PDA

View Full Version : Wizards don't always rule



PnP Fan
2007-02-26, 01:14 AM
Okay, there's lots of posts about how "wizards pwn fighters". I would like to hear specifically from the folks who play in games where wizards don't lay the smackdown on fighters as much. Why? Because there seems to be a significant minority that feels that fighter types (ftr, pal, rngr, etc. ) are viable classes up to fairly high levels. I'd like to know what these folks do that makes this so. Whether you've got fighter builds that are particularly effective, or as a GM you've got some secrets to balancing encounters, or if there are just some obscure rules that many folks ignore, but help to balance out casters, I'd like to hear your suggestions.

What I find seems to work for me is the following recipe:
1. Larger numbers of lesser villains: this leaves enough to keep the mellee folks busy, and leaves me spare villains to attack the wizard.
2. Don't give buffers time to buff. Surprise works the best for this, but there are other ways get to this goal that pure surprise. When your buffers have the choice between buffing or attacking, I've found most of them seem to attack
3. engage in mellee as soon as possible. Unless the spellcaster in the party is a complete jerkwad, they aren't going to drop their AoA spells in places that include the party members as well. (One of my players used a character with the ability to cast Darkness frequently. This typically hindered the party as much as it helped him.)
4. Be stingy with total gold value. I try to maintain at the recommended levels from the DMG, this keeps everyone in the party from owning magic that protects them from the caster's AoA spells, and makes them focus on magic that buffs their class abilities.

More suggestions?

cupkeyk
2007-02-26, 01:31 AM
I think the threads are all fighter bashing, not tank bashing. I am currently playing a Urban Ranger4/ Fighter1/ Halfling Outrider8. I never feel like I am at a loss for contributing to the party. I have both Urban Tracking and Track, so I can seek out the plot better than a Diviner or an Enchanter. As for damage. I have a minimum of 96 for each of my attacks on my full attack. I have one magic item: my ghost touch lance +1. The other members of the party is a zoomaster druid, a divine meta persist cleric and conjurer/fatespinner/divine oracle. We are all at level 13 and I drop opponents faster than the cleric and the druid, while the conjurer focuses on battlefield control and divination.

I am useful in and out of combat, everyone is. I am a face and a tank. The cleric is a heal grunt and a tank. The druid summons meat shields and is a tank. The wizard is batman. No one gets left out because we all have skills and feats for combat and non-combat situations. Pure fighters are best off as the guy you make as a cohort. They are role playing dead ends with their slim role selections unless they multiclass.

Swordguy
2007-02-26, 01:32 AM
Don't allow divination. Seriously. I ban just about half the divination spell list, mainly stuff dealing with remote vision and seeing future events (so stuff like True Strike is still OK). That way, casters have a much harder time figuring out the perfect spells to bring against a particular situation. It helps somewhat (though it can be worked around in a caster has a sufficient number of spell slots).

Jade_Tarem
2007-02-26, 01:37 AM
The problem is that the higher on the level tree you climb, the more likely it is that a wizard (or cleric...druid...etc.) can beat all of that anyway. A surprised caster at the highest levels will cast one really good spell like timestop and then cast a sequence of things after that. Also, the higher you go, the less likely you are to actually surprise the PCs anyway. Larger numbers of enemies in melee can be dealt with by using lasting things like summons or else by simply using spells that can differentiate between friend and foe. And larger numbers of lesser enemies tend to be fodder for the area save vs. death spells that don't hurt the high-level party so much. Lack of gold is harder to get around, but not impossible by any means.

And let's not even talk about PrCs.

Therein really lies the crux of the problem - with each additional sourcebook and PrC combo you have a wizard that can handle just that much more. Eventually Joe Fighter is going to fall behind no matter how many feats he has.

That said, the real point of DnD is to have fun playing the actual game. As long as your wizard isn't trying "teh be teh UBAR adn win DnD!!!11!" you should be ok no matter what other classes are on the table. Certainly with a little forthought and planning it's possible to create devastating combonations of non-caster classes. A favorite in my group is that ungodly cavalier-thing riding a griffon that frequently ramps up to 400 or so damage.


This being almost 1 a.m., I may be a little unclear... The end point is, effectiveness of the character largely depends on the effectiveness of the player. We have a player in my group that couldn't build a decent caster to save his life. He thinks warmage is the pinnacle of cheese. So naturally, the melee and rogue builds built by the more experienced powergamers outshine him frequently and often.

But he has a lot of fun. More than everyone else, really. So in the end, he's really the "best" player with the "most effective" character - because his character is the best at getting him to the point of DnD.

So the only real DM "trick" that I know of is to find a group of players that are willing to work together as a real team and not outshine one another. It's a rare battle that the wizard should want to end with the flick of his wrist. When you find the right group, everyone should shine.

oriong
2007-02-26, 01:51 AM
Don't allow divination. Seriously. I ban just about half the divination spell list, mainly stuff dealing with remote vision and seeing future events (so stuff like True Strike is still OK). That way, casters have a much harder time figuring out the perfect spells to bring against a particular situation. It helps somewhat (though it can be worked around in a caster has a sufficient number of spell slots).

The vast majority of divination spells actually don't help the caster do any of this at all. they're typically quite bad at it. In fact there are realistically no spells that allow the caster to see the future well enough to prepare 'just the right spell'

cupkeyk
2007-02-26, 01:55 AM
I guess some DM's are afraid of having the wizard cry foul, but the only round that anyone has the chance to kill a wizard is the first round. If you don't drop him to the two digit negatives, he will own the game. Our DM is not afraid of putting down encounters where the wizard dies on the surprise round. That's the only time he's vulnerable. Loose a halfling outrider or a Frenzied Berserker on him with power attack-shock trooper / a keen falchion, and that's one very dead wizard. Some people will say that its not fair, he never got the chance to fight back, but given his level of power, that free standard action was the only chance they had to kill him before he will own the encounter.

Swordguy
2007-02-26, 02:01 AM
Forgot: something else I do is allow caster to auto-learn 2 spells per level of those spells that are currently availible to them. So, for example, my wiz wants to learn Time Stop as one of his 9th lvl spells when he hits level 18. He doesn't get to auto-learn it until he has access to it in-game. Therefore, I as the DM can control to some extent some of more overpowered spells out there by simply not granting the wizard access to them so he can learn them.

Of course, I run somewhat Tolkeinesque settings, where magic is certainly an order of magnitude less common than the standard D&D setting. YMMV

cupkeyk
2007-02-26, 02:02 AM
The vast majority of divination spells actually don't help the caster do any of this at all. they're typically quite bad at it. In fact there are realistically no spells that allow the caster to see the future well enough to prepare 'just the right spell'

The best divination spells are actually cleric's and/or bard's spells, particularly Divination, Find the Path, Locate Person/Object and Scrying(augmented by a bard's pick pocket ability and Legend Lore).

brian c
2007-02-26, 02:06 AM
I guess some DM's are afraid of having the wizard cry foul, but the only round that anyone has the chance to kill a wizard is the first round. If you don't drop him to the two digit negatives, he will own the game. Our DM is not afraid of putting down encounters where the wizard dies on the surprise round. That's the only time he's vulnerable. Loose a halfling outrider or a Frenzied Berserker on him with power attack-shock trooper / a keen falchion, and that's one very dead wizard. Some people will say that its not fair, he never got the chance to fight back, but given his level of power, that free standard action was the only chance they had to kill him before he will own the encounter.

This all depends on what level you are; in my experience under level 10 or so (if anyone wants to get nitpicky about what level casters become unbalanced that's your choice) wizards aren't unstoppable killing machines and fighters/casters are fairly well-balanced.


Of course, I run somewhat Tolkeinesque settings, where magic is certainly an order of magnitude less common than the standard D&D setting. YMMV

so that's what, 4,5 orders of magnitude less than Forgotten Realms?

Swordguy
2007-02-26, 02:12 AM
so that's what, 4,5 orders of magnitude less than Forgotten Realms?

At a friggin' minimum. I HATE common, reliable magic. It makes it less...oh, I don't know...magical.

Whamme
2007-02-26, 03:08 AM
The simple solution: Don't play D&D.

The next simplest solutions: Don't play with people who play optimized wizards.


Between those two, you should be fine.

They're remarkably easy to implement too.



Just don't keep arguing optimized wizards aren't overpowered. They are. It doesn't matter if no one optimizes in the 'right' way.

greenknight
2007-02-26, 03:16 AM
Okay, there's lots of posts about how "wizards pwn fighters". I would like to hear specifically from the folks who play in games where wizards don't lay the smackdown on fighters as much. Why? Because there seems to be a significant minority that feels that fighter types (ftr, pal, rngr, etc. ) are viable classes up to fairly high levels.

Exactly how high a level are we talking here? And are you limiting this to the PHB, SRD or anything goes?

Just using material from the 3.5e PHB, Fighters have pretty much run out of steam by level 4, when they qualify for Weapon Specialization. If you really want to, you could keep going to level 12 (Greater Weapon Specialization), but there are better things you could be doing with the levels, IMO. Barbarians have more useful abilities as they gain levels, but being a melee orientated character still limits them with regard to the targets they can attack. And like Fighters, outside of combat there isn't a whole lot they can do that other character types can't do better. And even in combat, at higher levels other classes (particularly Clerics and Druids) can fill the Fighter and Barbarian's role much better, unless they are in a Magic Dead area.

Paladins and Rangers are a bit more useful, in that they have a special mount / animal companion and some spellcasting ability. Personally, I consider the Ranger to be the better of the two, since there's at least a chance the character can sneak up on a foe and surprise them. But even so, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers and Wizards seem to have much greater utility and combat potential at higher levels.


