[3.5] The Wizard Anyspell Challenge

[GoatBoy]

Okay, I have an exercise for you, Playground.

Let's say you have a level 1 wizard, no metamagic feats or templates or tricks or magic items or alternate class features or hirelings or anything... in fact the only thing you have, is every single spell prepared. All of them. Albeit, you can only cast the spells you have access to via your wizard level (class level divided by 2, rounded up, ie. no glitterdust until level 3, no gate until level 17). Once you cast a spell, it's gone. Forever. You never can cast that spell again.

Assume you're solo, but it's the standard 13.333... (round up to 14) encounters for each level up. When you hit odd levels, you gain access to a new level of spells. All of them, in any official 3.5 supplement. Any cast spells are still gone forever.

You don't get to keep any money or gear from the monsters you kill. No dominated creatures from previous battles. Okay, fine, you can have your familiar. But aside from that, it's just you and your big, fat tier 1 spell list, exactly one casting of each spell.

Assuming random monsters picked out of every official 3.5 source, how far do you get? What if it's just monsters picked at random from core? Are there any monsters that will simply destroy you if you don't have the exact, single spell you need prepared? You have to kill or otherwise defeat every monster in combat. That is, a banished outsider is considered beaten. A charmed monster is not. A guess you can deliver a coup de grace with your bare hands. Sorry if this definition is a little vague.

Can you make it to 20?

[Hyena]

I go shadowcalypse.

[Oscredwin]

Do we get splats? Complete Mage/Arcane, Spell Compendium? Sandstorm etc?

[Flickerdart]

Should be fairly trivial - there are a couple of level 1 staples (sleep or color spray and then CdG is about it) that you might run low on and have to start blasting, but after that, there are just so many spells that you should easily be able to find 14 per level to handle stock monsters. It's even easier in higher levels because you can buff up with a nice CL and just tear through encounter after encounter because nothing can touch you.

[Urpriest]

I go shadowcalypse.

How do you get Shadows?

[A_S]

Says any official 3.5 supplement, so yes.

Do we have access to costly material components?

[Hyena]

How do you get Shadows?
I invest my skillpoints into knowledge (religion) and gather information, then use both to find a place where shadows are likely to be found - most likely some kind of tomb or graveyard. Then I use same skills to find a low CR evil cleric close to this location. I charm him and ask to rebuke a shadow, then to order the shadow to obey me. THEN I order the shadow to kill a commoner, then ask these shadows to kill more commoners.
In the end, I've got an army and leveling is just a matter of being really patient.

[Kamai]

If you're using the standard 13.3 encounters, even 1-3, where it seems like it might be hard, wouldn't be because you're going up against CR 1/4-3/4 encounters (basically Kobolds and more Kobolds). If a CR=level encounter comes around, keeping in mind that it's actually 4 encounters for a wizard of that level, then feel free to throw a big spell or 2. I forsee problems when you start needing a lot of uses of an equalivent effect of See Invisibility or True Seeing, because there are so few ways that I know of to duplicate it.

[Urpriest]

I invest my skillpoints into knowledge (religion) and gather information, then use both to find a place where shadows are likely to be found - most likely some kind of tomb or graveyard. Then I use same skills to find a low CR evil cleric close to this location. I charm him and ask to rebuke a shadow, then to order the shadow to obey me. THEN I order the shadow to kill a commoner, then ask these shadows to kill more commoners.
In the end, I've got an army and leveling is just a matter of being really patient.

It's unclear whether we can use skills in this challenge, but even if so, you lose the Cleric as soon as he or you meets another creature, as per the rules on Charmed and Dominated foes.

[Icewraith]

I think a couple of people have missed the point, if I understand the challenge correctly.

Could you get from 1-20 with a standard wizard against normal encounters, when you can cast each spell exactly once ever?

I think the short answer is that without literally chain-running encounters so you can have buffs going through multiple fights at some point you're screwed.

