Wizard Hate

[Elasair]

I've been playing in an evil pathfinder campaign as of late, and some strange judgments have been passed on my character and play style.

I play an elf wizard in a somewhat optimized party. I went with the divination focus for the tasty initiative boost mainly. The party is as follows;

Elf divination wizard 20 (me)

Homebrew giant warblade 20 (has 70+ str and does enough damage to down most great wyrms in a round, also has heavy DR and regeneration)

Human lich cleric (necromancer) 20 (DM pretty much allows him to raise any and all dead bodies he finds, with no limits to the collective HD of things he raises)

Human sorcerer/fighter/eldritch knight (not sure on exact level makeup, pretty much focuses on charisma skill manipulations to get everyone he meets to do his will)


Combat usually ends up with the warblade getting into the fray, taking some hits and dealing the most damage. He has never come close to dying though. The lich sends in his armies to help the warblade. The sorc/fighter tends to play the opportunist, going to any bosses or BBEG he sees, trying to get the limelight. All of my spells in combat have to do with personal survival (evil campaign) and then i focus on closing off enemies with walls and bubbles to protect my team when i can.

This strategy has gone on well enough until we had an in game tournament. On the second fight of 4 total fights, a teammate noticed that the entire battlefield was rigged with landmines and other magical traps. I timestopped and put up bubbles around my teammates, then ran around placing objects and such to set off all of the traps. Once the timestop ended, i was back to safety. All of the traps explode at once, destroying most of our enemies and leaving our team unhurt (the resilient spheres had enough hp to barely hold)

Combat ended shortly thereafter with the DM making remarks along the lines of "Sure, wizards are balanced." I mentioned that he gave me the tools to kill the enemies by laying a ton of traps that were easy to notice, but it didn't change his view.

So I spent the next fight doing nothing for the most part, letting the team get the limelight, the lich almost dies (sorta), and the sorc/fighter gets low as well. I cast protective buffs on occasion, but primarily stood back. Nothing was said after this uneventful fight.

Final fight of the tournament. DM looks at me and says that since I want to play something OP, that he will too. Enemy party has a fighter type, rogue, ranger, and wait for it.... wizard.

He starts off the first round with a time stop (turns out this wizard ALSO had the divination initiative boost). He lays a bunch of delayed blast fireballs on us and blows em all up when the time stop ends. Whole party takes a ton of damage, cept me. I had my telekinetic sphere up and it absorbed enough damage to protect me.

I went next, released the bubble and started my turn. Quickened a dispel(dont remember which version, was using the quicken rod) and immediately followed it with a polymorph any object (snail.)

Turns out (big surprise ahead) that the wizard also had put up a telekinetic sphere, so my dispel ate that, and the enemy wizard ate my polymorph unprotected.

Our warblade starts his turn with an ubercharge and splats the enemy wizard snail. The rest of the fight consists of our party decimating the mundane team.

Afterwards DM still says Wizards are overpowered even though I showed him that they can still be beated with an ounce of planning and strategy. Later, when we hit epic, the campaign will be shifting into gestalt. I'm already planning on not going gestalt, just so he doesn't have any more reasons to hate on my wizard.

So am I playing unreasonably?

(Btw maybe he is right... I still haven't taken damage in this campaign after 5 sessions)

[Jornophelanthas]

I'm not going to comment on the power level of Wizards in general, or even on your build in your campaign.

However, I think your DM will be unconvinced that Wizards are not overpowered following the fight you described. After all, it took a Wizard (you) to beat a Wizard (him). (The damage that killed the NPC enemy is irrelevant, because you had already basically defeated him.)

Your DM will simply argue that Wizards are so overpowered that it takes another Wizard to be able to beat one.

There's only two ways to prove him wrong:
1. Defeat an enemy Wizard without your Wizard contributing (which means you'll have to either play a different character, or sit it out).
2. Have NPC enemies kill your Wizard in a fair fight (which means your character is dead).
Neither option is fun.

However, although your DM may believe Wizards to be overpowered, he plays fair and lets you get away with the things he considers to be overpowered. So in the end, I don't think there is a problem.

[AnonymousD&Der]

Considering you basically set the Wizard up to be slaughtered, pretty sure he's still going to be unhappy that a Wizard beat a Wizard, and nothing else can.

There probably -are- a couple of character types that can go up against a Wizard in dirrect combat, but for the most part, you are playing a God...

But that's not really your fault. It's Wizards of the Coast for a reason. And maybe you and your DM can try to talk about it. He seems pretty darn leniant on stuff, anyway.

Overall, I'm not sure where the issue comes in, if you don't mind me saying.

Edit: I've heard of -far- worse cheese.... you sound like you personally play fine.

[Elasair]

You're probably right about fairness to a degree. Although he singles me out, he avoids flat out breaking certain rules over an issue like this.

We're planning out another campaign for when this one ends. I'm planning on playing something mundane and see how he reacts.

I guess my issue is that my DM openly prefers melee combat for his campaigns and doesn't do his research on casters. I believe that if he did his research, he'd find was to balance it better.

Simply put, had he involved a bit of dispelling, I'd be ruined, seeing as how most of my power comes from buffing spells.

EDIT: I've heard of worse cheese too. I have a habit of finding or coming up with broken combos, telling him about them, then not using them (usually).

[holywhippet]

It's not so much that wizards are overpowered as spellcasting is overpowered at those levels in D&D. You have a level 20 in your party, have the DM take a look at what they are capable of - like the implosion spell which kills one target per round unless they make a fortitude save. That spell could likely squish an unprepared enemy wizard.

I'm not sure about that time stop trick though - you can only get 2-5 rounds of action out of it so how many objects could you place exactly?