What I find seems to work for me is the following recipe:
1. Larger numbers of lesser villains: this leaves enough to keep the mellee folks busy, and leaves me spare villains to attack the wizard.

I don't see this as a real solution. Does this really require a Fighter + Wizard combo, or would two Wizards handle it better? Or better still, a Wizard + Cleric or Druid.


2. Don't give buffers time to buff. Surprise works the best for this, but there are other ways get to this goal that pure surprise. When your buffers have the choice between buffing or attacking, I've found most of them seem to attack

In 3.5e, Druids have Spot and Listen as class skills, and combined with their Wisdom score, it's pretty hard to surprise them (they are usually much better at spot/listen than any other party member, including the Ranger and Rogue). And because Survival is also a class skill for them, they tend to be better trackers than the party Ranger as well (although they can't track as quickly).


3. engage in mellee as soon as possible. Unless the spellcaster in the party is a complete jerkwad, they aren't going to drop their AoA spells in places that include the party members as well. (One of my players used a character with the ability to cast Darkness frequently. This typically hindered the party as much as it helped him.)

This is one reason why the group needs at least one Tank, but usually the best Tanks at higher levels are Clerics and Druids. Druids in particular have the melee power and movement range (while Wild Shaped) to protect the back line of Wizards.


4. Be stingy with total gold value. I try to maintain at the recommended levels from the DMG, this keeps everyone in the party from owning magic that protects them from the caster's AoA spells, and makes them focus on magic that buffs their class abilities.

The spellcasters don't need to rely as much on magical items as the non-spellcasters, so this makes spellcasters more powerful, relatively speaking. If you really want to help out the melee types, you should make their items easier and cheaper to obtain. Although how you'd stop a Cleric (especially one with a level of Fighter) from using the same items I'm not sure.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-02-26, 03:21 AM
They are role playing dead ends with their slim role selections unless they multiclass.

What?!

You don't need your class to define how you roleplay! It doesn't box you in either, as long as you want to play someone who doesn't cast spells.

Darth Anthony
2007-02-26, 03:51 AM
Wow - - there is a lot of fighter bashing going on here! I had a fighter (no PrC, no multiclassing, just a plain old fighter) in 2nd Ed go all the way into the Epic levels. How? Augmentation with magic items (boosting the fighter's holy trinity of CON, STR, and DEX), and fighting smarter not harder (i.e. tactics and the use of defensive magic items). AC never goes out of style, nor does a powerful weapon (or three). A wizard's allies can get in the way, use them and make the wizard sacrifice them to get at you. Use your allies to disrupt the wizard's casting and make him focus on more than one target. Use your terrain. Fight dirty if needed. If all else fails, you get pounded on and hit back if you survive. Choose the right feats, skills, and get the best armor and weapons you can.

Role-playing wise, fighters may not be fancy, but I feel they offer perhaps the most diverse options to develop the character by giving them the least limitations.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-26, 03:54 AM
What does 2nd ed. have to do with what we're talking about?

Charity
2007-02-26, 03:58 AM
oooh a thread about Wizards not being better than fighters, how novel.
*Bangs head on desk over and over again*


They are role playing dead ends with their slim role selections unless they multiclass.

Role-playing wise, fighters may not be fancy, but I feel they offer perhaps the most diverse options to develop the character by giving them the least limitations.
Role-playing wise fighters are IDENTICAL to every other class. There is no implicit better roleplay opportunities for one class over any other. There is absolutely no reason why a fighter (or indeed any other class) offers less roleplay options than any other.

Edit, damnit Bears now they've got me at it!

Sic em.

Orzel
2007-02-26, 04:55 AM
DMs don't use enough archers readying shots against casting! 25+ DC Concetration check?

greenknight
2007-02-26, 05:08 AM
DMs don't use enough archers readying shots against casting! 25+ DC Concetration check?

If they did, you'd just see more casters (especially Divine casters) taking total cover behind Tower shields. Protection from Arrows would also be a very good option for Sorcerers and Wizards, so in the end I doubt this would make a whole lot of difference.

Orzel
2007-02-26, 05:44 AM
Readied shots against casting is only useful if you can bypass PoA. The real effect is wind walls left and right.

Saph
2007-02-26, 06:04 AM
Ahem . . . guys?


Okay, there's lots of posts about how "wizards pwn fighters". I would like to hear specifically from the folks who play in games where wizards don't lay the smackdown on fighters as much.

If you want to argue about wizards vs fighters, start a new thread. Anyway.

I play a reasonably optimised controller-type wizard, and I don't dominate our game by any standards. Our party is level 7-8 at the moment, so according to some people on these forums, the fighter-types should already be being owned by the good casters. This doesn't happen, and it's mostly due to how our DM runs things. In particular:


1) Monster descriptions: The DM does not tell us what monster we're facing, he gives us its description. We get a Knowledge roll to identify it, and we'll get info based on how high we score. We typically will not know a monster's good saves / bad saves / special abilities except by finding out through practice. Hence, as a controller wizard, I have to guess which spells will or won't affect something. Cast Glitterdust on something which turns out not to care about being blind? Too bad. Cast a SR-allowing spell on something which has spell resistance? Also too bad. Usually, by the time I know exactly how to disable a monster, the fight's almost over anyway.

2) Lack of foreknowledge: We typically don't know what we're going to be fighting, ever. Spell selections have to be all-round affairs and you'll always end up with quite a few spells that turn out to be no use. Scrolls and wands help you get around this, but they're limited resources.

3) Surprise!: This is the biggie. Way too many people start off their fighter-vs-wizard comparisons with 'Well, the wizard is flying and invisible and mirror imaged and . . .' - yeah. Not in our game you're not. Our fights typically start one of two ways: either you roll initiative, or you make a Spot/Listen check to avoid surprise and then roll initiative. By the time I get to cast my first spell, the monster has usually already had a turn and sometimes has had two. Oh, and our fights are nearly all in some sort of complicating terrain/tactical situation that typically makes abilities like flight almost useless. The GM doesn't do this because he's trying to screw us, he does it because the monsters are not stupid. Why are they going to give the party a fair fight?

Most of the monsters we've been running into lately do an average of around 80% of my wizard's max HP per hit, and some do more. This means that it's quite possible for me to get knocked into negatives before I've even had a chance to act. PS - No, you can't cast spells while flat-footed. No, not even immediate action spells.

4) Lack of time: This is basically the above point, continued. I've found most defensive buffs, at least ones with a duration of 1 minute / level or less, pretty much pointless. Why? Because the typical battle starts with a monster surprising us and doing something nasty to someone standing near the front or side of the party. By the time my turn comes around, there's a super-sized catfight going on ten feet away. If I took the time to cast things like mirror image or fly, the battle would be half over by the time I did anything, and having my other party members killed while I'm buffing up isn't a satisfactory outcome from my point of view. By the same token, big AoE-radius spells like Evard's Black Tentacles or Web are almost useless because by the time I can cast them the rest of the party are in the area next to or being grappled by the monster.


The game probably sounds pretty lethal from the above (and it is) so let me emphasise that it's also really, really fun. It's one of the best D&D games I've ever played in. It's incredibly nerve-racking, since I know at any time that it's only going to take one mistake on my part for my character to be dropped to negative HP or even killed, but that's also what makes it exciting.

But no-one who's watched one of our sessions would think that wizards dominate. It's true that my spells are very effective, but the price I pay for that is having no survivability at all. The reason I'm still alive is due to my party shielding me and healing me when I go down (of course, it works both ways - I've saved them plenty of times too). Recently I've picked up a few spells that let me defend myself a bit better, and it helps, but battles are still danger all the way.

- Saph

greenknight
2007-02-26, 06:07 AM
Readied shots against casting is only useful if you can bypass PoA. The real effect is wind walls left and right.

Once the Sorcerer or Wizard knows someone is trying to attack, there's lots of ways of dealing with it. Mirror Image is a good all-purpose defence, although Invisibility or Invisibility, Greater would serve better. Or maybe the Wizard can just find total cover against the shooter (a Wind Wall would provide a similar effect).

The point is, if DMs start using ranged attacks to disrupt spellcasting, the players are going to start using tactics to prevent that from happening, and there's plenty of ways they can achieve that goal.

greenknight
2007-02-26, 06:18 AM
2) Lack of foreknowledge: We typically don't know what we're going to be fighting, ever.

I play in way too many games like that myself. But if the players are really working as a group, that should rarely happen because they should have someone scouting out front. That's where a Rogue / Ranger type can really come in handy. Sure, the combat ability of the character might come in useful now and again, but one should never overlook the value of the scouting (and tracking) this type of character can provide.

Saph
2007-02-26, 06:25 AM
I play in way too many games like that myself. But if the players are really working as a group, that should rarely happen because they should have someone scouting out front. That's where a Rogue / Ranger type can really come in handy. Sure, the combat ability of the character might come in useful now and again, but one should never overlook the value of the scouting (and tracking) this type of character can provide.

Well, I meant more 'We don't know what we're going to be fighting at the start of the day when we're in the choosing spells stage'. But what you said's true too - the first we see of the monster is typically when it drops from the ceiling and attacks.

Scouting can be very helpful (and our rogue does it), but this runs the risk of the rogue/ranger getting spotted by the monster and being forced to fight it on his own . . . better hope the rest of the party is nearby and heard the noise!

- Saph

Jack_Simth
2007-02-26, 07:09 AM
It's entirely possible to make an encounter that neutralizes any given character.

