of time and effort into making sure they have a game to play, just to have them tear it up with "optimisation."

Which is a thinly disguised name for bullying, going by what I read on these forums.

I don't see how that would follow at all.



Seriously, if people played the ways I see them described on here, they'd not be invited back to a game session by me. I don't respond well to being told how I should run my table, I don't respond at all well to people who act like it is my duty to keep them amused when it is nothing of the sort. Gaming is a privilege, not a right.




And if you even realised that I had copied your character sheet (which I don't see how you could, as I keep hold of player's sheets in between sessions),

Why do that?



the odds are your "subtle counter-counter" would be completely irrelevant.

You are missing the point. The idea is to have a subtle counter that works well against your own character. (Frankly that seems a bit metagamish but it handles this issue fine)



And if you really do drive your GM to the point where he's cloning your own character to use against you, who is really the one causing the problem?

It depends. It may just mean that he needs to up the CR. But keep in mind that part of the problem with overpowered classes is that they shine too much next to the low power classes.



Driving your GM to extremes isn't just lame. It's insulting. Using RAW to beat your GM over the head until he capitulates isn't playing the game. It's gaming the system and bullying. And it's not acceptable behaviour from players.

Wizards are an int based caster. The entire theme of a wizard is someone who knows the exact laws of the universe and how to bend or break them. Wizards the people who spend time telling the laws of physics to sit down and shut up. And even when wizards can't bend the laws of physics they can find something clever to do. Part of the problem which you don't seem to be appreciating is that playing a wizard who optimizes and prepares just the right spells and does all of that is exactly in character. A charisma or wisdom based caster can plausibly not do so. But if a wizard isn't using grease and glitterdust and is instead throwing fireballs everywhere then that's potentially bad roleplaying. Part of the problem is that a well-done IC wizard will wipe the floor because IC they can see that they can do that.



Because the only problem with Wizards in D&D is the people who write about them on internet forums. Seriously, I've been playing 3.5 on and off pretty much since it came out and I've never once seen anybody want to play the kind of Wizards that reguarly get described as being normal on here.

Then they aren't playing wizards IC. A wizard IC who thinks minimally will know that battlefield control works better than direct damage.


Someone who knows that having to stop and open a rulebook to look up something usually makes the game not-fun.

Eh, matter of personal opinion, many people (such as myself) don't mind or find that potentially interesting. But if this is a problem you can easily solve it by insisting that wizards who prepare spells better know what their prepared spells do.



Oh, and someone who knows that nothing I sai on here is going to make anyone stop and think or actually *gasp* revise an opinion.

I am confused. If this is the case, why are you arguing here?

[Malakar]

You never spent 20 minutes looking up what the secondary effect of something that turned out not to be in the first or second book that you looked for it actually does? In the middle of combat? While someone was waiting to just roll a dice and say "Missed."

No, I remember what books things are in.


And if other people are to be allowed to enjoy something that I don't, why am I, and I quote, "lame" for dealing with a situation in a manner that is both time tested and proven to work through being used in the field?

Using an identical clone of the character is... Certainly not very interesting if their is not a good reason for it. However, I did not claim you were lame, only that perhaps a wiser course of action to someone calling something you have done lame would be to consider that as a comment about their preferences, than to go on a tirade full of such blanket (false) generalizations as:

"What comes across as petty and spiteful is players who disrespect the person who has invested hours of time and effort into making sure they have a game to play, just to have them tear it up with "optimisation.""

I don't see anyone tearing up games with "optimization" here.

"Which is a thinly disguised name for bullying, going by what I read on these forums."

And now an insult to the entire forum, especially those that pride themselves on optimization.

"And if you really do drive your GM to the point where he's cloning your own character to use against you, who is really the one causing the problem?"

The authors for putting a Mirror of Opposition in the game? I usually make sure that my characters can beat themselves as a general rule of thumb, since it's theoretically possible that it will happen at some point. Why does that mean that I am causing a problem?

"Using RAW to beat your GM over the head until he capitulates isn't playing the game. It's gaming the system and bullying."

Once again, who did this? Who suggested it? No one, you are arguing at phantoms and punching real people in the nose who are standing behind those phantoms.

"You are missing out on the things that make gaming fun in favour of turning it into a competitive **** waving session."

Choosing to cast Stinking Cloud instead of Fireball is not a **** waving session. Why the blanket insults?

"Someone who knows that having to stop and open a rulebook to look up something usually makes the game not-fun.

Oh, and someone who knows that nothing I sai on here is going to make anyone stop and think or actually *gasp* revise an opinion."

So... you know more than everyone else what they consider fun, and... everyone but you is a stubborn fool who just doesn't understand and refuses to think?

Because it's so far beyond plausibility that they just enjoy different things than you?

[The Big Dice]

Wizards are an int based caster. The entire theme of a wizard is someone who knows the exact laws of the universe and how to bend or break them. Wizards the people who spend time telling the laws of physics to sit down and shut up. And even when wizards can't bend the laws of physics they can find something clever to do. Part of the problem which you don't seem to be appreciating is that playing a wizard who optimizes and prepares just the right spells and does all of that is exactly in character. A charisma or wisdom based caster can plausibly not do so. But if a wizard isn't using grease and glitterdust and is instead throwing fireballs everywhere then that's potentially bad roleplaying. Part of the problem is that a well-done IC wizard will wipe the floor because IC they can see that they can do that.
That's sophistry. The player optimises, not the character. Splitting hairs about who does what does not change that the player makes the decisions for the character. Especially when it comes to the character sheet. Trying to justify acting in a way that you know will cause out of character conflict is irresponsible gaming.

As for why I as a GM keep hold of the character sheets. How am I supposed to know what the characters are capable of if I don't? How can I prepare properly if I'm guessing at the abilities, equipment, level and everything else about a character?