[Qwertystop]

Wait... He said it was balanced after you took out all the enemies with (preplaced) landmines, then said they were OP after you sat back and did nothing?

[holywhippet]

Wait... He said it was balanced after you took out all the enemies with (preplaced) landmines, then said they were OP after you sat back and did nothing?

The DM was being sarcastic when he said wizards were balanced after the landmine incident.

[Qwertystop]

The DM was being sarcastic when he said wizards were balanced after the landmine incident.

Well:
1: Text has no tone of voice.
2: The way it was phrased ("remarks along the lines of") implies to me that that was what was meant by what he said, not what was actually said.

[holywhippet]

Yeah, I know - an emoticon would have been handy. The text following it suggest the DM disapproved though.

[Eldariel]

Yeah, basically, Wizards are the kings of the roost on those levels (alongside others with free access to all spells á la Archivists, Artificers, etc.) followed by Clerics and Druids (who have similar power level and can mimic Wizard to a degree). Arcane spellcasting in particular (though divine is no slouch) has some of the most game-changing effects in the 9th level (Time Stop, Disjunction, Gate, Astral Projection, etc.).

You are not using like Top 50% spells on those levels aside from PAO and Time Stop from the sound of it; you're actually holding back. You also sound notably more mortal than a Wizard could be if he cared by level 20. It's true that Magic must defeat Magic; that's how D&D is designed. That's why mundane types are stacked to the brim with magic items; the magic items give them a way to interact with magic (though Warblade is rather well off comparatively, being superbly mobile, able to break various effects mundanes can't normally, capable of granting allies extra actions and capable of threatening lethal with a standard action basically always - he's nowhere near Wizard's level though).


So...yeah, it seems like your DM is observing some fundamental factors in the game system. You are playing quite possibly the strongest single-classed character type in the game system (though obviously not built with power in mind). If the game has worked thus far though, I don't see a reason to worry about it. I mean, your DM is right but as long as you avoid doing everything yourself, it should be fine.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Sorry to tell you this, but wizards are indeed imbalanced. It seems like you're mostly holding back and helping the group, though. Good on you. Are the other players complaining, or just the DM?

Hmm, first part ninja'd. Oh well.

[Gavinfoxx]

Yes, Wizards are imbalanced and overpowered. Many DM's ban the big five or the big six outright: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, Spell to Power Erudite.

[Aquillion]

At high levels, Wizards are definitely capable of doing a lot more than most other classes, and the frustrations your DM is having with challenging you are indeed common. I mean, look at it from the DM's perspective -- once, you resolved an encounter that they probably spent a lot of time planning for and which they intended to take up a lot more time with a single spell (if level 9, and even if it was situational), and the second time the encounter was basically decided by a spell contest between two wizards.

Still, you said that this only started to come up in the tournament arc? Tournaments generally inherently favor wizards, since you can make more reasonable predictions about what you're up against and can afford to burn through spells much more than in a regular encounter. You could point that out to him.

From the party you described, the Cleric and the Warblade should at least be able to keep pace with you -- they're versatile enough that they shouldn't be feeling overshadowed. And the fourth guy sounds like some variety of diplomancer, so even if his multiclassing isn't totally optimal, he's potentially game-breaking.

The most important thing, though -- and this is what you should tell your DM -- is whether the people at the table are having fun. (This includes the DM, of course. But if everyone else is having fun, you can point it out to him.)

If his problem is that he hates having to design encounters that you can't resolve in one spell, though, the issue might be harder to deal with.

[holywhippet]

Imbalanced is an inaccurate term in this case. As the word "balance" suggests, it's being compared to something else - in this case, everything that isn't a wizard. A level 20 character should be pretty much more than mortal - ordinary beings pale in comparison. A level 20 wizard can do some pretty spectacular stuff. A level 20 fighter on the other hand? They can hit hard, fast and often but can't even close to the wizard.

It's not that wizards are overpowered, it's just that most other classes are badly underpowered.

[Tael]

Afterwards DM still says Wizards are overpowered even though I showed him that they can still be beated with an ounce of planning and strategy.

Nope. There are plenty of nigh unbeatable wizards floating around at 20, at a certain level, only another wizard can take down a wizard (or cleric, archivist, etc.) The fact that another wizard beat a wizard does prove much (although that wasn't exactly a well prepared wizard.)

[Aquillion]

Imbalanced is an inaccurate term in this case. As the word "balance" suggests, it's being compared to something else - in this case, everything that isn't a wizard. A level 20 character should be pretty much more than mortal - ordinary beings pale in comparison. A level 20 wizard can do some pretty spectacular stuff. A level 20 fighter on the other hand? They can hit hard, fast and often but can't even close to the wizard.

It's not that wizards are overpowered, it's just that most other classes are badly underpowered.I'm not so sure. There's really two considerations for balance -- remember, D&D isn't a PVP game, really.

One is, yeah, how you compare to your party. If you're constantly and clearly more powerful than eveyone else, that can grate on people. If you're outshining them in the area that's supposed to be their forte, that will almost certainly grate on them, but luckily that doesn't happen too often.

But the other one -- which sounds like the problem here -- is more of a character-vs-DM thing. I mean, yeah, the game isn't adversarial, right? But it's still the DM's job to provide fun and interesting challenges for the party -- which, usually, means challenges that they can't resolve in one action (some people enjoy resolving challenges in one action, and there's nothing really wrong with it if that's your sort of thing -- telling a story more about how you use your power than about success or failure. But it requires careful communication with the DM so they don't waste time preparing for big epic combats that aren't really what the players are there for anyway.)