Wizard hogging the spotlight? Anti-magic fields, SR, and Magic Immunity ruin his day (although there are some spells that bypass this, they're mostly either non-core (e.g., Orb line), defensive in nature (eg., Wall spells), or slow acting over time (e.g., Acid Arrow)).

Rogue hogging the spotlight? Try stuff that's immune to crits.

Cleric hogging the spotlight? Anti-magic fields ruin his day.

Fighter hogging the spotlight? Wind Wall an out of reach caster.

Roderick_BR
2007-02-26, 08:28 AM
It reminds me to finish my "Fighter's Survival Guide" sometime. Lot's of things there on how to explore a wizard's weaknesses (also ways for wizards to avoid being taking down by said weaknesses)

Leush
2007-02-26, 08:51 AM
I think Saph deserves a round of applause.

Also, I'd like to say that bad weather from time to time is a must (all these battles in good weather. Pfft. Concentration check every time you cast anyone? It sort of equals it out a little. As do slippery surfaces if you've got heavily armoured clerics (if the fighters aren't as heavily armored). Also underwater attackers automatically neutralise a heck of a lot of spells.

Druids are easy to balance- since they are broken and they fight in the name of the balance, whenever one uses his powers a rift opens in the fabric of the universe. This rift is superimposed upon the druid. Problem solved.

Orzel
2007-02-26, 09:02 AM
the first we see of the monster is typically when it drops from the ceiling and attacks.


Your DM drops monsters from the ceiling too?

Casters are awesome in theory but if you DM does 3-4 encounters in a row, at least one of them is going to suck for them unless your DM is tells you what's coming or the BBEG uses the smae type of dude over and over. A wizard really shouldn't have 4 Solid Fogs or 4 Dimension Anchors memorized.

Nevermore
2007-02-26, 09:05 AM
We rarely have many casters in my groups. Usualy 1 cleric and/or 1 Druid is all we have. Maybe a Hex Blade When we do get the occasional arcane spell happy type they have on average tried to "betray the party with their uberness." What has happenned in those cases? We take cover, we use a mix of ranged weapons and Grapple checks to disable wizards and if we have a secondary caster of some sort, we tend to have secondary casters w/ wands of dispel magic.

silvermesh
2007-02-26, 10:15 AM
I see so many posts on this board about how overpowered casters are, and I think it's kind of funny how different this board is than others I frequent. Every argument I see here about how grand casters are involves blowing half his load of spells on buffing, and that makes him very effective. unfortunately it only makes him effective for one or two combats. If he used half of those buffs on the fighter instead of himself, he would be helping the group way more than when he buffs himself up and wades into combat. the fighter has better stats to build on. The problem is that in your group the wizard IS better than the fighter, but if you compare the 'selfish buffers group" with the unified team, the team is considerably better off in a dungeon crawl. the game is meant to be balanced for teams, not individuals. The fighter has something that no other character has, lasting power. He can go through encounter after encounter and suffer no adverse mechanical effects. when the casters are out of spells, the fighter is still hacking up baddies. All of the arguments against fighters assume that a fighter can't ever get buffed, since he can't buff himself. In a team, a good number of buffs are spent on the guy up front keeping the enemies busy. As the wizard, I would MUCH rather see a fighter than another wizard, because I can buff him with relatively low level spells, and he can do a pretty good job of keeping the enemies away from me so I don't even HAVE to use slots for evasive spells like fly. I've played a lot of games with a lot of really good players(most of whom are very in-tune with the mechanics and know how to build powerful characters). a balanced group with a little of everything always fares better than one with two of one thing and none of another. We can sit and talk about how uber the wizard is, pointing at his "uber" spells, and awesome buffs, but in a real game situation, the wizard simply doesn't have enough slots to be prepared for everything, and if the DM has half a brain he's not going to let him just sit down in the middle of a dungeon and re-memorize. I don't care what level you are, a balanced team always does better than four casters sitting there buffing themselves for every combat.

Ryshan Ynrith
2007-02-26, 10:18 AM
*snip*...and if the DM has half a brain he's not going to let him just sit down in the middle of a dungeon and re-memorize. *snip*.

Rope Trick or the Magnificent Mansion. After level 9, you can get a full night's rest and prepare your spells in almost perfect safety, no matter where you are.

cupkeyk
2007-02-26, 10:29 AM
Where is that thread Silvermesh? I can't imagine anyone in these boards voting for a wizard buffing himself and wading into melee without getting told he's wrong. Even gishes are frowned upon since loss of caster levels is simply mind boggling. Battle field control, coma inducing, mind bending are the tactics usually held in favor and Tenser's Transformation is all but non-existent in these boards...

Morty
2007-02-26, 10:39 AM
Rope Trick or the Magnificent Mansion. After level 9, you can get a full night's rest and prepare your spells in almost perfect safety, no matter where you are.

And that is why I call those spells stupid and overpowered. But noone listens.

Clementx
2007-02-26, 10:54 AM
"Secrets" for making Wizards not overrun the entire game:

1) Make sure monsters have the initiative. This does not always have to mean surprise rounds- being the owners of the dungeon, being well-adapted to the terrain, having waves of enemies support each other/enemy spellcasters take advantage of the ruckus to make tactical decisions like Darkness, Walls, Webs, etc. Wizards need 15 minutes of quiet to fill an empty slot. Don't always give it to them. If your party needs to get over an abandoned ravine, let him get Fly. You just slaughtered the antechamber's fire elementals and now he wants another Cone of Cold for the next fight, no way are you getting library quiet in that situation.

3) Don't give away the bestiary. Someone better have a skill check to figure what a creature does. If your party decides to go around this by guessing what kind the monster is from your description and meta its weaknesses, describe different creatures/apply templates/use class levels and watch their assumptions bite them in the ass. Divinations also fall into this category. Investigating ahead of time should only be specific enough to put them on the right track, never give away the battle. And for every element/bad save it implies, it should also reveal things for the other party members. Lots of undead? Cleric should be buffing up the tanks all Holy-like, the rogue should look for interesting scrolls to UMD, the Fighter should reach into his golfbag for his undead bane greathammer.

4) Realize that all this uberness assumes an infinite spellbook and perfect preparation. The gp and time costs for filling spellbooks gets crazy, so a Wizard only has so many spells available to him. If the wizard wants 3 months to spend his entire lifesavings scribing, and the party needs 3 days to bang the dents out of their armor and buy better weapons, one of two things are going to happen. They either leave the wizard behind and have another adventure, giving them more gp and exp, or the wizard doesn't get his 3 months. Combined with the wizard's limited slots and need to generalize for unknown tasks, this spells known shouldn't look all that different than a sorcerer's- lots of protective/hindering/general spells because you can't afford the highly specialized stuff.

Hyfigh
2007-02-26, 11:35 AM
Straight fighter or fighter-type isn't very good.

To make my fighter-types viable even at high levels I try to get as many abilities to negate the things that make wizards/clerics/druids powerful.

Take away death effects and necromancy effects, stop petrification, stop negative levels, stop ability score damage or drain. I also try to throw in things like mettle and evasion (or the like) in order to prevent damage on successful saves.

All-in-all, a fighter-type can be pretty darn effective, but still not as powerful as the caster.

okpokalypse
2007-02-26, 11:40 AM
The drawback to Wizards and Clerics, as it's always been, is preparation. If you don't have the right stuff ready, you're not going to be extremely effective. This is why I maintain that a Favored Soul is perhaps the most powerful Base Class, especially when dipped into a few levels of the right PrC.

Spontaneous Casting, 6 Spells Known per Level. Sure, doesn't seem like a lot, but really that's more than enough for an experienced gamer. You Expand Knowledge to get an Arcane Spell or two that are a must (Celerity, Melf's Unicorn Arrow) and the rest of your feats go to DMM. Yes, Divine Meta Magic. Because with two levels of Dips, I can get a Favored Soul both Turn Undead and Divine Grace.

So now you're looking at a High-End PC with saves approaching (or exceeding) 40, A Single-Target Spell that does excellent Damage and Bypasses SR & Saves. A wide array of other spells as selected for the PC, natural (non-dispellable) flight, and Divine Metamagic (Maximize/Twin if you want to go offensive, Persist if you want to go Defensive).

And Favored Souls aren't exactly poorly armored combatants either - especially from 100' up w/ a ranged weapon :).

But, when all is said and done, I've yet to see anything that trumps the Celerity / Miracle combo when used by an experienced gamer. At the very least it's a foolproof escape, and at best - it's pretty much limitless.

As for Fighters...

I won't say one could ever necessarily make a dominant fighter, but one could make on that's damn near impossible to drop. Again, Saves of 40+ are doable, as is being able to have a HP total of 400+ and AC > 50. A UMD that allows use of any item is also attainable - all by the same template. Add in reach attacks, fast healing a few energy immunities and a DC 30+ Goad and you've got a beast of a defensive Fighter who keeps the enemy on him. Of course, it's a very strict path to attain this.

The best Melee'rs are, IMO, Psychic Warriors because of their vastly superior movement capabilities. A high end Psychic Warrior should be able to go anywhere on the battlefield as a swift action (Hustle + Move Action Dim Door), and also have the ability to take an extra turn (so to speak) via thier Powers. They're also the best self-buffers when it comes to personal AC and Attacks.

cupkeyk
2007-02-26, 11:48 AM
Or a forced march and time constraints. We once played a mission that needed to be done in 48 hours. No sleep and travel for the characters. It was hard and we depleted most of our charge dependent magical items.

Aquillion
2007-02-26, 12:14 PM
The next simplest solutions: Don't play with people who play optimized wizards.The thing is, you don't even need optimized wizards. The issue is more wizards using their spells effectively (and, as others have noted here, with time to prepare and a fallback position so they can recover their resources) than any one wizard-build.

