true power of a wizard

[killianh]

Now I know that wizard's are all powerful shapers of magic and breakers of reality, but I'm wondering what ends up being the true extent of their in game, non-theoretical power. By standard rules you learn 2 spells per level past level 1 which averages out to only 4 spells of any given level. That said a wizard only has so much gold to spend buying up scrolls and other spell books and copying down the spells for themselves. gaining any more spells then that involves a whole spell book being random treasure or an in game gift.

Long story short what is the realistic apex of a straight wizard? I'm not talking about just chain gates or thought bottles, but something actually built and usable that doesn't rely on some infinity trick.

[Flickerdart]

There are a significant number of feats and ACFs that increase your free spells per level to something like 14. Furthermore, you can always Bind/Summon/Gate in something with the effect you want as an SLA.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Then of course, there's also the blessed book. 12,500gp and you don't have to pay to scribe your next 1000 pages of spells. That's 12.5gp per page instead of the standard 100gp per page.

............ Does anyone know what happens to a blessed book that gets suppressed by a targeted dispel magic?

[Randomguy]

Then of course, there's also the blessed book. 12,500gp and you don't have to pay to scribe your next 1000 pages of spells. That's 12.5gp per page instead of the standard 100gp per page.

............ Does anyone know what happens to a blessed book that gets suppressed by a targeted dispel magic?

I guess it would just turn into a regular, nonmagical 1000 page spellbook for the next few rounds. Not much point in even targeting it.

[Gamer Girl]

Long story short what is the realistic apex of a straight wizard? I'm not talking about just chain gates or thought bottles, but something actually built and usable that doesn't rely on some infinity trick.

Not that much. And I run an insanely high magic game too.

[Feralventas]

If you're willing to ignore the WBL rules and force your Wizard player to use only the class features available, they are still potent, but will be somewhat limited by their spells per day.

However, even giving a Wizard a small amount of the GP that they are estimated to have each level in the DMG, they can use crafting feats to ignore that first set of limitations; spells per day don't become as much of an issue when you can craft a wand of the spells you know you'll want lots of and save your actual spell-slots for situational or utilitarian spells.

If you give them the full amount, they can not only buy materials to ignore their spell-slot limitation, they can buy new scrolls and spells at the drop of a hat so as to improve their ability to do anything as long as they have some small measure of fore-thought.

Even without this, they could still gate or planar-ally a large number of creatures, many of which have natural 'caster levels, and while a Sorcerer doesn't get Scribe Scroll, the Wizard does and can scribe someone else's spell as long as it's provided, meaning they can trade favors to increase their repertoire. Some spells can also be cast from the Wiz/Sorc, Cleric, And druid list, so things with those levels can potentially be offered as well.

Essentially, if I understand the game well enough (which is not a given as I am terribad at char-op), the wizard has the tools to get any spell in the game, or at least those of their own list, so long as they take the time to do so.

[killianh]

Not that much. And I run an insanely high magic game too.

See? that's always been my general view on the matter. I mean sure a wizard ends up with some of those "win or fizzle" type spells, but any character built right can end up at that point (if you actually build characters for that point :smallsigh:) The main reason I have for asking this is because the wizard class almost always ends up being the go to for most powerful class, while it can be theoretically built to be so, in game it very really seems to show that kind of power even in the hands of some heavy handed power gamers.

[Mithril Leaf]

It's all about spell choice. Let's say gating is banned. Let's use greater planar binding to get an ally we'd like. Give him some of the massive sums of money we created with fabricate. Not allowed? Let's instead make some magic items to boost our spell DCs and use save or dies. Too much work? Let's just summon, quick and easy. The point is that the wizard has versitility and absurd power. You feel like blasting and can with a single spell. You feel like summoning and can with a couple of spells. Necromancy? Covered. A wizard can kill a city at low level, or do so entirely reasonably at high level. He can fly and teleport at level 9. A plane of his own to hide on at level 17. There's simply an absurd number of options avaliable to him, which he gains purely as a class feature. He still gets the fun stuff other class gets. For example, a warblade will spend his WBL on emulating things a wizard will get for free, say flying and mind-blank.