Basically, extremely powerful characters make the DM's job harder, especially if the DM is inexperienced and therefore wastes a lot of time preparing stuff that a wizard solves or completely bypasses with one spell. It's much easier to plan out the story you want to tell with a fighter or even a Warblade than it is with a wizard who can suddenly decide to teleport to the other side of the planet or Plane Shift to Sigil.

More, it's easier for the DM to prepare a game with less powerful characters -- when your players suddenly decide to teleport to some city that's only been mentioned once, or plane-shift to Sigil or whatever, suddenly you're left going 'oh damn, now I have to quickly invent something for that!' That's not something that happens as much with less powerful classes -- you can usually anticipate, in a general sense, what your players will be able to do. That makes it much easier to DM for them, in general.

The "oh damn I had this big fight planned out and the wizard resolved it with one spell" situation that the original poster described isn't that uncommon at higher levels, and it's not just a matter of how the wizard compares to other classes, no.

[Elasair]

As far as the other players go, I don't think there is animosity of any real sort. We each fill our roles well and don't step on toes.

I guess as outlined by the more affluent posters above, the real issue is that the dm's encounters are being circumvented in ways that nullify the planning he had made. I can sympathize from this point of view. I feel the same way when I'm the DM and the players actively try to do non campaign related things (such as going robbing in the city when theres an undead invasion outside the city walls).

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Yeah, level 20 D&D can be like that. There are a few options:

1. The DM can spend his precious time to optimize his encounters a little better.
2. The DM can somewhat haphazardly throw progressively more difficult things at the group until there's some sort of equilibrium.
3. 'Yall can play at lower levels.
4. You can keep steamrolling encounters while the game becomes less about combat and more about planar politics, or character development, or somesuch.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Welcome to high OP wizards, time stop, and one mad as hell DM.

Yeah, wizards aren't necessarily overpowered in so much as they have a lot of options. And a lot of those per day!

If you prep well, then you can be nigh unstoppable. Thus, if the DM has no problem with the Warblade being able to one-shot everything with an Uberest-Charge, then simply talk to your DM about why he is mad at just you.

[Forbiddenwar]

I can't understand banning cleric, druid nor wizard. All three have powerful DM specified safeguards in place to prevent abuse, wizard especially.

A wizard cannot choose their spells, a DM decides what spells the wizard has encountered and scribed into the spell book. Some spells can be very rare, if not impossible to discover. Don't blame the class, blame the DM for allowing timestop, POA, gate, etc.

[Pyro_Azer]

I can't understand banning cleric, druid nor wizard. All three have powerful DM specified safeguards in place to prevent abuse, wizard especially.

A wizard cannot choose their spells, a DM decides what spells the wizard has encountered and scribed into the spell book. Some spells can be very rare, if not impossible to discover. Don't blame the class, blame the DM for allowing timestop, POA, gate, etc.

Not completely correct. The wizard gets 2 spells every level up. It does not say anywhere that the DM chooses these.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I can't understand banning cleric, druid nor wizard. All three have powerful DM specified safeguards in place to prevent abuse, wizard especially.

A wizard cannot choose their spells, a DM decides what spells the wizard has encountered and scribed into the spell book. Some spells can be very rare, if not impossible to discover. Don't blame the class, blame the DM for allowing timestop, POA, gate, etc.

Not only is it incredibly easy to safeguard your spellbook (shrink item, tattoos, a thousand copies on a thousand worlds), but, yeah, as long as the DM goes "All spells are okay" or "Yeah, you may have that spell."

After that, if the DM gets pissy, then you had best believe that either he should talk out of character or you should talk to him so he doesn't derp around and try to **** you over because "Wizards/Humans/Whatever is sooooooo OP!"

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Yes, wizards are "OP". Yes, Time Stop is one of the best spells in the game and is arguably the best spell in Practical Optimization. Especially with the invent of Celerity since your first timestop round can burn of the Celerity daze.

I few years ago I was running a high level campaign and had a player ask (quite indignantly) "Why does every high level caster in your game cast time stop?" I basically responded that it's because they aren't stupid; it's the best. Whatever you think is the best spell for them to cast you should be picturing them casting it in time stop along with your second and third choice.

The funny thing is from what you've described your playing your Wizard like a Sorceror with a well picked spell list. I'd suggest either asking your DM if he'd be happier if you were a Sorceror or try not using Time Stop since well used Time Stop may be a notch higher on the optimization scale then your group is ready for. Just don't replace it with an even better default trick.

[Craftworld]

The thing about wizards is preparation. If they aren't preped...they are a pincushion, a sword holder, a magic filled bag of meat...etc... In our campaign, we have learned to take out wizards right off the bat. Also, if they are preped but their stuff gets dispelled, they become the afformentioned items.
Here is an example.
-First round-Cleric throws out a Greater Dispel Magic, then Ranger/Scout/OotBI manyshots him into the ground.
Teamwork, a level head, and spells will down a wizard, just like anyone else.
Also, wizard isn't overpowered when compared to optimized builds.
There is a villain in that same campaign that in one or two rounds (6-12 seconds) killed an entire army of 3,000+ men. He is a halfling with two scimatars.
Compared to that, wizards are tame.


Not completely correct. The wizard gets 2 spells every level up. It does not say anywhere that the DM chooses these.

I think that what he means is that the DM determines what spells are availible to put into a spellbook from other sources unless the player says "I am going to look for X spell for Y amount of time"

[Flame of Anor]

There is a villain in that same campaign that in one or two rounds (6-12 seconds) killed an entire army of 3,000+ men. He is a halfling with two scimatars.

Story. Now.