Ethdred
2007-02-26, 12:25 PM
Rope Trick or the Magnificent Mansion. After level 9, you can get a full night's rest and prepare your spells in almost perfect safety, no matter where you are.

I've only ever once played with a wizard who used Rope Trick (in this case to escape) - shame about his Heward's Haversack :) Fortunately, my wizard had not got on the escape bus, so after we munched the bad guys I was able to rescue him.

ZekeArgo
2007-02-26, 12:34 PM
I've only ever once played with a wizard who used Rope Trick (in this case to escape) - shame about his Heward's Haversack :) Fortunately, my wizard had not got on the escape bus, so after we munched the bad guys I was able to rescue him.

What? You all may want to re-read your rules. The *only* odd interactions between extradimensional spaces is between Portable Holes and Bags of Holding. Other than those two interacting with each other it's all free game.

NullAshton
2007-02-26, 12:39 PM
What? You all may want to re-read your rules. The *only* odd interactions between extradimensional spaces is between Portable Holes and Bags of Holding. Other than those two interacting with each other it's all free game.

Description of Rope Trick: "Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one."

Thus, any extradimensional space into any other extradimensional is hazardous. It doesn't do anything by the rules... but the GM is free to use that sentence to make something hazardous happen by the rules, when you take a bag of holding into an extradimensional space like that.

jlousivy
2007-02-26, 12:40 PM
In the current campaign I'm in (i'm the wizard) i have a spellbook granted to me by pelor ( i dont know why he's not even my diety, nor is he really arcane in anyway ) and I can copy spells free out of it, but i have to learn it at 1day/spell level. He highly restricts spells. SO, even though we are lvl 11-13(12 me) The most useful spell i can cast is slow. We commonly fight on average, 3-5 baddies while we have five party members (fighter, ranger, bard, cleric, wizard---core only) The fighter and ranger are typically the reasons we are able to defeat anything, granted he threw WBL completely out the window--we have about.... 3-4x that amount, and many wizardy items are rare so I'm stuck with equipment that boosts AC, an eyepatch of trueseeing, ring of invisibility, and wings of flying.

There a case where fighter types dominate over the wizard--- extreme to the point where it is barely fun to play a wizard? yes.

ZekeArgo
2007-02-26, 01:10 PM
Description of Rope Trick: "Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one."

Thus, any extradimensional space into any other extradimensional is hazardous. It doesn't do anything by the rules... but the GM is free to use that sentence to make something hazardous happen by the rules, when you take a bag of holding into an extradimensional space like that.

Meh, hate it when crap is left up to the GM like that, doubly so for 2e holdovers like this example here. If it doesn't say that anything happens then nothing happens. "It's hazardous" is far too vague to be taken seriously in my opinion.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-26, 01:11 PM
Description of Rope Trick: "Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one."

Thus, any extradimensional space into any other extradimensional is hazardous. It doesn't do anything by the rules... but the GM is free to use that sentence to make something hazardous happen by the rules, when you take a bag of holding into an extradimensional space like that.

A bag of holding is not an extradimensional space. It's a NONdimensional space.

bluish_wolf
2007-02-26, 01:15 PM
You know, I never played past 5th level, so I always viewed wizards as underpowered.

Talya
2007-02-26, 01:18 PM
Too many people balance their campaigns on a fight-by-fight basis, or worse yet think of class balance as player vs. player.

You want to see the fighter shine? Make the wizard go 3 grueling days without 8 hours rest (or even many encounters in a single day). Never give them time during adventures for crafting of wands or scrolls, save it for between, and make sure you limit the time they have to craft things even then. The fighter's strength is he's always ready. The wizard's weakness is they aren't useful for more than one encounter or so without resting. A sorceror, with a lot more spell slots, tends to survive this a bit better than the wizard.

Now, run a campaign like this for long enough, and wizards start to get spell-stingy (which is great!) They're afraid to use too many spells on normal encounters because then they'll be empty when the party runs into the bigger threats...suddenly the wizard is put back in their place...powerful, but functionally useless for most fights by choice.

PnP Fan
2007-02-26, 01:18 PM
Saph, and Clementix: Thank you! (and several others who addressed the topic of the thread quite well, but these two stand out in my mind as I write this reply).
To those who suffer from frustration over the wizard vs fighter balance issue, I apologize, it was not my intent to rehash old arguments, believe me, I get tired of reading those things as much as you do! Especially since nearly every thread seems to devolve into that subject.
What I'm looking for is DM technique, which several of you have offered up. Saph even offered up something that my group uses, but I had forgotten to mention in my original post.
Anyway, everyone, please continue to bring your constructive ideas to the table!

Talya
2007-02-26, 01:21 PM
Oh, make sure you use lots of creatures with spell and energy resistances, high saving throws, but lower AC, too.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-26, 01:24 PM
Too many people balance their campaigns on a fight-by-fight basis, or worse yet think of class balance as player vs. player.

You want to see the fighter shine? Make the wizard go 3 grueling days without 8 hours rest (or even many encounters in a single day). Never give them time during adventures for crafting of wands or scrolls, save it for between, and make sure you limit the time they have to craft things even then. The fighter's strength is he's always ready. The wizard's weakness is they aren't useful for more than one encounter or so without resting. A sorceror, with a lot more spell slots, tends to survive this a bit better than the wizard.
Okay. And when the cleric, just like the wizard, runs out of spell slots to heal the fighter (which he will at around the same time the wizard does)... how's the fighter going to be liking this?
Also, um, "one encounter"? At three or four spells a (non-trivial) encounter, a wizard can easily handle four or five.


Now, run a campaign like this for long enough, and wizards start to get spell-stingy (which is great!) They're afraid to use too many spells on normal encounters because then they'll be empty when the party runs into the bigger threats...suddenly the wizard is put back in their place...powerful, but functionally useless for most fights by choice.Unless, of course, they sneakily use their magic to rest by creating na extradimensional space, Teleporting out, or the like.

Edit: creatures... like? There's tons of stuff wizards can do against golems (who are tough for fighters to take down), rakshasas, etc.

Talya
2007-02-26, 01:35 PM
Well, in the campaign I'm running an 11th level sorceror in (and one with an obscene amount of charisma to boot...up to 28 now), by the time the DM gives us rest-time, I've used up 3-5 (all) of my 5th level spells, most of my 4th level spells, and a big chunk of my 1st through 3rd level spells. Our hammer-bash-happy dwarf cleric's mostly empty, our paladin's used up lay-hands, our bard is out of heals...sure our poor ranger/fighter is mostly dead, but he has also probably dished out the majority of the damage overall, if not, only barely behind my sorceress.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-26, 01:39 PM
Well, in the campaign I'm running an 11th level sorceror in (and one with an obscene amount of charisma to boot...up to 28 now), by the time the DM gives us rest-time, I've used up 3-5 (all) of my 5th level spells, most of my 4th level spells, and a big chunk of my 1st through 3rd level spells. Our hammer-bash-happy dwarf cleric's mostly empty, our paladin's used up lay-hands, our bard is out of heals...sure our poor ranger/fighter is mostly dead, but he has also probably dished out the majority of the damage overall, if not, only barely behind my sorceress.

Damage is easy to do, though, since anyone can do it. What casters do are things no one else can. As such, a sorceror (such as yours) should be able to incapacitate (not kill, there is a distinction) one foe per one or two spells, for which the fighter (or, preferably, the rogue, due to their Sneak Attack) should then go around and Coup de Grace.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-26, 01:40 PM
"Da-mage"? I don't understand this thing you refer to spellcasters doing.

"Damage casters are the least effective casters" aside, you pretty much made my point. You have spells left... the cleric doesn't. The fighter's almost dead. If the DM were to throw yet more encounters at you, then, well, the fighter would go from "amost dead" to "totally dead", since the cleric couldn't heal him.

Talya
2007-02-26, 01:49 PM
At level 11 there simply aren't a lot of "incapacitation" options in the SRD. Especially against outsiders, our usual enemies. They save against most spells that have a saving throw, even with my ridiculous charisma, and a good chunk of my spell list simply doesn't work on them.

That said, if any of our enemies is humanoid, I generally have an instant new bodyguard. I'm mostly enchantment-specialized, with some evocation and conjuration to go with it.

But also remember I'm a sorceror with obscenely high charisma. A wizard has 33% fewer spells to start with, and at this level can't as easily raise intelligence to the point i raised charisma. (completely unequipped I have 24 charisma.)

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-26, 01:53 PM
At level 11 there simply aren't a lot of "incapacitation" options in the SRD. Especially against outsiders, our usual enemies. They save against most spells that have a saving throw, even with my ridiculous charisma, and a good chunk of my spell list simply doesn't work on them.

That said, if any of our enemies is humanoid, I generally have an instant new bodyguard. I'm mostly enchantment-specialized, with some evocation and conjuration to go with it.

You kiddin' me? Solid Fog + walls, Black Tentacles, Fear or Confusion (it's a burst--at least one of'em should fail), Ray of Enfeeblement + Ray of Exhaustion, Haste the party, Fly, Grease (most of'em don't have a high dex)...
Even with all-good outsider saves, the non-high-WIS ones shouldn't be making will saves more than, oh, half the time.

okpokalypse
2007-02-26, 01:55 PM
"Da-mage"? I don't understand this thing you refer to spellcasters doing.

"Damage casters are the least effective casters"

Depends on the situation.

In many cases, it's best to let the melee'rs do the damage and offer support and battle field control. But in yet many other cases, Caster Damage is not only effective, but outright dominant. It's just a matter of utilizing the right spells for the right situations.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-26, 02:00 PM
Depends on the situation.