[Randomguy]

I heard that the best way to play a wizard (short of TO) is general buffing, god wizard style. They say that a good wizard is like a good bassist: you don't notice him until he's gone.

Not that I have any experience in the matter, of course.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The DM can curb the wizard class's power, since the DM controlls what spells a wizard might find to add to his spell-book, but unless he implements the between-level training option from the DMG, there's really not much he can do about the two spells the wizard gets at level up.

Ultimately, unless the wizard's player has to get every spell in his book pre-approved, he can gain almost TO levels of power without ever resorting to a wierd interpretation of RAW.

The final balancing factor in playing a wizard is the player himself. The wizard may be god but the guy in the driver's seat is still human, and he -will- make mistakes that enemies can capitalize on.

[Aegis013]

I had a DM let me use the Killer Gnome Shadowcraft Mage build in a game. I got to level 10 and I was basically an unstoppable utility machine. I was always concerned that the DM didn't know what he was getting into allowing such a thing in his game. I kept warning him about how absurd it was, but he kept reassuring me it was fine.

Then I made every encounter into a joke by buffing my allies or color spraying groups of foes at low levels, and when an encounter finally came around that was supposed to be a "no way to win" scenario, I asked and the DM reassured me it was fine to try to win (since it seemed, to me, story relevant for us not to beat it, mostly based on the enormous amount of DM fiat to have the encounter even exist, as it broke some of D&D's rules)... so I destroyed it by using a Scroll of Invisible meta-magicked Prismatic Sphere. I had the playground help me come up with a plan to try to win the encounter, they were very helpful. I realized later that he could not effectively challenge me, or my buffed allies when I didn't feel like directly engaging, due to his lack of system mastery revolving around spells, powers, infusions or any magic subsystem.

If you have easy access to magic items and/or crafters, especially the odd high level scroll here or there, great PrC's, extremely synergistic options and caster level boosters... Wizards can really turn the game upside down. Though it's largely dependent on the DM whether this stuff can be accessed.

[nyarlathotep]

See? that's always been my general view on the matter. I mean sure a wizard ends up with some of those "win or fizzle" type spells, but any character built right can end up at that point (if you actually build characters for that point :smallsigh:) The main reason I have for asking this is because the wizard class almost always ends up being the go to for most powerful class, while it can be theoretically built to be so, in game it very really seems to show that kind of power even in the hands of some heavy handed power gamers.

That time of the week already?

Several long well explained posts on why a wizard are really powerful compared to non-casters and even other casters. A single post claiming they aren't that is only a single sentence. Clearly wizards aren't as powerful as is said.

While wizards are limited by spell selection to a point, if you're limiting a mid-to-high level wizard so much in cash that he cannot buy spells for his spellbook then the noncasters will not be able to afford the magic items they need just to function. Unless of course your game world is specifically set up to stop wizards from amassing power, by having magic weapons and utility equipment be plentiful but spellbooks and scrolls be scarce. Then however you are using houserules to nerf a class because it is very powerful compared to others.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That time of the week already?

Several long well explained posts on why a wizard are really powerful compared to non-casters and even other casters. A single post claiming they aren't that is only a single sentence. Clearly wizards aren't as powerful as is said.

While wizards are limited by spell selection to a point, if you're limiting a mid-to-high level wizard so much in cash that he cannot buy spells for his spellbook then the noncasters will not be able to afford the magic items they need just to function. Unless of course your game world is specifically set up to stop wizards from amassing power, by having magic weapons and utility equipment be plentiful but spellbooks and scrolls be scarce. Then however you are using houserules to nerf a class because it is very powerful compared to others.

Reducing access to spells isn't the same as reducing access to cash or gear. Magic weapons show up in treasure piles all the time. The same goes for magical tools and clothing. All a DM has to do to limit spell access is keep the party away from big cities or cities with a strong arcane presence and not drop arcane scrolls in the loot. Yes, he'd be singling the wizard out, and no that's not generally considered good DM'ing, but it is an effective way to limit a wizard to little more than the spells he gets at level up. Limiting down-time to actually do the research can get in the way too. It takes two days to turn a scroll into a spell in your book.