...hang on. If we're literally getting all the spells ever, including supplements, this is considerably less hopeless.

The other thing to consider is reverse action economy. Any dm can tell you what happens when a 3 or four person group encounters a lone opponent of almost any kind within appropriate level. Lose initiative once twice (Celerity if you can make it to that level spells before you lose intiative) and you're screwed.

Edit: With no metamagic feats, I foresee grappling monsters at the lowish levels being a major problem.

[GoatBoy]

I guess I could have mentioned no skills, but Concentration is pretty much a given.

Expensive material components are fine. No bribes for planar binding though.

Again, sorry for being so vague. I suppose this thought experiment stems from the common perception of class tiers, and how full access to a spell list trumps absolutely anything. So I wanted to see just how potent that spell list is, without metamagic feats/metamagic cost reducers/"XP is a river" magic item creation/prestige classes/etc. And when people respond with the suggestion to just ban the offending spells, die-hard tier system proponents counter with "there's so many broken spells, you'll never catch them all."

I guess persistent buff spells from one combat to the next is feasible, but none are going to last for 13 encounters in a row. Well, maybe mage armor. Let's say no spells last for more than one encounter.

On a tangent, it reminds me of another observation I made regarding tiers: a class whose only ability is to cast literally any one spell once per day is tier 1, while a class whose only ability is to do damage equal to the target's maximum HP+1 on any attack is tier 4 or lower. Which would you rather have in your group?

Anyway, good feedback! Thank you all!

[Gazzien]

I guess I could have mentioned no skills, but Concentration is pretty much a given.

Expensive material components are fine. No bribes for planar binding though.

Again, sorry for being so vague. I suppose this thought experiment stems from the common perception of class tiers, and how full access to a spell list trumps absolutely anything. So I wanted to see just how potent that spell list is, without metamagic feats/metamagic cost reducers/"XP is a river" magic item creation/prestige classes/etc. And when people respond with the suggestion to just ban the offending spells, die-hard tier system proponents counter with "there's so many broken spells, you'll never catch them all."

I guess persistent buff spells from one combat to the next is feasible, but none are going to last for 13 encounters in a row. Well, maybe mage armor. Let's say no spells last for more than one encounter.

On a tangent, it reminds me of another observation I made regarding tiers: a class whose only ability is to cast literally any one spell once per day is tier 1, while a class whose only ability is to do damage equal to the target's maximum HP+1 on any attack is tier 4 or lower. Which would you rather have in your group?

Anyway, good feedback! Thank you all!
How about we presume that each combat occurs at, say, Hour 0, Hour 4, Hour 8, and Hour 12? Four encounters per day (the standard, unless it changed sometime recently), spread evenly throughout a 12-hour travel/ adventure day (24, -8 for sleep, -1 to "prepare", -1 for meals, -1 to set up camp, -1 for... I don't know, the bathroom? This is an abstraction anyhow)...

Eventually, of course, buff spells will last for more than one encounter. But not at the beginning.

[Crake]

When you consider that the challenge requires fighting creatures with CR low enough to make it the standard 13-14 encounters per level (thats 4 CR lower than your character level) then you realize that it's pretty much a spell per encounter. if you can find 26-28 spells per spell level that can drop an encounter 4 levels below (which really shouldnt be too hard) then it's easy.

[navar100]

Another issue is always assuming the opponent fails its saving throw. That's the fallacy of invincible wizards.

[Story]

On a tangent, it reminds me of another observation I made regarding tiers: a class whose only ability is to cast literally any one spell once per day is tier 1, while a class whose only ability is to do damage equal to the target's maximum HP+1 on any attack is tier 4 or lower. Which would you rather have in your group?


If you're able to persist the spells, then the Spellcaster is obviously the better choice. Otherwise, it's a tough decision. It would probably depend on the existing roles in the party and the typical pace of fights in the campaign.