[Divide by Zero]

The thing about wizards is preparation. If they aren't preped...they are a pincushion, a sword holder, a magic filled bag of meat...etc... In our campaign, we have learned to take out wizards right off the bat. Also, if they are preped but their stuff gets dispelled, they become the afformentioned items.
Here is an example.
-First round-Cleric throws out a Greater Dispel Magic, then Ranger/Scout/OotBI manyshots him into the ground.
Teamwork, a level head, and spells will down a wizard, just like anyone else.
A wizard who isn't prepared for a specific situation will be prepared for the general situation. While they may not have the perfect spell, it's pretty much guaranteed that they will have something useful, unless the situation involves a dead magic zone or something. Dispels have to beat their caster level, require that you go before them, and still doesn't help against things like celerity or contingency (if the trigger includes being hit with a dispel).

Also, wizard isn't overpowered when compared to optimized builds.
There is a villain in that same campaign that in one or two rounds (6-12 seconds) killed an entire army of 3,000+ men. He is a halfling with two scimatars.
Compared to that, wizards are tame.

Being able to kill lots of men isn't what makes a wizard strong. I don't think that halfling will be teleporting thousands of miles, or mindraping the king into doing whatever they want, or becoming immune to basically every form of attack, or any of the other thousands of tricks the wizard can do. Also, a wizard could also do that if they wanted to, so your example is flawed anyway.

I am curious how he did that, though.

[Craftworld]

Story. Now.

Pretty much he uses a build, (I don't know the build exactly) that uses Karmic Strike, and the Cleave tree (Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, then the Cleave that allows you to move 5 ft every time you kill someone), high damage, probably improved Keen with a 12-20 crit range, and a lower AC then usual to allow the chain reaction to go off. You hit him. Karmic strike allows him to immedietly strike back, he kills you, he cleaves, kills buddy number 1, then cleaves again, cleaves again, and the reaction is off as he slaughters soldiers (level 5-6 is average) in rapid succession. His name is fitting.
Savant of Slaughter.

[TheOOB]

The wizard is broken flat out, all the tier 1 classes are, but wizard is a special level of broken. Even a poorly played one is going to be extremely effective in most(if not all) encounters, and if you power game, even a little, they become unstoppable. A DM griefing on a player for playing a base class that they allowed is wrong, but if the DM didn't realize how powerful the wizard is, the player should be willing to adjust.

Long term solutions: A wizard should never twink out unless the DM does so too(or breaks out the tomb of horrors), and should never be paired with party members of less than tier 3(so no fighters, rogues, paladins, ect, only use classes that can be useful next to a wizard). Or the wizard can just play a similar class, sorcerer, beguiler, dread necromancer, psion, that is still powerful, but not OMG broken.

[Eldariel]

There is a villain in that same campaign that in one or two rounds (6-12 seconds) killed an entire army of 3,000+ men. He is a halfling with two scimatars.
Compared to that, wizards are tame.

*chuckle* Really? You're comparing ability to kill 3000 meaningless ants in seconds to the ability to rewrite reality? Wizards are on a whole different level specifically because their abilities amount to more than "kill X in Y ways". Clairvoyance? Wizards do that. Immortality? Wizards do that. Time travel? Wizards do that. Being always prepared? There's a spell for that. Wizard who lets his buffs get dispelled by a simple Greater Dispel Magic isn't trying; that's Wizards who don't even employ simple Rings of Counterspell or Contingencies. Wizard who doesn't act first isn't likewise trying.

When you get a BBEG who grows bored of you and decides to retroactively become your father and mother, that will be impressive. Wizards needing to destroy an army of 3000 in seconds? Limited Wish: Control Winds. Generate a tornado. Boom; army gone. Or hell, Time Stop -> Gate in a bunch of Dragons or whatever.

[Divide by Zero]

Pretty much he uses a build, (I don't know the build exactly) that uses Karmic Strike, and the Cleave tree (Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, then the Cleave that allows you to move 5 ft every time you kill someone), high damage, probably improved Keen with a 12-20 crit range, and a lower AC then usual to allow the chain reaction to go off. You hit him. Karmic strike allows him to immedietly strike back, he kills you, he cleaves, kills buddy number 1, then cleaves again, cleaves again, and the reaction is off as he slaughters soldiers (level 5-6 is average) in rapid succession. His name is fitting.
Savant of Slaughter.

While that would certainly work well in smaller engagements, what happens when he rolls a 1? On average, he's only going to take down a couple dozen per attack chain, so if he's eating a hit every time, eventually they'd overwhelm him with sheer numbers.

[Craftworld]

A wizard who isn't prepared for a specific situation will be prepared for the general situation. While they may not have the perfect spell, it's pretty much guaranteed that they will have something useful, unless the situation involves a dead magic zone or something. Dispels have to beat their caster level, require that you go before them, and still doesn't help against things like celerity or contingency (if the trigger includes being hit with a dispel).


Being able to kill lots of men isn't what makes a wizard strong. I don't think that halfling will be teleporting thousands of miles, or mindraping the king into doing whatever they want, or becoming immune to basically every form of attack, or any of the other thousands of tricks the wizard can do. Also, a wizard could also do that if they wanted to, so your example is flawed anyway.

I am curious how he did that, though.

A. Celerity/Contingency isn't used that often where I play but I see what you mean, the contingency however has to have "being hit with a dispel" in the trigger...not sure what Celerity is... Also, you don't have to go first, you just have to go. You guys all sound as if you are playing against wizards who are many time your level...that doesn't sound fair to me. Wizard I will fully admit is probably one of the top classes and is in the top tier.
B. A lot of people in our campaign setting can teleport thousands of miles. The kings in our world are one man armies in and of themselves and have protections from being Mind Raped...which is banned here btw, as is Awaken, and a lot of other spells. Adventurers aren't alone in the power department. Heck, the leader of the Evil faction can kill intermidiate deities by himself.