The wizard can counter all of this with certain feats and ACF's as mentioned above, but a wizard that's on the default settings can be toned way-down this way........ unless he can call monsters with spellcasting. Then the DM is pretty much screwed.

[Wings of Peace]

What actually counts as built and usable? Because I consider Elven Generalists with 9ths at first level, Mind Mages with self recharging slots, and spontaneous casting through Versatile Spellcaster to all be usable.

[TuggyNE]

Reducing access to spells isn't the same as reducing access to cash or gear. Magic weapons show up in treasure piles all the time. The same goes for magical tools and clothing. All a DM has to do to limit spell access is keep the party away from big cities or cities with a strong arcane presence and not drop arcane scrolls in the loot. Yes, he'd be singling the wizard out, and no that's not generally considered good DM'ing, but it is an effective way to limit a wizard to little more than the spells he gets at level up.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't see any particular reason to make a distinction between "scrolls can appear in looted treasure" and "magic weapons/armor/gear can appear in looted treasure" by RAW. So it would seem that limiting access to one really is the same as limiting the other — with the sole exception of class applicability.

(One might also mention the likelihood that this tends to affect primarily lower-op wizards; higher-op have solutions even for this problem, leading to the interesting prospect of soft-nerfing only the less troublesome Wizards.)

[Togo]

In practice I've found that in a properly limited and controlled game, wizards are weaker than other classes at low level, and become more powerful at high level, reaching a peak at 17th level. They then subside again, becoming less powerful in epic, although this is partly dependent on your use of epic rules and epic magic in particular.

I appreciate that other playgrounders have had different experiences, and I sympathise, but overpowered wizards simply isn't a universal problem.

[ahenobarbi]

Now I know that wizard's are all powerful shapers of magic and breakers of reality, but I'm wondering what ends up being the true extent of their in game, non-theoretical power. By standard rules you learn 2 spells per level past level 1 which averages out to only 4 spells of any given level.

Still more spells than sorcerer. And Wizard gets 8 9th level spells. And in game when spells are limited there are shadow spells. And Summons with SLAs / casting. And Planar bindings. And Limited Wish.

Even within PHB there are many ways to not care too much about limited spells selection.

[Coidzor]

Long story short what is the realistic apex of a straight wizard?

Enough to break a campaign accidentally, or were you wanting that expressed in terms of some sort of defined scale?

[Devmaar]

In practice I've found that in a properly limited and controlled game, wizards are weaker than other classes at low level, and become more powerful at high level, reaching a peak at 17th level. They then subside again, becoming less powerful in epic, although this is partly dependent on your use of epic rules and epic magic in particular.

I appreciate that other playgrounders have had different experiences, and I sympathise, but overpowered wizards simply isn't a universal problem.

The point is for this to happen the Wizard needs to be limited and controlled. More so than other characters

[Eldariel]

So far, in the Pathfinder Society live campaign I've played a Wizard from level 1 to level 3 (6 scenarios) and none of my teams have had any trouble with anything except one non-combat encounter (a really nasty trap when we didn't have a trapfinder in the party) including few "boss" fights against infamous TPKs from the modules (turns out Sleep, Color Spray and Grease are really good); a certain favorably positioned Archer Ranger 4 with poison, and certain pre-buffed Magus 4 for instance. Why? 'cause neither had any special resistances to Sleep/Color Spray/Grease (tho the Ranger made few of the Reflex-saves of course).

Now, it's true that I'm probably more experienced than most when it comes to resource allocation and spell usage, so it's fully possible that my performance is above par. Regardless, all I'll say is properly played, a low level Wizard is an irreplaceable asset in an adventuring party and a party with a Wizard is much stronger than a party without one; or at least, there's a massive number of encounters a party with a Wizard fares better against.