Also, I can audit your sheet at random intervals. Make sure that everything on there adds up and tallies with the things that are on other people's sheets and in my notes.

If you've got nothing to hide, you won't have a problem with that. After all, why would a player need to keep his sheet? Isn't there enough time before and after to do your book keeping right there where other people can see what you're doing?

It also saves sheets from falling into the hands of children who think it's paper, so logically it can be crayoned or made into an airplane.

[JoshuaZ]

That's sophistry. The player optimises, not the character. Splitting hairs about who does what does not change that the player makes the decisions for the character. Especially when it comes to the character sheet. Trying to justify acting in a way that you know will cause out of character conflict is irresponsible gaming.

Not at all. This is part of why wizards are so overpowered. A straight 20 wizard chooses what spells he gets and prepares and that occurs IC, right? So if one has chosen a core wizard, who is aware of most magic in core (not at all unreasonable) then they have to make the decision they do. This isn't the player optimizing. This is the character optimizing. That's why wizards are overpowered. Now, it is true that some forms of optimization occur by the player, especially complicated builds that use obscure feats or the like. But that's not what the thread is about. The problem with an int based Tier 1 caster is that they are already optimized to almost game breaking potential just playing the logical thing.



As for why I as a GM keep hold of the character sheets. How am I supposed to know what the characters are capable of if I don't? How can I prepare properly if I'm guessing at the abilities, equipment, level and everything else about a character?

Um, multiple copies? This is the internet age. You have multiple nice websites just designed for keeping track of sheets.



Also, I can audit your sheet at random intervals. Make sure that everything on there adds up and tallies with the things that are on other people's sheets and in my notes.

This sounds like a trust issue. Do you not trust your players so much that they need audits? :smallconfused:



If you've got nothing to hide, you won't have a problem with that. After all, why would a player need to keep his sheet? Isn't there enough time before and after to do your book keeping right there where other people can see what you're doing?


If people don't have access to their sheets, how are they supposed to have time to think about what their characters might do? This is especially a problem for high int or high wis characters where the character's stat may greatly exceed the player's stat (I know I have this problem playing high int characters.)



It also saves sheets from falling into the hands of children who think it's paper, so logically it can be crayoned or made into an airplane.

Again, see the whole internet thing, or back-up, or saving on a computer.

[Malakar]

How am I supposed to know what the characters are capable of if I don't? How can I prepare properly if I'm guessing at the abilities, equipment, level and everything else about a character?

Perhaps you could prepare encounters without metagaming, and then if your players have things you didn't anticipate, they can succeed, and be happy about it, instead of finding out that the evil endboss knows every spell in their spellbook, even ones they've never cast just to save up for this one fight?


Also, I can audit your sheet at random intervals. Make sure that everything on there adds up and tallies with the things that are on other people's sheets and in my notes.

Because you don't trust your players... But you demand that your players trust you? Um... Any DM who tells me he can't trust me to keep my HP straight might as well just tell me he's going to cheat, because those mean the same thing.


If you've got nothing to hide, you won't have a problem with that.

I have lots to hide, like my spell list, because if your monsters don't have a reason to know it... well, you never know, you might slip up and accidentally give them knowledge, I mean, why do you need to know? If you aren't going to cheat and metagame?

Pretty annoying isn't it, to have someone making snide remarks about what a cheater you are?


After all, why would a player need to keep his sheet?

To...use it. To write on it. To change spells prepared. To agonize over every new spell known and prepared and feat?


Isn't there enough time before and after to do your book keeping right there where other people can see what you're doing?

No, not unless you want to wait around with me for a few hours while I contemplate level up, or read through some spell lists for new spells to prepare the next day.

[Tyndmyr]

That's sophistry. The player optimises, not the character. Splitting hairs about who does what does not change that the player makes the decisions for the character. Especially when it comes to the character sheet. Trying to justify acting in a way that you know will cause out of character conflict is irresponsible gaming.

Hardly. PCs would undoubtably be aware of the power of say, mages. Emulating what they do in hopes of gaining that same power is extremely reasonable. This same logic applies to a great many things.


As for why I as a GM keep hold of the character sheets. How am I supposed to know what the characters are capable of if I don't? How can I prepare properly if I'm guessing at the abilities, equipment, level and everything else about a character?

Listen to your players. Most players will gladly talk at length about their character if it comes up in a conversation. They will rejoice when they have enough xp to level, or when they have enough gold to buy that equipment they've been wanting.

Also, keep mental track of what they do. Most players have certain styles they like to use a lot. Occasionally, someone'll think of something new. Kudos for them. If it works, that encounter falls a bit more quickly than normal, on to the next one.


Also, I can audit your sheet at random intervals. Make sure that everything on there adds up and tallies with the things that are on other people's sheets and in my notes.

I suspect the word "audit" is the issue here. I don't mind helping people out with their chars, and I'll occasionally ask for certain attributes when appropriate, to ensure I have 'em right. However, I ain't the IRS. I assume my players are at least attempting to follow the rules.


If you've got nothing to hide, you won't have a problem with that. After all, why would a player need to keep his sheet? Isn't there enough time before and after to do your book keeping right there where other people can see what you're doing?

Because some of us are adults, and thus, able to take care of our own things. And the last thing I need is more game time wasted on book-keeping. We roll hp in public, sure. Anything that needs a roll is done at the table. But if you decide to buy another few batches of arrows and a scroll while we're in town, go nuts. You can do that between sessions.


It also saves sheets from falling into the hands of children who think it's paper, so logically it can be crayoned or made into an airplane.

Again, I play with adults.

[Aran Banks]

just gonna say, three people have replied to TBD so far, who is obviously here because someone is wrong on the internet.

How about we just discuss the merits of the wizard now?

----

IMO, the wizard is totally fine. And could use a power-up... like that one from the Dungeonomicon.