[Craftworld]

The easiest way to "unbreak" the wizard (I still don't think that it is broke but that might be because this has been put into effect...it may also be the type of campaigns that I play in. Currently it is a world wide war instead of "Evil Wizard/King must be defeated! Send in random adventuring heroes!")
BAN SPELLS FOR PEATS SAKE!
If you ban them, they can't break them because they don't exist and thusly cannot be done. Failure by DMs to rein them in efficiently is the reason for the "breaking of wizards".
Otherwise people could use Ice Assassin and make like 70 Ice (insert God here) with all of (God inserted)'s abilities.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

BAN SPELLS FOR PEATS SAKE!

Otherwise people could use Ice Assassin and make like 70 Ice (insert God here) with all of (God inserted)'s abilities.

The OP didn't mention any "broken" spells other than possibly time stop. He doesn't mention any cast today profit tomorrow spells, he isn't Astrally projecting, despite being a diviner he doesn't seem to be using scry and die or any shenanigans to determine a perfect spell list, he hasn't mentioned using contingency or contingent spell, or Celerity.

All we know is that he has a halfway decent default prepared spells with thing's like quickened dispel magic, resilient sphere, PAO and wall of stone on it and POA isn't being used to break the economy. We also know that the OP is smart enough to know that when is doubt "Time Stop". He isn't even breaking the game he's just winning combat and since there's no mention of plane shifting to an advanced time demi-plane he's expending a real resource in the form of high level spell slots to do it.

[LordBlades]

The easiest way to "unbreak" the wizard (I still don't think that it is broke but that might be because this has been put into effect...it may also be the type of campaigns that I play in. Currently it is a world wide war instead of "Evil Wizard/King must be defeated! Send in random adventuring heroes!")
BAN SPELLS FOR PEATS SAKE!
If you ban them, they can't break them because they don't exist and thusly cannot be done. Failure by DMs to rein them in efficiently is the reason for the "breaking of wizards".
Otherwise people could use Ice Assassin and make like 70 Ice (insert God here) with all of (God inserted)'s abilities.

You do realize that's a lot of banning to be done right? Probably more than 50% of the 6th level and above spells ever printed can be used to walk all over a campaign.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

It occurred to me that Craftworld may have been referring to worlds inferred to in the side discussion of destroying armies. If so sorry about the general tone of my above post.

I will say that I think banning the Tier one classes and having and/or having a gentleman's agreement regarding a relatively small number of cast today profit tomorrow spells and a few other TO things is better than banning half the high level spells.

[Elasair]

I did have a simple "teleport to safety" contingency active. I am not familiar with the meaning behind "scry and die" though.

[Divide by Zero]

I am not familiar with the meaning behind "scry and die" though.

Basically, you start in a safe location, use divinations to figure out the optimal spell list to take out your target, then teleport in and blow them up.

[Elasair]

Oh, I've thought of doing that, but my group would probably lynch me. Judging by the sessions so far, I wouldn't need the rest of the team if I played like that, leading to no fun at all.

[Yuki Akuma]

Oh, I've thought of doing that, but my group would probably lynch me. Judging by the sessions so far, I wouldn't need the rest of the team if I played like that, leading to no fun at all.

And this is why Wizards are Tier 1.

[Doktor Per]

Tell your DM to end games around 12th to 14th level.

[ImperatorK]

Oh, I've thought of doing that, but my group would probably lynch me. Judging by the sessions so far, I wouldn't need the rest of the team if I played like that, leading to no fun at all.
You, my good sir, are a treasure that your DM should be thankful, instead of frowning about OP wizards. :smallannoyed:
(point him towars JaronK's tier system, educate him a little)

[MrRigger]

I'll be honest with you, it seems to me like you're playing a wizard who isn't intentionally gimping yourself (suboptimal blasting when other spells work better, after all, blasting sometimes is the best option for the situation), but also isn't playing God (ridiculous action economy abuse, demi-plane shenanigans, Incantatrix Metamagic abuse). The way you're playing seems, to my mind, like the most reasonable way to play a high level wizard. You're not making the other players irrelevant, but you're not playing the wizard as dumber than he should be. Let's face it, a wizard with the crazy high INT that high level wizards have is not going to put himself in hazardous situations that he doesn't have to be in, as that would be stupid. It's like the dragon who crams himself into a tight cave where he can't fly. Dragons are smart, and aren't going to give up one of the biggest strengths (high flight speed). High Level Wizards aren't going to give up one of their biggest strengths (Time Stop).

What I'm trying to get at is that the DM probably should have realized what it meant to have a High Level Wizard in his campaign when he started. You're controlling yourself, but aren't gimping yourself, something a lot of people (not necessarily those on this forum) can't say.

MrRigger

[cfalcon]

Your DM is just whining.


Did you play that wizard to 20?

[cfalcon]

And yes, your DM can ban certain overpowered spells. But complaining that you are overperforming at 20th level is pretty petty. How did you perform at 1st level? How about 8th? I mean, the rest of your party is pretty great all around.

Any DM whining about a class issue is being silly. He can fix those really easily.

[Autopsibiofeeder]

You, my good sir, are a treasure that your DM should be thankful, instead of frowning about OP wizards. :smallannoyed:
(point him towars JaronK's tier system, educate him a little)

I agree. Your DM is right. Wizards are capable of things other classes aren't. Wizards can destroy any plans you have at higher level. There is simply no stopping them if they don't want to be stopped. However, it seems to me you are playing the type of wizard most DM's would welcome in their games. From what I read, you spend the majority of your powers to protect, enhance and enable your team mates. That makes you a teamplayer and, in my opinion, D&D is a teamsport. In that case your level of power is irrelevant, since the goodness shines on the whole party.