I'm fairly confident in saying that from levels 1-5 a Wizard is probably the most important party member to have, perhaps behind Druid. Especially various melee brutes are just infinitely harder to deal with lacking a Wizard, and Enlarge Person is an absolutely godlike buff on low levels.


I also have a related anecdote of accidentally breaking a game; we had a small party in the teens. Specifically, level 14, going through Expedition to the Demonweb Pits. Party had an Ultimate Magus (Wizard/Nar Demonbinder) & a Dervish. Wizard casts Planar Binding for some hired muscle 'cause we're going to the Pits and we could use a few extra hands. So he binds a Glabrezu.

I'm playing the Dervish and suddenly notice that a Wizard's pet is outperforming me in combat; and the opposed Charisma-check was not a problem (Circlet of Persuasion, +Cha mantle, etc.), and the whole "fight for me during this expedition"-deal was easily a job the spell can perform. Now, this isn't the strongest use of Planar Binding by a long shot. But still, at will Reverse Gravity, True Seeing, great martial ability, Spell Resistance, etc. A non-caster feels kinda useless by comparison.

[Psyren]

I heard that the best way to play a wizard (short of TO) is general buffing, god wizard style. They say that a good wizard is like a good bassist: you don't notice him until he's gone.

Not that I have any experience in the matter, of course.

I have yet to seriously play an actual Wizard myself but I've played plenty of god-style characters in the same vein (Psion, Witch etc.) and this is definitely the way to go. There are countless encounters that could have been a TPK if it weren't for my subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle machinations gumming up the DM's works. The simple fact is that, even for DMs that don't try to kill party members, they misjudge CR or the players make pretty silly mistakes - so the ability to control what is going on in whole sections of the battlefield/summon expendable backup is the best safety net around. And so long as everyone gets to shine and do their thing (i.e. the rogue is rolling fistfuls of d6s because you made a monster vulnerable and the fighter is getting AoOs left and right because you made him large) then nobody will care that you are the ultimate cause of their glory. They will merely be grateful that you're around, and extremely protective (even if you have the tools to protect yourself better than they ever could.)

[Telonius]

Now I know that wizard's are all powerful shapers of magic and breakers of reality, but I'm wondering what ends up being the true extent of their in game, non-theoretical power. By standard rules you learn 2 spells per level past level 1 which averages out to only 4 spells of any given level. That said a wizard only has so much gold to spend buying up scrolls and other spell books and copying down the spells for themselves. gaining any more spells then that involves a whole spell book being random treasure or an in game gift.

Long story short what is the realistic apex of a straight wizard? I'm not talking about just chain gates or thought bottles, but something actually built and usable that doesn't rely on some infinity trick.

If you Limit a Wizard to only free spells gained by level, the power limit of a Wizard is approximately the same power limit of a Sorcerer. (A few less spells per day; but extra feats, and metamagic without so many hoops to jump through). Which is to say: it can till snap a campaign in two with the right spell choices, he just has to work a little harder to do it.

EDIT: Important to note: can still snap a campaign in two, not will still snap a campaign in two. Most good Wizard players behave themselves or work with the DM to gauge just how powerful magic is supposed to be in the game. It's extraordinarily rare to see somebody break the game on purpose.

[Boci]

Not that much. And I run an insanely high magic game too.

Don't you have dimensional trolls that bypass everything you don't like about a wizard? And a load of house rules that make magic less predictable?

[Tyndmyr]

See? that's always been my general view on the matter. I mean sure a wizard ends up with some of those "win or fizzle" type spells, but any character built right can end up at that point (if you actually build characters for that point :smallsigh:) The main reason I have for asking this is because the wizard class almost always ends up being the go to for most powerful class, while it can be theoretically built to be so, in game it very really seems to show that kind of power even in the hands of some heavy handed power gamers.

Running a very, very high magic game(I tend to be very permissive in general, and know rather a lot of optimizers).

They can have some really solid fight enders...but at that level of optimization, everyone does. They have good utility, but are better off providing utility to party members occasionally than dealing with summons and the like. The biggest factor is mobility, really. Fly, teleport, plane shift. These will change the nature of the game. A bigger fireball? Not so much.