[Malakar]

IMO, the wizard is totally fine. And could use a power-up... like that one from the Dungeonomicon.

There isn't a power up for the Wizard in the Dungeonomicon, unless you mean the PrCs, in which case, absolutely, because they are awesome.

[Awnetu]

I dunno guys, the wizard needs a free domain, maybe Time or Magic?

[Malakar]

I dunno guys, the wizard needs a free domain, maybe Time or Magic?

They already get a free domain. It's right there in Unearthed Arcana.

[Awnetu]

They did that with wizards too? Man, wizards beat me to it.

[Xyk]

It hasn't given me any trouble. But I also run my games at low levels. And casually. Barbarians typically dominate combat and rogues typically dominate skills (as they should), but everybody finds ways to participate more or less equally, depending on the session. It helps that also run mystery campaigns that are heavy on roleplay.

[Tyndmyr]

It hasn't given me any trouble. But I also run my games at low levels. And casually. Barbarians typically dominate combat and rogues typically dominate skills (as they should), but everybody finds ways to participate more or less equally, depending on the session. It helps that also run mystery campaigns that are heavy on roleplay.

That seems about right at low levels.

I also believe that while 3.5 isn't great on balance, balance is not the most important thing in a game, and players don't even always expect balance. The idea of a crazy powerful wizard that is extremely hard for melee types to take on isn't even unusual in fantasy.

[Andion Isurand]

I expect to see the non-casters get worked on for a long time to come... there's a lot of room for improvement and an opportunity for lots of good homebrew.

[Psyx]

I didn't mean overpowered, really. More like "still able to contribute". Which is how it should be, really. It's why I DM at low levels and play at high :smalltongue:

It's why I play at low and medium levels, and run something completely different!

[Yuki Akuma]

Okay, pretty far back in the thread, but...


The ball is supposed to be non-magical, but has to rely on magic to some degree or else it should be a cone (given that it's creating a liquid)

:smallconfused:

Surface tension! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_tension) Seriously! Liquids can actually do that!

I wish people would stop trying to apply real-world physics to fantasy. Why does "non magical" have to mean "exactly like real life"? Rocs are non magical, but you can bet they would never function in real life. Same with giants, there's absolutely no way they could be that strong. Or, for that matter, move.

And don't try applying real-world physics to fantasy when you don't even fully understand real-world physics! (And if you do... what the hell are you doing here? The scientific community needs you!)

[RebelRogue]

Wizards are an int based caster. The entire theme of a wizard is someone who knows the exact laws of the universe and how to bend or break them. Wizards the people who spend time telling the laws of physics to sit down and shut up. And even when wizards can't bend the laws of physics they can find something clever to do. Part of the problem which you don't seem to be appreciating is that playing a wizard who optimizes and prepares just the right spells and does all of that is exactly in character. A charisma or wisdom based caster can plausibly not do so. But if a wizard isn't using grease and glitterdust and is instead throwing fireballs everywhere then that's potentially bad roleplaying. Part of the problem is that a well-done IC wizard will wipe the floor because IC they can see that they can do that.
Honestly, I'm sick and tired of this argument. Not so much using it as a reason for picking "good" spells (that can work out fine), but more the implication that not doing it is bad roleplaying since wizards are smart. Knowing what the smart thing to do is (high Int) is not the same as actually doing it - that would be a trait related to wisdom (ironically, the very same thing you ruled out)!

For instance, a wizard may know that battelfield control is the best strategy, but then again, he may just like to blow stuff up. Or he may have an academic interest in a school of magic. Just like you will often see smart people taking jobs they know pay less than optimal wages because it's where their interests lie! (The last line of reasoning even justifies picking "bad" spells for a high Int and Wis character).

[Psyx]

Wizards are fine but only if the player and the GM work together to ensure that they dont get stupid.

Which doesn't happen often enough, judging by some of the games that I read about on the Net sometimes. I'd -personally- never dream of adding a blatantly borked spell into a character's spellbook without asking the GM first. Powerful divinations, spells that make other PCs utterly redundant, and world-hopping travel spells might not be what the GM had in mind for his campaign.

And -frankly- anyone whinging that it's 'not fair' for the GM to veto spell choices or character choices is clearly missing the point that someone is dedicating umpteen hours a week gratis in order to entertain their friends. They don't normally do it just to watch their plot be snapped over the knees by players who perhaps aren't appreciating it enough. Sure: The wizard might have been written as being too powerful, but that's not your GM's fault, nor burden that he should be *forced* to carry.

Wizards trampling all over a campaign world can be either something that a GM doesn't mind and encourages (some people also pay other people to hit them with whips and verbally abuse them for an hour or two a week, so who am I to judge...), or something that makes the GM's job that much harder than it needs to be. I don't like to see the guy who has a wife and a job to worry about having to spend even an hour more a week of his free time statting just because I want to urinate all over his game world with the full gamut of character abilities that I could muster. Because I'm actually his friend.


I don't see how that would follow at all.

I don't think that 'bullying' was the right word. Being disrespectful, impolite and unappreciative would be more fitting.



Why do that?

Keep player's character sheets? It's common. Because the characters are part of the GM's game and can be seen to be the property of the GM. It also means that the GM can check up on exactly what PCs can do in order to build a better game. It's also a good opportunity to read up on the written character background of the character to build plot hooks.

Most importantly, it stops them LOOSING the wretched things between games, or spending ten minutes turning a bag out to find it, then remembering it was left at home, and jumping in the car to go and get it...


If people don't have access to their sheets, how are they supposed to have time to think about what their characters might do?

Eh? You need numbers for that? I don't need to know my REF save in order to plan ahead. Spellbook, maybe. Equipment: Perhaps. But not my skill points or numbers.

How about taking a copy home with you? Note down what you need to.