If you then, sometimes, go ahead and step on the stage to manifest your power and solve things with your spells singlehandedly you deserved that sparse moment of glory. If you'd pull a stunt every session, I would be annoyed as well as DM, but at the same time blame myself for not getting things straight with the player before things went wrong.

As some before me mentioned, as a DM you have to be clear when a player is creating a wizard. You can mention 'say, I don't really like the possible implications of spells X and Y (and some more) in the campaign'. Try to get a basis of understanding, a 'gentleman's agreement'. Use it, but don't abuse it. That requires a basis of trust, but really can work out well.

[cfalcon]

I will also state that the higher power level of casters is an explicit design feature in Dungeons and Dragons. If your DM is really shocked by this after the game being like this since at least the early 80s, then perhaps he should consider a slightly different game- Monte Cooke's Iron Heroes, many of the houseruled things that dispose of high level magic, including E6... a lot of people who don't like the ramifications of this have proposed workable and strong solutions.

[Yuki Akuma]

I will also state that the higher power level of casters is an explicit design feature in Dungeons and Dragons.

It really isn't.

The game was not playtested with this in mind. At all.

[Elasair]

We have banned a few spells in our campaign world already. It was my idea to outlaw the wish spell just to avoid the headache that spell inevitably will cause. We've also banned most resurrection spells, more a plot reason, and left its power in the hands of divine intervention (miracle and such.)


I agree. Your DM is right. Wizards are capable of things other classes aren't. Wizards can destroy any plans you have at higher level. There is simply no stopping them if they don't want to be stopped. However, it seems to me you are playing the type of wizard most DM's would welcome in their games. From what I read, you spend the majority of your powers to protect, enhance and enable your team mates. That makes you a teamplayer and, in my opinion, D&D is a teamsport. In that case your level of power is irrelevant, since the goodness shines on the whole party.

If you then, sometimes, go ahead and step on the stage to manifest your power and solve things with your spells singlehandedly you deserved that sparse moment of glory. If you'd pull a stunt every session, I would be annoyed as well as DM, but at the same time blame myself for not getting things straight with the player before things went wrong.

As some before me mentioned, as a DM you have to be clear when a player is creating a wizard. You can mention 'say, I don't really like the possible implications of spells X and Y (and some more) in the campaign'. Try to get a basis of understanding, a 'gentleman's agreement'. Use it, but don't abuse it. That requires a basis of trust, but really can work out well.

[Qwertystop]

I hear the phrase E6 a lot, but it seems assumed that everybody already knows what it means. However, I don't. What is it? An alternate system, or some variant rule, or something?

[Eldariel]

I hear the phrase E6 a lot, but it seems assumed that everybody already knows what it means. However, I don't. What is it? An alternate system, or some variant rule, or something?

It's a 3.5 game capping it at level 6; basically, the idea is that level 6 is the highest needed to do any of the things a normal human could, not to mention a fine balance point (only full BAB types get the second attack, 4th level spells are cut out entirely but both, spontaneous and preparing casters get 3rds, all classes get the second save progression, etc.). So basically, E6 involves characters not leveling by class levels after level 6; after 6th level they only gain bonus feats as a form of advancement (one per every 5k XP).

[Autopsibiofeeder]

I hear the phrase E6 a lot, but it seems assumed that everybody already knows what it means. However, I don't. What is it? An alternate system, or some variant rule, or something?

It is a DnD variant that practically stops advancing at level 6. You become 'epic' and start accumulating feats as you become more powerful (but not b.a.b., 4th level spells etc.). Here's a quickly googled link: E6 wiki (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/E6_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29)

[Hiro Protagonest]

It really isn't.

The game was not playtested with this in mind. At all.

Yeah. They put in a lot of those spells because it seemed like things Gandalf had. Never mind that Gandalf was basically a god. And then, of course, they didn't playtest Gandalf. The playtested a wizard with all the blasty spells and some others when there weren't any blasty spells left.

[cfalcon]

It really isn't.

The game was not playtested with this in mind. At all.


Sure it was. Everyone knew about the general higher power level of casters in the 80s. It was the same in AD&D, AD&D 2ed, 3.0, and of course, 3.5. It's been like this a lot longer than many of the players have drawn breath. Do you really think like two generations of developers, players, and designers have been totally blind to "ok, your guy is in an unbreakable cube of force" or "wish"?

Now, in some ways players are playing the game not quite as designed- for instance, in some solo arena situation, a wizard is supposed to pretty much kill everyone. But the game isn't solo arena. The game is designed around a series of encounters, some of variable difficulty. In this case, a party of, say, all wizards, could run into serious resource issues.

Additionally, a few spells that cause the REALLY broken stuff and require PCs to be researching across a bunch of different splatbooks... I don't know if you can credit say, "create a demiplane where time flows differently" as being a wizard problem. It's more an issue where you should be stopping at "create a demiplane" and definitely at "time flow".

[Autopsibiofeeder]

Sure it was. Everyone knew about the general higher power level of casters in the 80s. It was the same in AD&D, AD&D 2ed, 3.0, and of course, 3.5. It's been like this a lot longer than many of the players have drawn breath. Do you really think like two generations of developers, players, and designers have been totally blind to "ok, your guy is in an unbreakable cube of force" or "wish"?