[Augmental]

Another issue is always assuming the opponent fails its saving throw. That's the fallacy of invincible wizards.

What about spells that don't allow a saving throw?

[Story]

Shapechange alone makes you better than anything below tier 2, and there's no save or SR on that.

[mregecko]

I'd actually love to try this challenge. It would be hard, in my opinion, but maybe possible. If you could manage 1 spell/encounter (hard IMO), 26 encounters per spell level basically.

Your few 'permanent' things like Limited Wish, Wish, Polymorph Any Object, Permanency.... Would have to be used very intelligently.

And it would depend a lot on the enemies you fight. There are a few very under-CR'd creatures, and a lot of over-CR'd ones.

Honestly, I think your hardest task would be dealing enough HP damage in one or two spells to down higher CR creatures... For example, a CR 14 black dragon (~250hp) would be tough without metamagic. You'd have to use multiple spells. And survive in the interim. :-\

You can of course count on SoDie or SoLose spells, but I don't feel like there are 26/spell level (and of course you have to deal with saves, etc).

It'd be hard. But fun. :-)

[Slipperychicken]

Another issue is always assuming the opponent fails its saving throw. That's the fallacy of invincible wizards.

No, that's not it. The stronger strategies either don't need people to fail saves at all (plenty of no-save spells and summons out there), or have a relatively large chance for the target to fail (high DC, targeting the weak save), or use defenses to deny opponents any reasonable chance of victory even when they make the save.

[137beth]

I'm confuzzled. Do the OP and navar100 actually think that the whole "spell casters are more powerful than other classes" idea is wrong? Or are they both just fooling around:smallconfused:

Anyways, what makes wizards powerful isn't that they have access to every arcane spell in the game, it is that they have access to good spells. A caster who only got the polymorph sequence would be much stronger than any noncaster.

This challenge, on the other hand, does not play to the wizard's strengths, because it requires them to use bad spells after they run out of good ones (as opposed to a normal wizard, who just doesn't prepare bad spells.)

The OP still hasn't clarified whether we are fighting monsters with our own CR (which would actually mean an EL 4 levels above us) or monsters with CR our level -4. The former would probably be easier, since you could solve most encounters with one spell, but have a second or third in a pinch, and you will only need to get through 6-7 encounters before getting a bunch of new spells.
The latter case should also be doable, since it is substantially easier to use spells which allow saves if you target the monster's weak save. Still, that is harder than when you could just use 7 spells which make you autowin without a save.

[GreenETC]

The main problem I see with this is that EXP doesn't just come from fighting. Sure, there will be encounters that a Wizard would have to face, but I'm pretty sure a Wizard with this sort of spell list would probably tend to avoid combats in order to preserve spells, using more weak spells like Charm in order to survive. Also, I don't believe the fact that things shouldn't carry over, because those carry-over spells are the spells that make things silly.

The entire reason people say that you don't need a tank is because the Wizard can summon/dominate one, which is significantly less valid when their spells don't persist after casting.

[TuggyNE]

The terms of this challenge make it rather substantially different from, and fundamentally incomparable to, anything like ordinary adventuring with or without a party. So I don't really think it will demonstrate anything particularly useful.

Of course, if someone actually does make it through, I'd be really impressed, and it would demonstrate just how effective the spell list really is, but failing is both highly likely and not representative of much. (For example, you get something like half a dozen attempts to dispel things. Ever.)

[Treblain]

With that many battles, you're bound to have a few monsters make their saves. Lesser, normal, and Greater Celerity will save you three times, but if you get charged by a monster who saved against your first spell at an early point in your level progression, you're dead.

And a lot of the save-or-suck spells and battlefield control spells don't defeat enemies as the challenge demands; they just hinder enemies for a brief period, because the assumption is that that gives enough time for the fighters to finish them. This wizard would waste more spells disposing of them. Heck, what would he do to finish off the dragon he Shivering Touch-ed and so forth?