Perhaps you could prepare encounters without metagaming, and then if your players have things you didn't anticipate, they can succeed, and be happy about it, instead of finding out that the evil endboss knows every spell in their spellbook, even ones they've never cast just to save up for this one fight?

Hang on... WHAT?

How can a GM ever be accused of metagaming. That's preposterous. By logical extension the GM should not even ask what level his players are, so that he's not biased when electing what CR to throw in.

"Yeah, sorry about only giving you a masterwork sword for that first fight and then killing you with the Red Wyrm the next encounter. I didn't know you were 10th level. It woulda been metagaming to find out"


I have lots to hide...

I think that we perhaps play games in a very different manner. My GM is not my opponent: He's my ally. If I wanted to fight the guy at the end of the table, I'd play a wargame or something. If you can't trust your GM to adjudicate your game fairly, then get a new GM... or play Counterstrike.



Knowing what the smart thing to do is (high Int) is not the same as actually doing it - that would be a trait related to wisdom (ironically, the very same thing you ruled out)!

+100^10000

I know that I should be working right now, and that messing around on forums is a waste of time... and I left my 'phone at home. Yet it all still happened. High intelligence does not indicate high wisdom, or the slavish ability to always work in the manner of a chess grandmaster when confronting every nuance of life's journey.

[JoshuaZ]

For instance, a wizard may know that battelfield control is the best strategy, but then again, he may just like to blow stuff up. Or he may have an academic interest in a school of magic. Just like you will often see smart people taking jobs they know pay less than optimal wages because it's where their interests lie! (The last line of reasoning even justifies picking "bad" spells for a high Int and Wis character).

Well, potentially yes, but I don't think people are nearly as likely to do that when they are in a life-or-death situation regularly. This is closer to the equivalent of a modern day soldier trying to use a very suboptimal weapon in combat (say a crossbow instead of a sniper rifle. That may be a bit too extreme). There's also a problem where I need to do work in order to play a half-way sane powerlevel character. The default roleplaying shouldn't lead to breaking the game.

[Malakar]

Which doesn't happen often enough, judging by some of the games that I read about on the Net sometimes. I'd -personally- never dream of adding a blatantly borked spell into a character's spellbook without asking the GM first. Powerful divinations, spells that make other PCs utterly redundant, and world-hopping travel spells might not be what the GM had in mind for his campaign.

Then the GM should really be GMing a different game, or the game at a different level, or he should have told me before I decided to pick the spell Teleport/Divination that it was banned.

Because... Those spells exist, and their existence is easy to see. So you should do something to not deal with them besides whine when a player casts them.

But frankly, I'd never dream of adding a borked spell either. But since their are only two borked spells in all of D&D... Oh right, for some people Entangle is borked just because it's useful.


And -frankly- anyone whinging that it's 'not fair' for the GM to veto spell choices or character choices is clearly missing the point that someone is dedicating umpteen hours a week gratis in order to entertain their friends. They don't normally do it just to watch their plot be snapped over the knees by players who perhaps aren't appreciating it enough. Sure: The wizard might have been written as being too powerful, but that's not your GM's fault, nor burden that he should be *forced* to carry.

First of all, no one is "Whining that it's not fair." I'm saying that X is more fun than Y, where X is the rules that I used to plan my character and action, and Y is the DM making a spot ruling.

If the rules say that bullrushing pushes your opponent, and you declare a bullrush to attempt to push him off a cliff, and the DM decides, "I think that would result in you entering a grapple and going down with him" that's just as stupid. Any time the DM makes a ruling that is contrary to the rules used to plan an action, the only justifiable reason for the player not being allowed to do what they had planned is that if they did what they planned, it would ruin the game. Not "I'm too lazy to open a book."


Wizards trampling all over a campaign world can be either something that a GM doesn't mind and encourages

See this. I personally don't think "preparing glitterdust" counts as trampling, but apparently some people do.


I don't think that 'bullying' was the right word. Being disrespectful, impolite and unappreciative would be more fitting.

{Scrubbed} How disrespectful of him to disagree with I the mighty DM of all knowing when I say that glitterdust actually just gives a +1 to attack, because I don't see how dust could blind someone.


Because the characters are part of the GM's game and can be seen to be the property of the GM.

Only by insane people. My character is my property to the extent that it matters, since I created it, and I can copy it any time I want. To the extent that a character is the intellectual property of anyone it's the player, then wizards of the coast, then hasbro, then the bum down the street, then the DM.


Most importantly, it stops them LOOSING the wretched things between games, or spending ten minutes turning a bag out to find it, then remembering it was left at home, and jumping in the car to go and get it...

{Scrubbed}


Eh? You need numbers for that? I don't need to know my REF save in order to plan ahead. Spellbook, maybe. Equipment: Perhaps. But not my skill points or numbers.

How about taking a copy home with you? Note down what you need to.

{Scrubbed}


Hang on... WHAT?

{Scrubbed}
There are of course DMs I trust to not metagame, but that group is exclusive to the group who demands that I leave my character sheet with them.


How can a GM ever be accused of metagaming. That's preposterous. By logical extension the GM should not even ask what level his players are, so that he's not biased when electing what CR to throw in.

The DM knows their level because it starts at a number picked by him, and increases only when he says. But a DM should not have monsters act based on information they don't have.

There are a lot of DMs I can trust to make the distinction between knowledge they have and knowledge they don't. But the second a DM demands he keep my sheet, I know he's not one of them.

[Tyndmyr]

Well, given that the DM sets starting level, and gives out the XP, Im confused as to how the DM could ever not know what the party level is at. It seems...obvious.

I've never bothered to look at what my players prepare, either. If they prepare poorly, well...that's too bad for them. Divinations are treated as per RAW, and they are much less awesome than theoretical discussions would have you believe.