Now, in some ways players are playing the game not quite as designed- for instance, in some solo arena situation, a wizard is supposed to pretty much kill everyone. But the game isn't solo arena. The game is designed around a series of encounters, some of variable difficulty. In this case, a party of, say, all wizards, could run into serious resource issues.

Additionally, a few spells that cause the REALLY broken stuff and require PCs to be researching across a bunch of different splatbooks... I don't know if you can credit say, "create a demiplane where time flows differently" as being a wizard problem. It's more an issue where you should be stopping at "create a demiplane" and definitely at "time flow".

Well, in previous editions there were restrictions to being a caster. In terms of preparing spells (could take ages), casting spells and spells side effects (like haste ageing you). Also casters tended to advance slower, creating a level difference.

There were 'drawbacks' to being a caster. Those are gone now and casters are having a field day. I wasn't at the table when they playtested, but if they did playtest for it, they did not do a very good job. The power level difference is there, and it used to be there, but it is bigger now.

[Eldariel]

Yeah. They put in a lot of those spells because it seemed like things Gandalf had. Never mind that Gandalf was basically a god. And then, of course, they didn't playtest Gandalf. The playtested a wizard with all the blasty spells and some others when there weren't any blasty spells left.

Basically all of the core spells are from earlier editions; they were gradually added out of need (hence the bunch of "Mordenkainen's", "Otiluke's", "Bigsby's", "Tenser's", "Evard's" and so on spells named after the PCs who created them). Floating Disc, for example, has a very simple purpose - to give a Wizard the capability to carry objects without actually having to expend physical effort on it.

The only big differences are that in 3e, the spells became by and large safer, easier to prepare and you got more spell slots. And spell trigger items became easy to create.


It's like, Wizard isn't inherently too strong because they can do everything. It's that the effort to do everything is way too small in 3.5, with way too little risk associated. In earlier editions, the effort you needed to expend to do everything was way larger and consumed a larger portion of your resources.

It was still possible but it was alright, by and large, since it was a long and arduous road to get to the point where you can do everything and doing everything was still dangerous and left you with less gas for surprises.

[Vemynal]

Can you tell me a bit more about your Divination specialization Wizard? what school did you ban?

I never really thought of playing a Div Spec Wizard before, but now that I'm reading about it it sounds like a lot of fun so i was hoping you'd tell us a bit about it ^_^

[VladtheLad]

I timestopped and put up bubbles around my teammates, then ran around placing objects and such to set off all of the traps. Once the timestop ended, i was back to safety. All of the traps explode at once, destroying most of our enemies and leaving our team unhurt (the resilient spheres had enough hp to barely hold)


I think its debatable if you can use time stop to always trigger traps. At least the dm could rule that the traps weren't activated just because a rock appeared near them.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Can you tell me a bit more about your Divination specialization Wizard? what school did you ban?

I never really thought of playing a Div Spec Wizard before, but now that I'm reading about it it sounds like a lot of fun so i was hoping you'd tell us a bit about it ^_^

It's PF version, so he gets a bunch of neat tricks depending on what he specializes (and for generalist), and the 20th level version for divination is always treating initiative roll as a nat 20, and you gain 1/2 wizard level to initiative.

[Talakeal]

I have only DMed one 3.5 game to level 20. In that game the party wizard rarely showed up and so the rogue would UMD to take over his role. Once the rogue got a hold of a wand of shapechange the game was over. There is nothing that can challenge a character with shapechange, as that also gives them access to virtually every other spell in the book, especially once you turn into things that can summon other things. Some spells are just broken, particularly shapechange and Gate which effectively count as "all" spells.

[Eldariel]

I have only DMed one 3.5 game to level 20. In that game the party wizard rarely showed up and so the rogue would UMD to take over his role. Once the rogue got a hold of a wand of shapechange the game was over. There is nothing that can challenge a character with shapechange, as that also gives them access to virtually every other spell in the book, especially once you turn into things that can summon other things. Some spells are just broken, particularly shapechange and Gate which effectively count as "all" spells.

Luckily Wands of Shapechange can't exist by RAW; Wands cap out at 4th level spells (for a very good reason) :smallwink:

[Talakeal]

Luckily Wands of Shapechange can't exist by RAW; Wands cap out at 4th level spells (for a very good reason) :smallwink:

It wasn't technically a wand, I just said that for shorthand because I can't remember its exact design. It was some sort of custom magic item which he cobbled together, I forget the details, it was over 5 years ago. I think it was a 3/day use command word activated cloak, but that might be totally wrong, maybe it was just a staff.


Although it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't totally illegal, he is the same player who tried to pull a crossbow of truestriking earlier in the game and insisted it was RAW...

[Eldariel]

Although it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't totally illegal, he is the same player who tried to pull a crossbow of truestriking earlier in the game and insisted it was RAW...

Yeah, he needs to be fed the custom magic item creation guidelines. Such items don't exist; those guidelines are strictly for the DM to create new magic items, not for PCs to get easy access to overpowered spells without charges at a negligible price.

[Talakeal]

Yeah, he needs to be fed the custom magic item creation guidelines. Such items don't exist; those guidelines are strictly for the DM to create new magic items, not for PCs to get easy access to overpowered spells without charges at a negligible price.

Looking over the DMG I am not seeing any reason why a staff of Shapechange would be illegal, although I may well be missing something, as I said it has been over 5 years since I alst DMed high level D&D.
If a player wants to craft said item I don't see any reason to tell them no unless you are banning Shapechange entirely (which would probably be a good idea). I don't see how its fair to allow a wizard to cast the spell but not a rogue to emulate it.