In many cases, it's best to let the melee'rs do the damage and offer support and battle field control. But in yet many other cases, Caster Damage is not only effective, but outright dominant. It's just a matter of utilizing the right spells for the right situations.

Many other cases like... what? Orb of X spells against a golem (although solid fog + ventriloquism lets you bypass it), and...? I certainly wouldn't say there are many such cases.

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-26, 02:01 PM
Ok, first: I side with the "wizards/clerics/casters in general are much more powerful than melee-types, especially fighters" camp.
Caster types tend towards eclipsing most other party members, even without getting into ridiculous CharOpt-board powerbuilds. Would it be cool if this were fixed? Definitely! BUT:

This doesn't mean you can never have fun playing a fighter.

There's an assumption that IF caster-characters are more powerful (an axiom I accept) THEN fighter-characters should just quit, and play a caster. The fighter will be so frustrated at never contributing, while the wizard, cleric, and druid own all encounters, that the game will no longer be fun for him. Certainly such a situation CAN develop, and the overpowered status of casters tends in that direction. But I do not agree that such a game-climate is somehow inevitable.

This is why every "Are Wizards Overpowered"-type thread always has lots of anecdotal evidence of "well, I've played lots of fighters and had fun." Sure, that doesn't somehow prove that wizards aren't more powerful - because they are. But it does show that in many, many games, the fighter-types still contribute, still have fun, don't get too frustrated, etc.

What's frustrating in threads like these is the interminable back/forth arguments along the lines of "but my fighter can do X, Y or Z better than a wizard/cleric," with the inevitable rebuttal of "here's how a wizard/cleric can do that better." Or, "here's a situation that screws casters over, but not fighters," vs the rebuttal "here's how casters can get around that, and here's why the fighter is still screwed anyway."

Both sides in these discussions are getting hung up on proving whether the "casters are more powerful" axiom is true, instead of focusing on the logical leap from that assumption to concluding that "fighters can't have fun playing D&D." I think that D&D is too complex (and, since every game is different, too variable) to make an assumption like that across the board. Here is how I would sum it up:

"I had fun playing a fighter" does not prove casters aren't overpowered.
and
"Casters are overpowered" does not prove fighters can never have fun.

Again, let me stress that this doesn't mean I feel the game-balance state is in good shape, or that fighters don't need some kind of serious boosting. They would be more likely to have fun if they could contribute more. But, as many people are willing to tell us, people regularly have fun playing fighters, despite the overpowered nature of casters.

Talya
2007-02-26, 02:03 PM
Heh, of all the spells you listed, I have one of them. (which I use regularly, Haste.) Simply don't have enough spell options to take them. (Enchanting and fire specialized.) I have repeatedly considered black tentacles, mind you. It fits my character well...

I don't generally like spells that cannot, on their own, get rid of the threat. That said, any spell that does weaken the enemy or exert battlefield control strengthens the fighter types, not the mage. They rely on the fighter-types to get the job done. Solid Fog & Haste = better fighters, not better sorcerors.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-26, 02:14 PM
Ah, yes, you're a *sorcerer*. A wizard could memorize those. :P

Few spells can get rid of a threat on their *own*. It takes numerous castings of damage spells to get rid of a creature--you might as well just disable it and have the fighter whack it.

I don't really feel that a fighter who just goes around hitting things that can no longer fight back is being strengthened, myself.

Talya
2007-02-26, 02:14 PM
Oh, for the record, our typical enemy in our last jaunt through the abyss had SR - 21, Fort +18, Ref + 8, Will +11.

With my best level 4-5 spells having a DC of 23-ish, that gave it very good odds (50-80%) to save against anything but reflex, and even then it was about a 30% chance. That's assuming I broke the SR to begin with (45% chance of utter failure there.) Spells are not the instant success so many people assume. I was more comfortable just throwing non-SR-dependant orbs (against a touch AC of 8) than using other spells. And those glabrezu were the "yard-trash" common enemies. Nalfeshnees or marililths were bigger problems.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-26, 02:17 PM
Uh, Will +11 vs. DC 23... what's the problem? That's a more than 50% chance to fail. Web would've been a great choice there, incidentally: target the reflex save, no SR.

Do you have (Greater) Spell Penentration? It's fairly important in core games.

themightybiggun
2007-02-26, 02:24 PM
Again to divert this entire discussion...

back to topic that is...

I DM in the Dragonlance setting, one of the variant rules presented is called the curse of the Magi.

Basically, after a wizard casts a spell, he has to make a Fort save of 10+spell level, if he fails, then he becomes fatigued, another failure results in exhaustion, a third failure and the wizard lapses into unconsciousness.

Flavor wise, its an interesting little mechanic that makes it just a little harder to level a wizard up to the point of total pwn. It makes the wizard consider his spell usage a little more carefully and limits the "cast first, ask questions later" impulse of many young wizards.

Talya
2007-02-26, 02:25 PM
I get spell penetration as a PRC class feature next level (with any spell with a vocal component, anyway), so i've avoided it. Besides, I've got two levels of another non-sorceror class to help me qualify for my PRC earlier, (now at this point, a few weeks and two levels past our abyssal jaunt, character level 13, sorceror caster level 11), so I figured Practiced Spellcasting to be more useful than spell penetration to start with, as it also boosts my caster level to 13, as well as any caster level dependant effects.

Talya
2007-02-26, 02:29 PM
Oh, and another thing, the average (read: sadistic) DM will watch what you have prepared as a wizard and make sure your encounters are designed in a way that those spells you've chosen to memorize are less than optimal.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-26, 02:31 PM
Oh, and another thing, the average (read: sadistic) DM will watch what you have prepared as a wizard and make sure your encounters are designed in a way that those spells you've chosen to memorize are less than optimal.
This is far harder to do to a wizard, who can have a wider variety of spells and change them out daily, than to the sorcerer who only *has* one spell selection.

A wizard can prepare a general spell list that will be useful in almost all circumstances.

Krellen
2007-02-26, 02:39 PM
On topic:

What I do in my games is try to, if not by balancing every encounter, balance the encounters over a day towards the different strengths of the players. "Boss fights", for instance, often include a buffed tank who is highly resistant to tricks the wizard would normally employ and an enemy caster ready to counter any magic used by the party to tie him down, with the intent that the buffed tank is going to stomp around in unstoppable mode crushing the party. Without a tank, he'd likely succeed, especially if he's able to eliminate the caster that might tie him down quickly - so this gives the party tank something to do. If unstoppable villain ignores the tank, the tank can neutralise his caster, thus removing his protections, so he has to engage the tank (or tanks; he should be buffed enough to hold the attention of two PCs.) The caster can then either try to hamper unstoppable and hope he gets past his opposite's defenses, or use magic to eliminate the enemy. The rogue also gets a choice of sneaking up on the enemy caster or trying to break through unstoppable's defenses to tip the balance in the party's favour. Everyone gets a challenge to try to overcome without the wizard being the pivotal figure in the fight.

PnP Fan
2007-02-26, 02:49 PM
Talya,
My group, because of other DMs, is accustomed to using all of their resources in every fight, precisely because they are accustomed to one encounter per day. So, in order to insert a little more danger into their lives, I upped the number of encounters in a particular adventure, and slapped a time limit on the game (do x in y hours, or many people die). Once I started doing this a little more often, the casters started getting stingy with spells.
Yay Pavlov!

Talya
2007-02-26, 02:50 PM
A wizard can prepare a general spell list that will be useful in almost all circumstances.


Yeah. But then they have to diversify. Which means they can't be useful in all circumstances nearly as long...

Fax Celestis
2007-02-26, 02:53 PM
Yeah. But then they have to diversify. Which means they can't be useful in all circumstances nearly as long...

Except, you know, they can.

tarbrush
2007-02-26, 03:30 PM
Again to divert this entire discussion...

back to topic that is...

I DM in the Dragonlance setting, one of the variant rules presented is called the curse of the Magi.

Basically, after a wizard casts a spell, he has to make a Fort save of 10+spell level, if he fails, then he becomes fatigued, another failure results in exhaustion, a third failure and the wizard lapses into unconsciousness.

Flavor wise, its an interesting little mechanic that makes it just a little harder to level a wizard up to the point of total pwn. It makes the wizard consider his spell usage a little more carefully and limits the "cast first, ask questions later" impulse of many young wizards.
See this is the kind of idea I like. What irks me slightly about D&D is that a wizard can burn every spell he's capable of casting in as few rounds as possible and feel nothing worse that a slight sense that that wasn't the smartest thing he ever did.

A goodly number of fantasy settings mek casting spells effort. While I think that fatigue->exhaustion->unconscious is a bit too steep a gradient, it's a good start on limiting magic slightly, and I think it adds a lot of flavour to the game.

Stevenson
2007-02-26, 03:31 PM
In my experience, wizards don't always run amok. Mostly because the power-player hates arcane magic, and the main arcanist we have is a zombie-obsessed freak who spends more time summoning undead then doing anything else.

I, however, have dabbled in the wizarding world. My niche is usually cleric, and I bugged by a member of a party who used magic how most people here think it's intended: pure lockdown, pure damage, death to all. Sculpt spell is an evil, evil feat.

Anyway, I've played two wizards: an abjurer and an illusionist, neither of whom trounced fighters. The illusionist (in a campaign that lasted up to 5th level including the mandatory starting level of fighter) was a support caster who assisted the fighters, most of the time. His most memorable spell he ever cast was a color spray. Which was pretty awesome, because it helped the fighter take down the baddie.