[Knaight]

Keep player's character sheets? It's common. Because the characters are part of the GM's game and can be seen to be the property of the GM. It also means that the GM can check up on exactly what PCs can do in order to build a better game. It's also a good opportunity to read up on the written character background of the character to build plot hooks.

Most importantly, it stops them LOOSING the wretched things between games, or spending ten minutes turning a bag out to find it, then remembering it was left at home, and jumping in the car to go and get it...

How about taking a copy home with you? Note down what you need to.

How can a GM ever be accused of metagaming. That's preposterous. By logical extension the GM should not even ask what level his players are, so that he's not biased when electing what CR to throw in.

"Yeah, sorry about only giving you a masterwork sword for that first fight and then killing you with the Red Wyrm the next encounter. I didn't know you were 10th level. It woulda been metagaming to find out"

I think that we perhaps play games in a very different manner. My GM is not my opponent: He's my ally. If I wanted to fight the guy at the end of the table, I'd play a wargame or something. If you can't trust your GM to adjudicate your game fairly, then get a new GM... or play Counterstrike.

Heavily edited as I only care to respond to these parts.

The characters were conceived by the players to some extent, maybe with help from the GM, so having the players keeps them makes sense. Now, if loosing them has been a problem, that is a legitimate reason for the GM to keep them. Others are logistics, I keep character sheets for my games that I GM because they are played at my house, I go to the same school as my players, and most of us walk, having someone walk 3 times as far to go to their house, pick up a character sheet, and walk back to mine is a waste of everyone's time. For online games, everyone keeps their own, and the GM has access to the lot, mostly to check newer players for mechanical accuracy.

A GM can meta game with regards to NPCs easily, as for the CR thing, unless your encounters magically form out of mid air, there is some player input, and even some self scaling. If they are low level and go to a dragons lair, they deserve to get killed, the big, important, expensive mercenaries are going to be hired on big, important, expensive targets, so the PCs don't have to worry about them barring their own stupidity until they develop a reputation. If your encounters are dungeon room after dungeon room of the "right" CR, it gets boring.

Some people have issues keeping character and player knowledge separate, and some seek to minimize it in every case, I think its excessive, as do you, but that isn't indicative of a trust issue, at most it indicates a bit more worrying about metagaming than necessary.

As for games mentioned on the Net. Average games usually don't get mentioned, its the stuff that stands out that does, and even then its more likely to be the absolute crap than the glorious sessions. I can chat about the glorious sessions in full nostalgia mode with my players, or the other players and GM, full vitriol mode should probably be loosed online with names removed, instead of at the people you played with. The Net favors horror stories.

[RebelRogue]

Well, potentially yes, but I don't think people are nearly as likely to do that when they are in a life-or-death situation regularly. This is closer to the equivalent of a modern day soldier trying to use a very suboptimal weapon in combat (say a crossbow instead of a sniper rifle. That may be a bit too extreme). There's also a problem where I need to do work in order to play a half-way sane powerlevel character. The default roleplaying shouldn't lead to breaking the game.
True, but not every wizard character needs to have a background as an adventurer. Maybe he or she is an academic thrust into a violent conflict (or whatever the campaign is about).

[BeholderSlayer]

I, personally, wouldn't ask to keep all my players' character sheets between sessions because usually between sessions is when they level up. Most of the time, experience is assigned at the end of a session, so logically they level up in their off-time.

I trust my players. I also don't need to have a sheet to be able to figure out what they have for AC, stats, or skills. I definitely don't want to see a spellbook, ever (although I typically already know what spells they have, from having them ask prices and make die rolls for spellcraft, etc.). I don't need their character sheets to provide encounters that will challenge them, it's all done on intuition.

Back on topic:

Like I said something like 3 or 4 pages ago, it depends. Mostly, though, as long as a wizard isn't stepping on the toes of other players (i.e. "doing their job") then there aren't any problems.

[The Big Dice]

The characters were conceived by the players to some extent, maybe with help from the GM, so having the players keeps them makes sense. Now, if loosing them has been a problem, that is a legitimate reason for the GM to keep them. Others are logistics, I keep character sheets for my games that I GM because they are played at my house, I go to the same school as my players, and most of us walk, having someone walk 3 times as far to go to their house, pick up a character sheet, and walk back to mine is a waste of everyone's time. For online games, everyone keeps their own, and the GM has access to the lot, mostly to check newer players for mechanical accuracy.
Online games do make storage and handling of sheets very easy for everyone. However, in the 3d world, it's more practical if the GM keeps hold of the sheets.

As has been pointed out, it means the GM has a good idea of what the characters can do and what they have in terms of equipment. Which in turn means the GM can structure things in such a way as to let the players strut their stuff. And build on plot hooks that could be dotted all over their sheets, backgrounds and whatever.

There's also a bit of a trust issue. I've seen a player who was making Move Silently rolls of 27 at third level. On a 2. I've seen the same player "overspend" on L5R characters by more than double the amount of points you make a character on. In other words, the guy is a blatant cheat and isn't welcome at my games anymore. but it happens.

And I've seen several players who forget to spend skill points, or roll their hit points or take a feat they are entitled to or adjust al kinds of things he should when he levels up. One guy is notorious for underspending and forgetting his BAB.

The fact is, as GM, Iprovide everything needed for play except dice. And I've even been known to provide them. So if it's a question of onership, it's my stuff. BUt that's just petty.

But more often than not, character sheets just get tucked into my GM screen, which then sits on a shelf safe and out of the way until the next time they are needed.

[Psyx]

The characters were conceived by the players to some extent, maybe with help from the GM, so having the players keeps them makes sense.

I agree. I view the sheets as my own, too. However, if GMs prefer me to leave them, I'm happy to. His game: His rules. It does however cut out the chance of stuff ever being lost or eaten by pets. And I understand that some GMs do like to pour over character sheets and pages of backstory.