[Eldariel]

Looking over the DMG I am not seeing any reason why a staff of Shapechange would be illegal, although I may well be missing something, as I said it has been over 5 years since I alst DMed high level D&D.
If a player wants to craft said item I don't see any reason to tell them no unless you are banning Shapechange entirely (which would probably be a good idea). I don't see how its fair to allow a wizard to cast the spell but not a rogue to emulate it.

Well, Staves are strange animals; there's a very small pool of official Staves and they're all quite inefficient due to having a ton of spells but a relatively small pool of charges for all of the spells, making them expensive for what they do. But allowing Staves of single spells basically obsoletes Wands, and they're always better than Scrolls for anything you plan on using multiple times, which seems subpar.

As for not allowing said items, I'm just not a fan of characters with no abilities of their own. Once you have a Staff of Shapechange, that might as well be your character if you're lower tier; your class features and base stats don't matter, your character is one high level spell. You still are nowhere near casters but now you're basically a strictly worse caster; a caster that knows exactly one spell. You still can't play the spell game but now you also managed to basically trivialize your own character.

Obviously, I'd prefer to just not have a high level game with tier 1 and tier 4 classes at the same time; that's a recipe for disaster. And yeah, Shapechange is on the very top of my Ban That ****™-list simply because it's quite probably the strongest spell in the game. But if letting loose and playing a tier 1 game on high levels, I'd probably allow it (though with a few restrictions to prevent a dozen infinite loops it enables). If someone wants to play a Rogue though and ends up UMD Monkey For Shapechange, I'm not sure he feels like he's playing Rogue anymore - basically he's playing Shapechange now (I've said it before; Shapechange as a character's only ability from level 1 with HD limit equal to class level would be stronger than all under tier 2 classes).

I mean, yeah, one way to balance high levels is to make up a bunch of custom magic items with all the high level spells but that seems like an exceedingly poor way of doing it, since it trivializes all the non-caster classes anyways and basically makes their power equivalent to their WBL (seriously, why aren't you just playing a caster at that point? Casters still do it better and have more infinite access to those abilities in a world with Disjunctions, and yet you're effectively playing one too, just one that needs items to do anything useful).

[Flame of Anor]

Yeah. They put in a lot of those spells because it seemed like things Gandalf had. Never mind that Gandalf was basically a god. And then, of course, they didn't playtest Gandalf. The playtested a wizard with all the blasty spells and some others when there weren't any blasty spells left.

I have a personal strategy for playing a wizard who is fun but not game-breaking. My wizard is conscious of gaining power, but he also loves to be stylish: so, for example, he wouldn't give up time stop (not that he's quite that high-level yet) but he'd rather cast a flashy fireball than some more optimized spell.

[Elasair]

Can you tell me a bit more about your Divination specialization Wizard? what school did you ban?

I never really thought of playing a Div Spec Wizard before, but now that I'm reading about it it sounds like a lot of fun so i was hoping you'd tell us a bit about it ^_^

Biggest reason for divination spec was that he was always paranoid of conspirators (it turned out that he was correct). He'd use the spec to keep an eye on everything around him and to bump up his initiative rolls. If I recall, he banned necromancy because he found it "disgusting," seeing as how he was arrogant and stylish.

[Flame of Anor]

If I recall, he banned necromancy because he found it "disgusting," seeing as how he was arrogant and stylish.

Haha, mine did the exact same thing. :smallbiggrin:

[Aquillion]

Yes, wizards are "OP". Yes, Time Stop is one of the best spells in the game and is arguably the best spell in Practical Optimization. Especially with the invent of Celerity since your first timestop round can burn of the Celerity daze.Not quite the best. Shapechange is better. If you're going all-out and willing to pay its cost, Gate is also better. Disjunction is technically better...

Though, I'll grant you, from a practical standpoint Disjunction and Gate see less use due to their costs... and Shapechange is so horrifically broken (above and beyond the way wizards as a whole are broken) that most people are likely to just ban it outright.

(Though, regarding the ban spells thing: The problem is, it isn't just a few obscure spells. Outside of blasting, most of the core, iconic wizard spells are broken. Flight, invisibility, teleportation, polymorph -- those are some of the basic concepts that people make a Wizard to play around with. And they're utterly game-breaking. In order to fix the wizard by banning spells, you'd have to ban so much that their flavor would fundamentally change -- you'd have to make them not-a-wizard. At that point, you might as well just use Warmage or some such thing instead.)

[LordBlades]

Not quite the best. Shapechange is better. If you're going all-out and willing to pay its cost, Gate is also better. Disjunction is technically better...

Though, I'll grant you, from a practical standpoint Disjunction and Gate see less use due to their costs... and Shapechange is so horrifically broken (above and beyond the way wizards as a whole are broken) that most people are likely to just ban it outright.

(Though, regarding the ban spells thing: The problem is, it isn't just a few obscure spells. Outside of blasting, most of the core, iconic wizard spells are broken. Flight, invisibility, teleportation, polymorph -- those are some of the basic concepts that people make a Wizard to play around with. And they're utterly game-breaking. In order to fix the wizard by banning spells, you'd have to ban so much that their flavor would fundamentally change -- you'd have to make them not-a-wizard. At that point, you might as well just use Warmage or some such thing instead.)

A pretty decent 'band-aid' to wizard power issues that I've seen people recommend for tier 3 games is replace the wizard with the several classes that represent school archetypes:

Beguiler>illusion/enchantment
Warmage>evocation
Dread necromancer>necromancy

It's decent power wise, but you lack classes for divination, transmutation and conjuration. You might be able to homebrew some, but given the power of conjuration and transmutation spells, even on a commoner chassis (d4 hd, all bad saves, no class feature) access to full spell list from any of those schools will probably put the character significantly above tier 3.