I also played as a 13th level abjurer, who hardly dominated. He was also mainly a support caster, who helped out. Yes, he had some great spells. Arc of Lightning and greater mage armor were two of my favorites. But he rarely took a suprising amount of enemies down, he usually distracted them, and assisted the rest of the party with spells like obscuring fog and faerie fire (combined of course). In both cases, the wizard didn't dominate, but I was happy with the decisions I made, and I did optomize them for the job I intended for them.

Fighters won many battles in these campaigns. The only person who helped more was a fire hydra-transforming powerplayer.

themightybiggun
2007-02-26, 03:39 PM
See this is the kind of idea I like. What irks me slightly about D&D is that a wizard can burn every spell he's capable of casting in as few rounds as possible and feel nothing worse that a slight sense that that wasn't the smartest thing he ever did.

A goodly number of fantasy settings mek casting spells effort. While I think that fatigue->exhaustion->unconscious is a bit too steep a gradient, it's a good start on limiting magic slightly, and I think it adds a lot of flavour to the game.

Aye, I think that was the intention of this wonderful vancian system we use today, but it really doesn't fulfill its duties there.

The fatigue/exhaust/lights out is pretty severe, but remember, being tired doesn't affect spellcasting at all, so its up to the wizard to gamble with his own endurance.

great fortitude sees a lot of favoritism from 1st level wizards in my game.

Its also nice to note that only wizards get this drain, sorcerers are free of the Curse. Read the Dragonlance stories for flavor, but it makes Sorcerer a nice alternative especially in the early levels.

Talya
2007-02-26, 03:49 PM
Except, you know, they can.

No, they can't. They get 4 spells per spell level, maybe 5. If you diversify, and take 4 different spells that give you a nice variety of options for any encounter, then you've only got each spell once.

Stevenson
2007-02-26, 03:55 PM
Oh, and there are always those bloody beholders to mess with you.

MeklorIlavator
2007-02-26, 05:47 PM
No, they can't. They get 4 spells per spell level, maybe 5. If you diversify, and take 4 different spells that give you a nice variety of options for any encounter, then you've only got each spell once.
Except that there are 1 or 2 spells every level that are useful in almost every circumstance. Plus high Int grants more spells. So 5 spells per day in the upper level, 6 in the lower, and most are repeated spells. Not to much diversity there, is it?

Marius
2007-02-26, 06:16 PM
No, they can't. They get 4 spells per spell level, maybe 5. If you diversify, and take 4 different spells that give you a nice variety of options for any encounter, then you've only got each spell once.

But you won't just have 4 or 5 spells, a mid level diviner (let's say level 11 with 26 int) will have 3 6th, 4 5th, 5 4th, 7 3rd, 7 2nd and 7 1st spells.
That's more than enough to fill with whatever spells you want and I'm sure that many people on this boards could give a ton a of spells that you could use at any time.
At that point the wizard will be flying all the time since he has Overland flight for 11 hours and he probably also haves many other hours/level buffs so even if you don't give him time to buff it won't matter.
And that's at a mid level with no prestige classes a true high level diviner/loremaster/archmage could do whatever he wants (even without chesse or splatbooks).

Hallavast
2007-02-26, 06:35 PM
Except that there are 1 or 2 spells every level that are useful in almost every circumstance. Plus high Int grants more spells. So 5 spells per day in the upper level, 6 in the lower, and most are repeated spells. Not to much diversity there, is it?
not to mention rings of wizardry and pearls of power and the like. You can get more spells than you usually need if you invest enough.

Seatbelt
2007-02-26, 07:06 PM
Well I'm playing in a group of unoptimized psions (or rather, hardcore optimized to munchkin like proportions) played by relative newbies. They always contribute to the fight, and usually once in a session one of them happens on a combo of spell and ability that makes my Warblade almost useless. I imagine that once they figure out how their characters work they'll be dominating most fights and I'll be relagated to cleanup duty. But every once in a while I get to do something cool and do enough damage in one swing to remind the psion that, while I cant polymorph or timestop, I can still kill any one of them in a single full attack. And that makes me happy. :) (and no, they can't dibilitate me. The Moment of Perfect Clarity/Action Before Thought/etc manouvers are amazing. +20 concentration check over will save? Yes please!)

Yami
2007-02-26, 07:34 PM
See, why I find wizards don't always pwn is that often they choose not to. I understand that is not quite what your looking for in an answer, but save for the occasional driud, our games usually have spellcaster who, out of ignorance and a preference for flashy damage, or out of choice, do not horribly overshadow the other party members.

I understand that wizards can be a trump that makes the party fighter feel like the a third wheel, nice for stability but unessisary on a real bike, but much like roleplaying your character into bad situations sometimes people just choose not to take all the pwn the fight spells. I do have a tendancy to build things for flare and fun rather than actual use.

PaladinBoy
2007-02-26, 07:45 PM
One thing I thought of doing as a DM to deal with wizards:

In the first few adventures past about level 11, toss a group of monsters with wildly varying weaknesses out. First give them a monster with no SR but good saves, then a monster with a bad Fort save, then a monster with a low touch AC, etc., etc. If you're lucky, they won't have prepared enough spells that target a particular weakness, and suddenly they're in a lot of trouble.

After you've trained them to diversify their spell selection to deal with anything, throw monsters at them that all have the same weakness. They probably won't have enough spells prepared to finish the job. Again they're in trouble.

After that, you can start randomly switching back and forth, and your wizards and clerics will be a lot more frugal and careful with their spells, not knowing whether they'll need those spells later or not.

Of course, I suppose this is really guesswork on my part. I've never had a campaign past level 10.:smallfrown:

Stevenson
2007-02-26, 08:13 PM
I also find that unintentionally botching a few grapple checks for your tentacles, getting your flight dispelled, etc. will really mess with all of the pwn wizards mentioned here. All of these things happen all the time, and aren't accounted for for some reason here. Spells fail. All the time, actually. And even if they don't grapple your opponent, or blind them, or whatever, the fact remains: you used up a spell. IN this case, for nothing. The fighter didn't use up any of his daily full attacks. Because he doesn't have a limited number of those.

Winterking
2007-02-26, 08:21 PM
The trouble with casters in a dungeon using Magnificent Mansion and/or Ropetrick to hide and regain spells, is that they've just given their foes 9 hours to get the ability to see invisibility and find the door/window to the extradimensional space. And to bring up reinforcements. 9 hours is a long time to prepare traps, ambushes, insta-wizard-kill attacks waiting right outside the door.
At best, the wizard steps out of his/her mansion with some buffs, rolls initiative along with everyone else, and has to hope that the bad guys go later. At worst, the wizard is hit by the large, angry golem waiting outside the extradimensional portal with a readied attack action and a way to see invisibility. Presto! Wizard paste.

Or, as someone above mentioned, put the wizard in a situation where time is of the essence, and they can't just take a day off when they're tired. If the evil guys will win in three hours, the fighter's ability to deal with repeated threats in a bash-the-face manner will become increasingly important.

krossbow
2007-02-26, 09:00 PM
I've played and DMed alot of games, and in all of them, casters are the gamebreakers.

I recently have started playing a game in which I am a wizard specializing in enchantment with the barred schools of abjuration and evocation (i haven't EVER missed evocation, but I do miss abjuration alot). anyways, we're low level, level 3.

In all the encounters we've been in, my crowd control spells have incredibly lowered the challenge, and saved our asses (the DM has thrown CR's 2-4 levels higher at us).

Grease, sleep, web and tasha's hideous laughter completely negate so many foes. Granted, I still count on the Meatshields to mop up, but as I gain more spells, the more I can take the enemies out on my own (especially when they're asleep and I scythe coup-de-gras).




Now, while I am great at helping the team, and negating half the enemies, I am incredibly vulnerable to melee, and I also run the risk of burning through spells without good help to mop up.



I also have DMed a couple arcana evolved games; the mage isn't nearly so overpowering in these games. The system's alot more balanced, and the melee units aren't quite as ganked by save or die spells (as they don't have nearly as many in AE). However, the Mage, a nuker, is great at taking out large groups of enemies, and is much more valuable than the melee guys at doign damage.





If there was a sort of mechanic in game to help enemies attack the tanks, things would work incredibly well, but unfortunately, there aren't. Since enemies run straight at casters, the melee unit's BEST role, that of soaking damage, is impossible to do unless the DM chooses to arbitrarily do this. I have had Players think that I am taking it easy on them simply because the enemies rush at the tanks; if their was a mechanic, it would be much more balanced, as this would help to give the tanks a role and make them feel useful.


the D&D knight does this well, but he is the only one.
________
Universal health warehouse (http://uhwh.com/)

cupkeyk
2007-02-27, 08:10 AM
No, they can't. They get 4 spells per spell level, maybe 5. If you diversify, and take 4 different spells that give you a nice variety of options for any encounter, then you've only got each spell once.

wizards get scribe scroll as a free feat at level 1. This lets them bring along spells that they won't need everyday but might need someday. It's standard tactics for everyone who wants to be batman. Then you make defaults spells list for a dungeon, another for a city, another for forest and whatever terrain you might get into. It saves time because you just show each list to your dm without declaring what you have prepared for the day everytime you nap. and you still have yer scrolls JUST IN CASE.

Sorcs are basically wizards for newbies or oldies with ADHD or management issues.

ShadowYRM
2007-02-27, 03:27 PM
What I find seems to work for me is the following recipe:

1. Larger numbers of lesser villains: this leaves enough to keep the mellee folks busy, and leaves me spare villains to attack the wizard.
2. Don't give buffers time to buff. Surprise works the best for this, but there are other ways get to this goal that pure surprise.
3. Engage in mellee as soon as possible.
4. Be stingy with total gold value. I try to maintain at the recommended levels from the DMG.