And frankly, those powers aren't even wizard exclusive.

[Mithril Leaf]

I have yet to seriously play an actual Wizard myself but I've played plenty of god-style characters in the same vein (Psion, Witch etc.) and this is definitely the way to go. There are countless encounters that could have been a TPK if it weren't for my subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle machinations gumming up the DM's works. The simple fact is that, even for DMs that don't try to kill party members, they misjudge CR or the players make pretty silly mistakes - so the ability to control what is going on in whole sections of the battlefield/summon expendable backup is the best safety net around. And so long as everyone gets to shine and do their thing (i.e. the rogue is rolling fistfuls of d6s because you made a monster vulnerable and the fighter is getting AoOs left and right because you made him large) then nobody will care that you are the ultimate cause of their glory. They will merely be grateful that you're around, and extremely protective (even if you have the tools to protect yourself better than they ever could.)

This is the main reason Conjuration is arguably the best school. If not the best, at least up there. It gets warm bodies on the battlefiend, controls what the enemy gets to do and even blasts awesomely if it sounds fun. Although most of my wizard experience has been limited to TO and the theories of arcane magic, it is possible that even when limited to 4 spells of each level of the conjuration school, a wizard could still snap the game in two, although he would lack some versitility, easily replaced by summoned or called minions. He directly has to do nothing to still make the whole group amazing.

[Togo]

The point is for this to happen the Wizard needs to be limited and controlled. More so than other characters

That's not been my experience.

I limit and control all characters, to stop them breaking the game. That's part of DMing. Wizards as a class have an unusually wide range of choices, and like any class, some of those choices can be a problem. But a particular wizard character isn't notably more of a problem in practice than any other class, and individual class abilities aren't the highest concern in any case.

The biggest problem I have is controlling for specialist characters - typically one-trick pony characters or characters with highly specialised attacks. That's because it's hard to challenge them without a high risk of killing them or the rest of the party, and so combat becomes very digital. Either their trick works, and it's easy, or it doesn't, and the group is in trouble.

Runners up in the problem-to-DM stakes are people who try and exploit high social skills, and expect to automatically get what they want out of any social interaction as a result, and people who turn in horrendously complicated plans that only involve them.

Wizards are powerful characters, but they're not particularly more difficult to deal with than anyone else in practice.

[Novawurmson]

That's not been my experience.

I limit and control all characters, to stop them breaking the game. That's part of DMing. Wizards as a class have an unusually wide range of choices, and like any class, some of those choices can be a problem. But a particular wizard character isn't notably more of a problem in practice than any other class, and individual class abilities aren't the highest concern in any case.

The biggest problem I have is controlling for specialist characters - typically one-trick pony characters or characters with highly specialised attacks. That's because it's hard to challenge them without a high risk of killing them or the rest of the party, and so combat becomes very digital. Either their trick works, and it's easy, or it doesn't, and the group is in trouble.

I agree fairly strongly here: I feel like the lesson of the tier system is two-fold.

1. Tier 4-5's that only get one trick get stale and repetitive and ultimately disruptive to play.

2. Tier 1-2's that break the game with too many choices are disruptive to play.

I personally haven't had to deal with too many players tier 1-2 players who broke the game (most of my players who try to play a Wizard/Sorcerer/etc. end up woefully unoptimized), I've ended up with quite a few Fighters who could deal enough damage to kill anything CR-appropriate from the Monster Manual/Bestiary, but were ultimately abandoned by their creators for something with more variety.

[jseah]

The biggest problem I have is controlling for specialist characters - typically one-trick pony characters or characters with highly specialised attacks. That's because it's hard to challenge them without a high risk of killing them or the rest of the party, and so combat becomes very digital. Either their trick works, and it's easy, or it doesn't, and the group is in trouble.
The trick is to not counter their tricks. A good starting scenario should have the opportunity to involve multiple types of challenges and sub-goals. A really specialized character might make half of the combats totally trivial, but he doesn't contribute to the rest.