Speaking for myself, I don't often look at my player's sheets in between games (even though they all normally leave them at my house, because all bar one were bought up with a 'GM keeps the sheets' doctrine), but it's sometimes handy to when planning specifics. Like: It's good for me to make sure ONE of them can handle a boat and most of them can swim before I put in a boat chase down a section of rapids.



Then the GM should really be GMing a different game, or the game at a different level, or he should have told me before I decided to pick the spell Teleport/Divination that it was banned.

I consider it a simple matter of respect to the GM when playing to 'ok' anything that can either potentially destabilise a campaign or isn't from PHB or SC. The GM may have planned for it, but I don't want to screw over hours of his planning without a 'heads up' first.

We clearly differ in that. I do not play 'against' my GM, nor my players. Others play differently.



First of all, no one is "Whining that it's not fair."

No: They aren't

I wasn't saying that they were.



I personally don't think "preparing glitterdust" counts as trampling, but apparently some people do.

Nor do I. What an absurd example.



Only by insane people. My character is my property to the extent that it matters, since I created it, and I can copy it any time I want. To the extent that a character is the intellectual property of anyone it's the player, then wizards of the coast, then hasbro, then the bum down the street, then the DM.

I'll ask a few this week, and see what they reckon.

That's a great deal of respect for your local bum down the street, I feel. We tend to create characters with the GM's input. And you can't play a game with them without the GM, anyway.



But you could actually trust them.

I'm not sure where you get this idea that I force my players to leave their sheets behind. I don't. Expressing an idea is not the same thing as sharing that mindset. Some people think the world is flat apparently. Stating that does not make me one of them.

I also find the concept of being lectured on trust by someone who assumes that a GM wanting people to leave their sheets behind so he can make monsters immune to their spells to be somewhat left-field.




{Scrubbed}


Sure. Or create the sheet on-line and make two copies. Or ask the GM to spend 1 minute scanning and printing you a copy. I have no problem doing that for a GM. 5 minutes copying down a spellbook is NOTHING compared to the time he spends every week preparing the game.




{Scrubbed}



That's just offensive. How about you take your character sheet AND your teddy-bear and walk away with them?

Just for the record, what on EARTH makes you assume that me having a copy of your character sheet sitting in my games room makes me write monsters who are immune to your spells? I guess that you are judging from your own paradigms and map of the world. I feel quite sorry for you for that. Sometimes people are trying to work with you, rather than against you.

I'm not sure how you can make any kind of judgement call about my GMing or my personality, based on a couple of paragraphs. And I'm not sure why that would then want you to hurl asterisked insults in my direction. But if you are going to do so, then I might as well knock myself out too, I suppose.
Your offensive tone, confrontational attitude towards the subject, apparent lack of trust in others, and inability to consider that what someone brings up for discussion may not be their opinion are not endearing qualities. It's fine if you have personality or aggression issues, but perhaps we could stop with the thinly veiled name-calling and you could just squeeze a stress ball?




{Scrubbed}


And as a GM, I can't 'cheat'. Didn't we do a thread about this last week?



***

Hey Mods: Feel free to slap me with a warning if you feel that I've have been been excessively offensive in return, but I'm not going to lay down and take a bunch of asterisked-out insults being thrown at me without any form of comment.

[Awnetu]

I personally have had Dices problems with a few players, one of mine has no idea how to level it seems like, and the other one will refuse to give the Dungeon Master a copy of his sheet. (Nevermind that it is on his computer, so its no actual work to get it.) That player also seems to lose those same sheets multiple times(I don't know how) and pull tricks that leave the other 2 players who optimize on a regular basis stumped. (DMM spontaneously on every spell he has(without taking the feat for all his divine meta magic) is one of my favorites. Getting DC 37 (at least) saves and only being able to account for... 29-31 of the DC.

[SigCorps]

Back to wizards as Int casters. Lets look at some wizards that are based on a theme. Let take for example a wizard playing in a stormwrack these campaign. If he is going to be on a boat a lot, why not take spells that are more useful there, like float, or gust. Normally spells like this would not even get a second look, but float will save that fighter in chain when he falls over board.

Or maybe the wizard specialized in divination and has selected div spells over crowd control spells.

Maybe the Wizard has never had access to a fireball spell or magic missile.

[Gametime]

I wish people would stop trying to apply real-world physics to fantasy. Why does "non magical" have to mean "exactly like real life"? Rocs are non magical, but you can bet they would never function in real life. Same with giants, there's absolutely no way they could be that strong. Or, for that matter, move.


I can't speak for everyone involved in that discussion, but I think most of us were more concerned with making the game world's internal physics consistent than with applying real-world physics to the fantasy world. I don't care if fire behaves how it's supposed to in real life, I just care if fire behaves how it's supposed to in the game.

Of course, I've since been informed there's actually substantial evidence for fires of differing intensities within the game rules, thanks to the Elemental Plane, so my principal objections are withdrawn anyway.

[Killer Angel]

There are a lot of DMs I can trust to make the distinction between knowledge they have and knowledge they don't. But the second a DM demands he keep my sheet, I know he's not one of them.

:smallannoyed:
Or, you know, a master could ask for a copy of your character sheet, complete with equipment and spells, for various good reasons.
Knowing what the characters can do, he can prepare more satisfying adventures, letting all the PCs contribute with their abilities.
If the DM have a copy of the character sheet, even when the player is absent, he can look at the abilities of the character (skills, etc) and using them to pass some info to the group that's playing.

IN our group, every DM has a copy of our character sheet, and we never have problems.
Not only this, but the DM can see beforhanded if there's something that he doesn't like (a new spell, maybe?) and clarify the problem with the player before it comes out during the game.