More suggestions?

We do exactly these same things, and a few more, and every class has shined. It helps that the group works as a team and that the high level casters might target a Greater Dispel on an enemy caster so the melee guys can own the kill.

Great post.

I like to mix my threats so that the players are making a variety of saves and facing a variety of threats. It also helps that we start every campaign at level one or two and encourage people to consider other races and PrCs. There is a long time of gaming before a caster gets even Level 7 spells.

Also, as has been stated, it can be hard to surprise a high level party of PCs or NPCs, but there are other ways to end buff spells.
- Fake an attack, have tricky retreat in place, then re-engage minutes later.
- Use illusions to make the PCs think they're about to fight.
- Dead magic zones.
- Dispel Magic traps & walls of dispelling.
- Non-boss NPCs... like rogues, with CL10 scrolls or wands of Dispel Magic. Even lower CL area dispels on the whole party will strip a collection of buffs.
- Slow the PCs with terrain, tanglefoot bags, spells, etc.
- Put a time limit on a task so that the PCs have 4-5 fights in a day, hours apart.
- Pressure when the PCs try to rest, this gets a bit tougher with higher level rest spells like Mansion or just teleporting away to rest.
- Zones of Respite to prevent teleportation.

I also engage in Melee quickly. A monk with Sun School can D-Door and attack/grapple even a flying enemy caster (though there is a risk they have other protections).

It's a rare caster who has protection from grappling, arrows, melee combat, spells, dispel magic, downdraft, heavier thrown weapons (bypass wind wall), and all types of offensive spells.

By Level 17, sure... a caster is going to usually be sitting at the center of a web of power and will have used all sorts of lackeys, diviniation, and other methods to metagame against what's coming.

Our campaigns don't usually go on much higher than that though, so, a tough caster at the end of an adventure makes for a good BBEG.

---

AND YES... Wizards who actually maintain and grow spellbooks via the rules will invest 10k into a single book which fills up quickly. A DM doesn't have to make the Blessed Book available too early, if at all.

So if you run that 49k is avg player wealth at Level 10, a Wizard might have 9k of that in the form of a spell book.

I find it's easier said than done for a Wizard or other caster to always be ready for anything until they close in on epic level. Then, when they do close in on epic level, it probably should take an epic effort to trap and finish a good wizard.

Our group rates Druids, Clerics, Wizards & Monks as the four most survivable classes, but Wizards don't creep in there fully until higher levels. At the same time, we have no problems with the game, and some PCs have played very effective melee guys including fighter mixes.

We also don't have a problem with the fact that the Fighter Class is probably not designed to be a pure 20 level class. It is what it is... there are plenty of classes to pick from for a person who doesn't like that aspect of the Fighter.

Sure, at higher levels, the casters hit a power curve, but, it hasn't pushed a non-caster into obscurity in our sessions.

Shrug.

I said this before... I don't know if we're just doing it wrong, but, we've had a pretty balanced experience with the game in that every PC has a chance to shine, even at higher levels. No major complaints. We do follow the rules as strictly as possible and try to stay at the suggested guidelines.

If we're not playing "right", that's probably for the best then, since we're happy with the results. Maybe it's just that we conclude our campaigns when the PCs reach level 17-20? I dunno.

elliott20
2007-02-27, 04:24 PM
I thought it was mostly because fighters just suck because there are no feats worth taking after a certain level. (the solution really is to make more feats that the fighter can use to gain some extra umph, if you ask me) Not because wizards are overpowered.

Olethros
2007-02-27, 04:39 PM
I have never had a caster unbalance my game, or completly overshadow the other players. Yes, very quickly the caster can do loads more damage than the melee guys, but I balance that with creatures that have high saves, resistances, or immunities. I have yet to have a player who could out think me in his character build. Now, I do play the omniscient DM, and the more powerfull my caster, the more specific I will build the dangers for him. (Not talking rocks fall all die stuff, but if a character is completly onesided for the sake of optimization, I do throw the occassional enemy that fits the weekness).

Its the idea that, the first time you face a incoporeal foe, your caster gets to outshine the fighters that have been making fun of him in the locker room. Latter, when you face the iron golumn, or spell eater, or whatever, your fighters get to step back up and pull out the big ... stick.

Casters arn't overpowered, or uber or anything else IMHO. They simply require a more carefull and crafty DM because they are naturally out-of-the-box problem solvers.

krossbow
2007-02-27, 10:20 PM
ever greased the floor underneath an iron golem? Yeah, beautiful sight that move.


Conjuration spells pwn golems hard. Only evokers are screwed over to a large degree by such enemies-- and frankly, evokers suck so hard it's not even funny.

cupkeyk
2007-02-27, 10:30 PM
ONCE AGAIN THE MAGIC/TRAGIC WORD CAME UP: DAMAGE

The wizard does not deal damage. He defeats opponents.

Hallavast
2007-02-28, 12:02 AM
ONCE AGAIN THE MAGIC/TRAGIC WORD CAME UP: DAMAGE

The wizard does not deal damage. He defeats opponents.

Sure he does. He has a whole bunch of damage spells.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-28, 12:03 AM
Yeah, but preparing them is generally unwise.

Hallavast
2007-02-28, 12:07 AM
Yeah, but preparing them is generally unwise.
How do you mean? You shouldn't ever prepare ANY damage spells?

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-28, 12:09 AM
In some situations, they're OK. Normally, you should have very few, though.

Hallavast
2007-02-28, 12:11 AM
In some situations, they're OK. Normally, you should have very few, though.
I agree. I usually keep em in wands since most of the versatile ones are low level anyway.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-28, 12:19 AM
Damage spells in wands is a bad idea--they're very CL-dependant.

cupkeyk
2007-02-28, 12:36 AM
Damage spells in wands is a bad idea--they're very CL-dependant.

Unless you are an Incantatrix, Artificer or a Bard with Metamagic Spell Trigger

Talya
2007-02-28, 11:45 AM
I was warned by my DM the day before a battle that if i used feeblemind on his big bad villain, the consequences would be disastrous. What works for the player, works for the NPCs...

Fax Celestis
2007-02-28, 12:11 PM
I was warned by my DM the day before a battle that if i used feeblemind on his big bad villain, the consequences would be disastrous. What works for the player, works for the NPCs...

That's a horrible DM. Why should you be denied a terrific spell because the DM (or the villain) has failed to prepare adequately?

Indon
2007-02-28, 12:19 PM
That's a horrible DM. Why should you be denied a terrific spell because the DM (or the villain) has failed to prepare adequately?

I think the point is, if your wizard goes around debilitating everyone they see with spells the DM wouldn't normally use in an encounter, the DM will start to use them on the party in future encounters.

And then things just stop being very fun.

dorshe1
2007-02-28, 12:37 PM
I am always amazed at the 'Wizards rule' threads as well. We can't get anyone to play wizard in our game. Of course, we actually make them start at level 1 and earn their levels. They usually go squish well before level 10. I've never seen anyone play a druid (except for Gen-Con and he managed to get himself killed by an orc when he was level 6... an ORC!!!) Our group tends to be full of fighters/rangers/rogues and two people who drew the short straws and has to play wizard and cleric so we have some support.

Talya
2007-02-28, 12:39 PM
I think the point is, if your wizard goes around debilitating everyone they see with spells the DM wouldn't normally use in an encounter, the DM will start to use them on the party in future encounters.

And then things just stop being very fun.

Exactly. If the caster has an "instant win" spell, and it's a spell anyone can learn, then facing 6 wizards at once who can all cast that spell would sublimely suck.

He's never told me not to use it, nor punished me for using it on minor encounters, he's just warned me that whether it works or not, if I start trivializing entire encounters with instantly-disabling spells, there's no reason why the encounters can't do the same to our party.

He doesn't like those spells, and I don't blame him. I think, in general, most ways to disable an opponent should be forced to go through their hit points.

Saph
2007-02-28, 12:42 PM
Yes, this is a problem with nasty spells/combos in general. If the PCs can do it, then so can everyone else, and since 'everyone else' includes people who are smarter than the PCs and have been around for a lot longer than they have, they should be able to do it better than the PCs can.


- Saph

Fax Celestis
2007-02-28, 12:47 PM
I suppose the level of lethality in your world is reduced as well then. In games I run, things are lethal, and no holds are barred from either side. If my players drop something cheesy on my prized monster, excellent. More power to them. Of course, I also throw monsters at them they've never seen before, since they don't appear in any book.

Indon
2007-02-28, 01:02 PM
Personally, I view that cheese arms races and the escalation associated with them are not healthy for long campaigns. Short campaigns or one-shots, maybe.

But if save-or-suck becomes the combat standard in a campaign, in my view that takes away a lot of the dramatic impact of combat. And really, a lot of what makes a wizard potentially overpowering involves that path.

But I'm sure not every DM or player feels the same.

Talya
2007-02-28, 01:10 PM
Something else occurred to me:

Someone mentioned using disabling spells and have the melee types go around doing coup de grace attacks on them.

In a campaign centered around good and evil, that's dangerous. A coup de grace is inherently an evil act, killing an already helpless opponent almost always is.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-28, 01:17 PM
Something else occurred to me:

Someone mentioned using disabling spells and have the melee types go around doing coup de grace attacks on them.

In a campaign centered around good and evil, that's dangerous. A coup de grace is inherently an evil act, killing an already helpless opponent almost always is.

Granted. I don't use alignment for my games, so it's not as much of an issue.

Also, my players tend towards the CN side of the alignment spectrum anyway.