[Flickerdart]

Heck, what would he do to finish off the dragon he Shivering Touch-ed and so forth?
CdG with a kaorti fullblade carried around for the purpose?

[Tvtyrant]

Level 1: All slots filled with Mount. It grapples enemies for me, or if the fight looks hard I run away.
Level 2: The same.
Level 3: Ray of Stupidity for all slots. I go hunting for big animals.
Level 4: Same
Level 5: Same
Level 6: Same
Level 7: Same
Level 8: Polymorph+Ray
Level 9: Polymorph+ray
Level 10: Shouldn't be a problem anymore.

Basically run away or stab things at low levels, then at level 3 concentrate on killing conked out animals. By level 10 when the animals run out my Wizard should be able to survive.

[Mithril Leaf]

Level 1: All slots filled with Mount. It grapples enemies for me, or if the fight looks hard I run away.
Level 2: The same.
Level 3: Ray of Stupidity for all slots. I go hunting for big animals.
Level 4: Same
Level 5: Same
Level 6: Same
Level 7: Same
Level 8: Polymorph+Ray
Level 9: Polymorph+ray
Level 10: Shouldn't be a problem anymore.

Basically run away or stab things at low levels, then at level 3 concentrate on killing conked out animals. By level 10 when the animals run out my Wizard should be able to survive.

That's almost literally the exact opposite of this challenge.

[Tvtyrant]

That's almost literally the exact opposite of this challenge.

I misunderstood. I thought it was merely the slots that died, not the spells themselves.

In that case it would be extremely difficult. You would have to wait for GPB to use your dimensional anchor for instance, unless you wanted to use it earlier on something less powerful.

[TuggyNE]

You know, the main difficulty in this challenge is a combination of analysis paralysis and Too Awesome To Use: out of the hundreds (or eventually thousands) of spells you have prepared, which one will have a good enough chance of winning the encounter without being needed more later? Figuring out a globally optimal solution based on partial information and lots of incomparables is a certifiably HardTM problem.

[navar100]

I don't deny spellcasters are powerful. I just don't think it's an atrocity to gamedom they are. I don't object to curtailing some of their power, as long as it's not to the point of being not fun to play them when you're done. In actual play, spellcasters are not as powerful and invincible as they are in theoretical exercise discussions.

[Slipperychicken]

In actual play, spellcasters are not as powerful and invincible as they are in theoretical exercise discussions.

Absolutely. TO is, by definition, so strong that it isn't suitable for use at the gaming table. Usually optimizes for power, and only power. Actually using those tactics is... bad form, to put it lightly.

Contrast this with PO (Practical Optimization), which seeks to limit power so as to remain both fun and permitted in actual play scenarios. PO prioritizes playability, balance, ease-of-use, and enjoyment much more highly than TO.

[137beth]

I don't deny spellcasters are powerful. I just don't think it's an atrocity to gamedom they are. I don't object to curtailing some of their power, as long as it's not to the point of being not fun to play them when you're done. In actual play, spellcasters are not as powerful and invincible as they are in theoretical exercise discussions.

Also, the tier system is RAW, to give DMs an idea of what is appropriate to nerf. If you try any polymorph cheese on 95% of GMs, they will say "ya know, it really shouldn't work that way. Sorry."

[TuggyNE]

Also, the tier system is RAW

I… what? It's neither RAW, RAI, nor RACSD; it isn't "rules" at all, but guidelines and analysis to aid in formulating houserules and gentlemen's agreements.

[Urpriest]

I… what? It's neither RAW, RAI, nor RACSD; it isn't "rules" at all, but guidelines and analysis to aid in formulating houserules and gentlemen's agreements.

I think he meant that the tier system is based on RAW, not that it itself is RAW.

[TuggyNE]

I think he meant that the tier system is based on RAW, not that it itself is RAW.

Fair enough, I can accept that.

[137beth]

Urpriest is right, sorry for the miscommunication.