[Malakar]

I consider it a simple matter of respect to the GM when playing to 'ok' anything that can either potentially destabilise a campaign or isn't from PHB or SC. The GM may have planned for it, but I don't want to screw over hours of his planning without a 'heads up' first.

We clearly differ in that. I do not play 'against' my GM, nor my players. Others play differently.

Why do you have to insult people by claiming they play against their DM when it has nothing to do with anything here?

I too would ask before doing anything that might destabilize a campaign. But I certainly can't be held responsible for a DM having a campaign that is already destabilized before I even enter it.

"This campaign breaks apart if someone casts Teleport. Teleport is a Wizard spell. I refuse to ban teleport. What, why did you cast Teleport? Now my game is ruined!"

Not my fault, not even something I could reasonably anticipate. How was I supposed to know that CR 2 Dretches break his campaign in half?


No: They aren't

I wasn't saying that they were.

No, you just said "Anyone who does X is stupid." Where no one did X, but you went out of your way to imply that anyone who disagrees with you about other things is doing X. Without explicitly stating it.


Nor do I. What an absurd example.

But Bag of Dice does. Which is the point. Casting good spells is considered breaking the game with optimization.


I'm not sure where you get this idea that I force my players to leave their sheets behind. Expressing an idea is not the same thing as sharing that mindset. Some people think the world is flat apparently. stating that does not make me one of them.

I'm not sure why you are deliberately attempting to misunderstand what I say. Bag of Dice has been explicit that under no circumstances is anyone allowed to take their own paper out of his possession. This is precisely the action you are defending. You may or may not do it yourself, you are definitely defending that action. The action is wrong.


I also find the concept of being lectured on trust by someone who assumes that a GM wanting people to leave their sheets behind so he can make monsters immune to their spells to be somewhat left-field.

That's an example of how trusting I am. You and Dice specifically said you want the sheets so that you can metagame monsters. I'm taking you at your word.


Sure. Or create the sheet on-line and make two copies. Or ask the GM to spend 1 minute scanning and printing you a copy. I have no problem doing that for a GM. 5 minutes copying down a spellbook is NOTHING compared to the time he spends every week preparing the game.

Or, he can make a copy of the backstory, and keep that, since he has no reason to ever look at the spellbook. And I can keep my original.

Why is the presumption that the DM should keep something that doesn't belong to him?


That's just offensive. How about you take your character sheet AND your teddy-bear and walk away with them?

No, it's not offensive to claim that things that belong to me, belong to me, and I can do what I want with them. It's not offensive to say that someone is doing something to prevent me from cheating, when they specifically claim they are doing something to prevent me from cheating. No it is not offensive to say that someone is going to metagame monsters when they have explicitly stated they are going to metagame monsters.


Just for the record, what an EARTH makes you assume that me having a copy of your character sheet sitting in my games room makes me write monsters who are immune to your spells?

Probably the multiple claims by you and Bag of Dice that you need those character sheets so that you can know what my character can do when you make encounters. If you are not going to do that, you shouldn't claim that is your purpose.


And I'm not sure why that would then want you to hurl asterisked insults in my direction. "asterisked insults"? It's asterisks, how do you know they are insults? This forum is obscene in it's filtering of obscenity. They are merely accurate descriptions of DMing style that uses meta knowledge to design encounter against players.


Your offensive tone, confrontational attitude towards the subject, apparent lack of trust in others, and inability to consider that what someone brings up for discussion may not be their opinion are not endearing qualities.

Your decision to be offended by a tone that doesn't exist, feel confronted by objective facts, and inability to accept that statements you have previously made are indicative of your purpose are not endearing qualities.


thinly veiled name-calling

I see no thinly veiled name calling. Maybe you are just trying so hard to pierce that thin veil that you see what isn't there.


And as a GM, I can't 'cheat'. Didn't we do a thread about this last week?

As a DM you can cheat. Any time you have a monster or NPC act on knowledge it should not possess in game, you are cheating. "We" certainly didn't have a thread about this last week, because I wasn't there.


asterisked-out insults being thrown at me without any form of comment.

They are not insults. If you see them where they don't exist, that's your problem.

[Killer Angel]

Or, he can make a copy of the backstory, and keep that, since he has no reason to ever look at the spellbook. And I can keep my original.



No it is not offensive to say that someone is going to metagame monsters when they have explicitly stated they are going to metagame monsters.


:smallannoyed:
You say that, assuming it's all against you.
If I, as a DM, want to set a very difficult encounter, i wanna be sure that my players can "win" it. This can be made knowing their characters' abilities and, yes, also their spellbook.
I don't wanna set an encounter that later it reveals itself as unwinnable, only because my memery failed me and you did not gave me a copy of your precious sheet.




Why is the presumption that the DM should keep something that doesn't belong to him?


:smallconfused:
I'm pretty sure that the DM can look at your character sheet.
It's your character, but it's his game. And both play to have fun.
Seriously, are we talking 'bout a group of friends playing togheter a social game, or what else?

[Yuki Akuma]

A character sheet is just a piece of paper. Really. It's paper. It's not valuable.

If you're really so against not having access to your character sheet, why not... keep multiple copies?

Hell, it's usually a good idea to have one sheet per level in case of level drain anyway...

[Malakar]

A character sheet is just a piece of paper. Really. It's paper. It's not valuable.

If you're really so against not having access to your character sheet, why not... keep multiple copies?

Hell, it's usually a good idea to have one sheet per level in case of level drain anyway...

I specifically said that the DM can just ask for a copy of the parts he needs. It's team DM is God who think that players having their own character sheets is the sin that shall never be committed.

[Yuki Akuma]

I specifically said that the DM can just ask for a copy of the parts he needs. It's team DM is God who think that players having their own character sheets is the sin that shall never be committed.

Well. I've known some players who like to 'edit' their character sheets when they have them. So it goes both ways, really.