Starbuck_II
2007-02-28, 02:11 PM
Something else occurred to me:

Someone mentioned using disabling spells and have the melee types go around doing coup de grace attacks on them.

In a campaign centered around good and evil, that's dangerous. A coup de grace is inherently an evil act, killing an already helpless opponent almost always is.
Than why doesn't hold prson have evil desciptor? Or even a warning?

Also why doesn't Coup have a descriptor...I think you are nitpicking.

Roderick_BR
2007-02-28, 02:12 PM
There's only thing I really wish to do: Play one game with these guys that claims that wizards are too powerful, and see how they play.
Really, I agree that an high level wizard is supposed to be the most powerful member in a group, but people here say that he is better than anyone by a long margim.
Yet, in my games, that never happens. It's usually the fighter and/or ranger that hog all the spotlights. I tried to play a "CodZilla" with a cleric once. Most battles were over by the time I had just started casting the 2nd or 3rd spell.

Talya
2007-02-28, 02:17 PM
Than why doesn't hold prson have evil desciptor? Or even a warning?

Because hold person isn't evil.


Also why doesn't Coup have a descriptor...


1. It's not a spell.
2. There are rare cases when it crosses over into the "Neutral" area of the alignment scale, such as in a lawful execution of a murderer or something.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-28, 02:21 PM
There's only thing I really wish to do: Play one game with these guys that claims that wizards are too powerful, and see how they play.
Really, I agree that an high level wizard is supposed to be the most powerful member in a group, but people here say that he is better than anyone by a long margim.
Yet, in my games, that never happens. It's usually the fighter and/or ranger that hog all the spotlights. I tried to play a "CodZilla" with a cleric once. Most battles were over by the time I had just started casting the 2nd or 3rd spell.

Read the Logic Ninja's Guide to Wizards to learn about wizards.

If you were spending three rounds buffing up as CoDzilla, you're doing it wrong. Druids can be in Wild Shape all/most of the time, and throw a single spell (like the horrific Bite of the Werebear/tiger/boar) down before wading in. Clerics can be buffed in a single round.
Levels 1-2: Bless. (You're not CoDzilla yet.)
Levels 3-6: Divine Favor (or Bull's Strength, before you've got a STR-boosting item).
Levels 7-8: Divine Power
Levels 9-15: Divine Power + Quickened Divne Favor (if you have advance buff time, use Righteous Might and take two rounds to do it)
Levels 15+: Quickened Divine Power + [either Righteous Might, or Miracle used to emulate the Wu Jen spell Giant Size], move up, next round throw out a Quickened Divine Favor and full attack.

Couple this with the long-term Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment spells (made even better with +4 CL in the morning via a Bead of Karma from the Strand of Prayer Beads), and use other spells when appropriate.

Edit: how is the fighter hogging the spotlight? Does he never have to make a Will save? Get grappled by a big creature? Face a flying enemy?

Fax Celestis
2007-02-28, 02:26 PM
There's only thing I really wish to do: Play one game with these guys that claims that wizards are too powerful, and see how they play.
Really, I agree that an high level wizard is supposed to be the most powerful member in a group, but people here say that he is better than anyone by a long margim.
Yet, in my games, that never happens. It's usually the fighter and/or ranger that hog all the spotlights. I tried to play a "CodZilla" with a cleric once. Most battles were over by the time I had just started casting the 2nd or 3rd spell.

Let me guess: the people you play with take Monkey Grip and damage spells too.

Roderick_BR
2007-02-28, 04:12 PM
Damn, I really didn't knew how to quickly buff a cleric. Thanks Bear (it adds more to my Clerics pown theory)

How the fighter hog the spotlight? He does will saves, yes, but he either a) Keep a cleric/wizard nearby to give cover (the teamwork part), or stay away from the wizard/monster's sight untill he can get near enough to strike.
Grappling: Good strenght and grappling feats and magic itens. The times he WAS grappled (mainly by big creatures) he was holding the creature as much as the creature was holding him, giving time to others to kill it. He had the HP to spare for any missed attack.
Flying? Let's say, he got good ideas on how to make a dragon land, and had the good sense to get far from the dragon when he couldn't. Simple logic, no super character build. Plus bows and throwing weapons.

Let's just say... once the fighter took off mounted on a horse on his surprise attack, and before the BbEG knew what happened, he was critiqued for maximum damage, using and aimed attack. Even his buffs didn't save him.

Fax, no, they don't use MG (I'm the only one that is crazy enough to use that). No, they didn't prepare damage spells also. They used scrolls and staffs. I think I and another friend there are the only ones in that group that used an effective mage.

Indon
2007-02-28, 04:22 PM
Well, a clever and innovative player should perform well in a campaign regardless of his class, given only a DM receptive to reasonable creativity.

Jade_Tarem
2007-03-01, 03:38 AM
Well, a clever and innovative player should perform well in a campaign regardless of his class, given only a DM receptive to reasonable creativity.

QFT. We have players that seem to shine in our group no matter what they play. One in particular stands out - If he playes the cleric, CoDzilla (pretty much like the one BWL outlined) is going to destory the Tokyo of your enemies. If he playes rogue or fighter (usually it's both at the same time) you're going to see some truly frightening sequences of sneak attacks. And, naturally, If he playes the wizard, arcane power dominates. He has a Gnomish Fighter out there at lvl 6 with an AC of 43 or something (it's at least 43, it could be higher by now, depending on whether or not he got his shield back when I wasn't paying attention).

Like in all things DnD, the point is really the party dynamic. Posing a wizard in a series of stand-alone fights against other classes doesn't prove anything (if it did, we can just wait for the Core Class Battle to conclude and end all the arguments now :smalltongue:) because class on class fights almost never happen (unless you play in a game run by the player I mentioned above).

And like in all things DnD, the point is to have fun. I said this at the beginning but no one listened. Any and all changes and solutions proposed should have the aim of making the game more fun for everyone in general. If a change doesn't do that, then it was probably a bad one.

And one final thing - a pet peeve. I dream of the day when people stop posting with "Well this one time character X did Y which was better than Z so by definition W is better than T and F." It's not. It really isn't. On the one of the threads discussing bards there was an incredibly long argument discussing whether adding a bard or a fighter would be better in one very specific situation. Personally I think better rolls for the existing party would have contributed more than either. The point is that saying "One time this wizard casted Deep Slumber on a drow priestess 6 times and it didn't do anything, it was the fighter that killed it. This means that even really low SR is a serious impediment to... why are you all laughing?" isn't a point. Often times bad judgments or bad luck can foil an action. Please remember that one example is statistically insignificant.

Back to productively contributing:

How about the insanity tables from Unearthed Arcana? It's similar to the fatigue thing except that instead of needing rest after casting, you need therapy. This bond helps most players get in character, as most of the players also need therapy and can relate :smalltongue:.

rob
2007-03-01, 06:34 PM
Saph, I loved your post. Bears, you're getting a bit too nitpicky on the details. I love your arguments for why fighters suck, and I agree with all of them and your fix. But let's talk about situations in which they don't and tactics to have fun, from the players' and the DM's perspective(s).

Note for all concerned - of course there are counters for these sorts of things. Fax, you're also right that casters/wizards (I'm using the term interchangably) have huge numbers of counters to these available. But the most fun thing for the whole party is if you screw with them in various ways, so that all the players have to plan with each other, and make the players use each other's advantages.

First, I second Saph's post about lack of complete information. I do the 'describe the monster, not tell them what kind;' thing, but I also generally have my players fight humanoid opponents. Humanoids are more fun than monsters to DM, in my opinion, because there's more drama to it. Also, with humanoids it's harder to tell the mooks from the BBEGS!. If wizards wanna go wasting their big bad spell combos on some clean and shiny and professional mooks while the grubby and disheveled high-level rogue disguised as a civilian runs in 'panic' through their formation and "oops!" alphastrikes the wizard, let em! Heck, I've never NOT had a character buy 'glamered' for his armor.

Second, the enemies have goals and operations. The enemies are not going to sit around, waiting for the characters' actions. If the characters are a major threat, the enemy is going to actively surveil them (e.g.: low-level druids disguised as deer who handrail the players line of march, and report to other baddies). The enemy will plan to attack the players and identify the varied threats in the party. Attacking from suprise is awesome - moderate level wizards are dead in a heartbeat if equivalent level fighters or rogues get the drop on them.

Third, attack from suprise and eliminate the wizard's ability to see or identify the target. Invisible opponents are good, because (unless the wizard has remarkable foresight and has all his sensing apparatus permanent or provided by magic items) the wizard has to waste a spell and a round getting to where they can see them. Opponents in cover. Players go to sleep in a barn, bad guys surround the barn, bar the doors, and burn it down. wizard can't see any bad guys to fight back, and didn't happen to have fire resistance memorized. Fighters ended up winning that day, just by taking the hits and pummeling their way through the walls. If the wizards use things like divinations to detect enemies, well, any rogue worth his salt should have nondetection items by a certain level.

Fourth, there's never a time when the players should be immune from attack. They should be worried on the march, worried at the objective, and if they've gathered enough enemies (as any 7th level + party will have done) worried when they go to the grocery store. They should be worried the day before they complete their big magic item that they've been bragging about, and the thieves' guild knows that they'll be exhausted and drained of spells.

Fifth, the players should be able to do all this to the enemy, as well. The enemies aren't going to spend their lives in their dungeon waiting for the players. Good players recon, plan, and execute as a team. Bears, your typical argument about the fighter is that they suck versus flying. True nuff; but if the party has identified that the opponent is flying then they should actively try to force the engagement to a position that nullifies the advantage. Fighters who can get the drop on ENEMY casters can work as well.