The group then faces the problem of how to employ his "I Win" button as often as you can turn it to an advantage (clearly ubercharging the quest-giver is a bad idea when he hasn't told you everything) and avoid the NPC enemies from hitting his weak spots.

The true power of a wizard lies not in his combat ability, but his spells that act as enablers. Spells, especially arcane spells, enable new approaches to things, which lets you exploit what Win buttons that you have more often and more effectively. (you DO have Win buttons right? Right?)
This effect of wizards can sometimes be a bit hard to counter as, by nature, they tend to change obstacles and situations in unexpected ways. And wizards can pack their own Win buttons too.

Wizards make the *perfect* complement to over-specialized characters, they manipulate the situation to let those characters employ their specialization to overcome the challenge. (of course, this is sometimes impossible, but a bit of creativity can go a very long way)

[Psyren]

Wizards make the *perfect* complement to over-specialized characters, they manipulate the situation to let those characters employ their specialization to overcome the challenge.

But that's exactly what should be happening. Assuming for simplicity there are no other PCs but those two:

- The specialized player wins because they get to do the thing they designed their build to be good at doing.
- The wizard player wins because he was the lynchpin to making the thing happen.
- And the DM wins because (a) everyone got involved in the encounter without anyone being sidelined, and (b) he doesn't have to spend extra effort specifically designing encounters to challenge the specializer - he can throw anything out there and leave it up to the Wizard to solve the puzzle of making it something the specializer can handle.

In other words - it's not a bug, it's a feature.

[jaybird]

But that's exactly what should be happening. Assuming for simplicity there are no other PCs but those two:

- The specialized player wins because they get to do the thing they designed their build to be good at doing.
- The wizard player wins because he was the lynchpin to making the thing happen.
- And the DM wins because (a) everyone got involved in the encounter without anyone being sidelined, and (b) he doesn't have to spend extra effort specifically designing encounters to challenge the specializer - he can throw anything out there and leave it up to the Wizard to solve the puzzle of making it something the specializer can handle.

In other words - it's not a bug, it's a feature.

:belkar: WHAT?

Yeah, this. God doesn't need to come down and smite you, he just gets his Big Stupid Fighter and Glass Cannon to do it for him. The enemies die, the other party members brag about how much damage they did, and God sits back and smiles.

Just as planned.

[eggs]

Minionmancy has been the biggest problem in combat in my games. Just using a Planar Binding/Animate Dead/Dominate/Craft Construct/Animate Dread Warrior once in a while will often effectively give the wizard more turns than other players, often to similar or greater effect than the other player characters at those characters' roles.

The other problem has been plot-breaking. To get abstract for a second, typical adventures are often set up as events/scenarios for the players to respond to (The Orcs are coming!/There's a treasure in this cave!/The Six-Fingered Man killed your father - track him down and get him!); by the time level 5 spells come into the game, clever caster players tend to be able to resolve those quickly in noncombat terms (maybe dominating the generals, teleporting in and out of the treasure vault, scrying and sicking devils at the wrongdoer, that sort of thing); I usually have to shift my paradigm for DMing from "Players react to X" to "X reacts to players."

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, or a definite spotlight, but it's the casters with the big campaign-influencing toolbelts; it gets hard not to focus the story on the actions of the guy who enslaves demons and resculpts landmasses instead of the actions of the guy who hits things and looks scary.

[Togo]

But that's exactly what should be happening. Assuming for simplicity there are no other PCs but those two:

- The specialized player wins because they get to do the thing they designed their build to be good at doing.
- The wizard player wins because he was the lynchpin to making the thing happen.
- And the DM wins because (a) everyone got involved in the encounter without anyone being sidelined, and (b) he doesn't have to spend extra effort specifically designing encounters to challenge the specializer - he can throw anything out there and leave it up to the Wizard to solve the puzzle of making it something the specializer can handle.

In other words - it's not a bug, it's a feature.