[Killer Angel]

I specifically said that the DM can just ask for a copy of the parts he needs.

If you can pass to the DM a copy of your skill list, equipment and spell list (in case of arcane caster), I'm fine with it.
As I've said before, there can be various good reasons for a DM to have such infos. My DMs all have a copy of my characters' sheets.

[The Big Dice]

I've got absolutely no problem leaving my sheet in the care of the GM in between game sessions. What's the big deal about it? Am I going to sit there staring adoringly at my lists of equipment? Am I going to gaze lovingly at my spellbook?

I don't need it and the GM will have times when he has to reference it inbetween sessions. I can't be bothered with digitally stored character sheets eiter, because that means I have to print a new one every time I level up or otherwise alter the sheet. And that just gets confusing as well as being wasteful of paper.

Besides, I've got a superstition about copying a character over to a new sheet. You do that and the character is very likely to die shortly afterwards.


It's team DM is God who think that players having their own character sheets is the sin that shall never be committed.
What do you need it for inbetween sessions? If you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to complain.

[Tyndmyr]

I personally have had Dices problems with a few players, one of mine has no idea how to level it seems like, and the other one will refuse to give the Dungeon Master a copy of his sheet. (Nevermind that it is on his computer, so its no actual work to get it.) That player also seems to lose those same sheets multiple times(I don't know how) and pull tricks that leave the other 2 players who optimize on a regular basis stumped. (DMM spontaneously on every spell he has(without taking the feat for all his divine meta magic) is one of my favorites. Getting DC 37 (at least) saves and only being able to account for... 29-31 of the DC.

Well, if someone is blatantly cheating, it'll come up. If you say the save DC is 37, Im gonna ask how you managed that. If you're unable to justify it, well, you need to fix your character sheet. I will gladly help you if you need, as will other players. If this keeps coming up, I'm going to eventually assume that you don't care about playing the game according to the rules.

Who holds the sheet is mostly irrelevant to that. Someone can cheat regardless of who has the sheet, and it'll be noticed sooner or later regardless. Probably sooner.

However, if they hold their sheets, they can opt to handle shopping away from the table. Ditto for leveling up and retraining(which I allow as per phb2). Make those agonizing decisions over exactly which level 2 spell you want to learn when the rest of us aren't waiting for you.

[Kerrin]

What do you need it for inbetween sessions?
Just wondering, can both the DM and the player have a copy of the character sheet between sessions?

[Oslecamo]

Who holds the sheet is mostly irrelevant to that. Someone can cheat regardless of who has the sheet, and it'll be noticed sooner or later regardless. Probably sooner.


It isn't. A cheater can quickly change the sheet as needed to fit whatever he says... Unless the DM has the sheet or a copy of it, in wich case it becomes much harder to do it.

Really, you're trying to say it's the same to trick a normal or blind person. Seeing stuff does happen to help a lot to detecting them. ANd oportunity makes the crime. The players are less tempted to "tweak" their characters if the DM is personally reviewing the sheets.

[BeholderSlayer]

Cheating is often so abundantly obvious that you don't really need a sheet for it. It usually takes me all of 5 seconds to figure out if a player's claim makes sense.

If a player is fudging rolls, that's a little more difficult (and won't necessarily be apparent on their sheet unless you watch each and every roll of the die).

[Tyndmyr]

It isn't. A cheater can quickly change the sheet as needed to fit whatever he says... Unless the DM has the sheet or a copy of it, in wich case it becomes much harder to do it.

If I ask "how do you have a 37 DC", and there is no response while he erases and writes on his sheet furiously, then I have what I like to call "a clue".


Really, you're trying to say it's the same to trick a normal or blind person. Seeing stuff does happen to help a lot to detecting them. ANd oportunity makes the crime. The players are less tempted to "tweak" their characters if the DM is personally reviewing the sheets.

Do you not all play together every week(or other period of time)? Do people seriously not notice that your build is something else this week?

[Zaydos]

I've seen players lose their sheets, cheat on their sheets (that was 1 player though and he was a munchkin, and a rules lawyer who lied about the rules and I don't expect it), forget to remove expended items, forget to add loot they got, mess up the math on their skills, AC, attack and save bonuses, lose their sheets, and forget to mark damage (they were a warlock with a crazy defensive build, they usually didn't get damaged).

Most of these are honest mistakes, and more often than not detrimental to the players (for example forgetting that they had 7 more skill points than they spent), so I usually at least for the first few sessions will keep the sheets to look over them and get a feel for the character's capabilities so that I can make sure the adventure has things that will let each character shine and also has things that each character cannot automatically win (I've never had to deal with well played Tier 1 characters so there's usually an easy way around any I win buttons), and make sure the math is in order and that they remembered to mark all their bonuses so that I don't throw something at them that by all rights they ought to be able to handle but they forgot to include the enhancement bonus from their armor to their AC or some such.

I actually ended up keeping the sheets more often than not because my players told me they thought they'd lose them and also we tended to play at my house so the sheets were already there and worse case scenario they were simply misplaced and I could find them and nobody would have to go back to their house find it then come back.

[Malakar]

I can't be bothered with digitally stored character sheets eiter, because that means I have to print a new one every time I level up or otherwise alter the sheet. And that just gets confusing as well as being wasteful of paper.

Maybe you should take a look at digital character sheets again, and see if you actually have to print them at all, that's the point of digital.


What do you need it for inbetween sessions? If you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to complain.

I have already mentioned several things that I need it for between sessions. But even if there was actually nothing, this would still be an incorrect statement.

If you aren't a criminal, you have no reason to complain that the FBI shows up in your house with a fine toothed come every Tuesday, and they install cameras. Except, the problem is the person imposing has to justify themself.

You want to take a sheet away from the player and not let them have it, then that means you have to justify this, you don't get to just keep insinuating that everyone who doesn't is a cheater.