Still reduces combat from a complex interplay of opposing tactics, to a relatively simple matter of arming loading and firing the big cannon before the monsters get you. It's not that you can't play like that, it's that the build forces the combat to be all about you, which is hogging the spotlight by any definition. Less of a problem if, as in your example, all the characters are either specialists or enables, but if they aren't, it's still a problem.

I'd note also that the enabling playstyle doesn't need a one-trick specialist to enable - it works fine with any characters.

Maybe it's a problem of mixing styles, rather than the style in and of itself. A single trick specialist doesn't result in something most of my players want to play, so it's a problem to solve for me as a DM.

[Psyren]

Still reduces combat from a complex interplay of opposing tactics, to a relatively simple matter of arming loading and firing the big cannon before the monsters get you.

I disagree on two grounds:

1) The "complex interplay of opposing tactics" is still present. It merely shifts the onus for such onto the wizard's plate. Say the wizard is paired with a charger - it's the wizard's job to help him fly so he can hit the dragon, or to help him swim so he can hit the kraken, or give him ghost touch so he can hit the wraith. As the two gain in wealth, the charger can handle some of these situations himself via magic items and the wizard can focus on covering the gaps - or even on new challenges, like getting him through or around the poison gas between them and the target. The DM is free to use any of these challenges that fit his story without feeling unfair to the charger.

2) The charger, meanwhile, doesn't have to worry about the "complex interplay of opposing tactics" - he simply looks at his wizard buddy and says "help me hit that guy." Presumably, the charger didn't want to deal with such complexities, or he would have rolled a class with multiple answers to a problem instead of one.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't see any particular reason to make a distinction between "scrolls can appear in looted treasure" and "magic weapons/armor/gear can appear in looted treasure" by RAW. So it would seem that limiting access to one really is the same as limiting the other — with the sole exception of class applicability.

(One might also mention the likelihood that this tends to affect primarily lower-op wizards; higher-op have solutions even for this problem, leading to the interesting prospect of soft-nerfing only the less troublesome Wizards.)

The reason for the distinction is not a matter of what can appear in a treasure pile, but the fact that the DM ultimately decides what does appear in a treasure pile. When he's rolling up the loot, he can simply reroll any arcane scroll result.

The party never finds treasure that the DM doesn't lay down, and the cities only have for sale what he says they do.

The part of my post you didn't quote has the points you mention about high-op wizards getting around this limitation, but there exists an option for limiting even them, in the training between levels rule.

I admit that it basically boils down to the DM having to approve every spell the wizard gets, if taken to the extreme, but if the guy that likes to play wizards is being so disruptive as to make this necessary, there's a deeper problem than the wizard class.

[jseah]

In other words - it's not a bug, it's a feature.
Well, yes, precisely.


I'd note also that the enabling playstyle doesn't need a one-trick specialist to enable - it works fine with any characters.
Having played one myself, I find it works better with a character who is really good at only a few things rather than a generalist. You can buff a generalist so he can do the job, but you don't need to buff the Hammer. He comes pre-buffed with class features.

Now you just need to figure out a way to get a nail. It's a bit like computer sciences and algorithms. The trick is to turn your current problem (say, an Orange) into one that is already solved (aka. a Nail).

As they say, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In the case of a wizard... one polymorph later and it IS a nail. And then you hammer it. =D

[Togo]

I disagree on two grounds:

1) The "complex interplay of opposing tactics" is still present. It merely shifts the onus for such onto the wizard's plate.

Not complicated enough for my players. The larger the party, the more quickly this bores them. I'm happy that it works for you on your table, but it doesn't work on mine
.

2) The charger, meanwhile, doesn't have to worry about the "complex interplay of opposing tactics"

But the game is more than him and a buddy. I'm running games for up to six people. I appreciate the point you're trying to make, I understand how it supposed to work, but it doesn't work on my table, because it's not enough to keep my players challenged.

[Coidzor]

Things do start to get complicated once you have 6+ people, not the least because of redundancy not being very fun and almost assured to happen without some kind of planning to prevent against it. :/ Some fun times I can assure you before my group fragmented.