PDA

View Full Version : How should wizard/clerics/spellcasters work in a party?



Ramza00
2007-03-22, 10:09 AM
Should they buff themselves to near gods or should use their spell slots to buff their non spellcaster allies who could further specialize in certain aspects thus while not being as versatile as full spellcasters they may be able to do things a normal wizard can't do.

For example a wizard can always use polymorph on himself to transform himself into whatever beasty he wants. But would that spell slot be more useful if he cast polymorph on the party fighter and the party fighter becomes a treant or cave troll.

Or a wizard can cast polymorph on the party rogue and turn him into a 6 (12)/12 (24) headed hydra

A ring of spell storing (minor/normal/major) opens up new possible buffing by allowing the spellcaster to cast the spell in a ring and then have the other party member use the ring and thus cast it on themselves. For example this sneak attack build. Once you get a major ring you can even cast persistent spells into the ring.

Death by sneak attack

Tiefling race or other outsider

This won't be useful to near epic.

But remember you can cast personal spells into a ring of spell storing including personal spells which has the persistent spell applied to them.

Thus you can have an archivist/unseen seer cast persistent hunter's eye into a ring and give it to the rogue. That should be about 8d6 more sneak attack the rogue can do. Afterwards he gives the ring back to the wizard who now casts persistent wraithstrike in it. Finally polymorph into Kelvezu 8d6

So what a rogue 3/Swashbuckler 17 with daring outlaw

10d6 Sneak Attack rogue 3/Swashbuckler 17
2d6 - Assassins Stance (ToB) Gained via two feats
1d6 - Rogues Vest (DMG II)
2d6 - Precision Enchantment (Com Ad) +2
1d6 - Assassination (Cityscape web enhancement) +1 (note it also increases poison dcs by the weapon enhancement value, cast greater magic weapon on it and its +5 to death attack if you were doing that)
8d6 - Persistent Hunter's Eye (you might be able to get 9d6 with enough sneak attack boosting items) Can get obscene if you do a Red Wizard/Unseen Seer
8d6 - Polymorph or PAO into Kelvezu
1d6 Persistent Critical Strike
20 - Craven

33d6 with 8 attacks (4+3 TWF+1 Haste)

I can further optimize this, but I don't really want to you get the point it can get sick.

Ring of Spellstoring costs 200,000 gp if you buy it. 100,000 if you craft it, and if you have the right feat only 75,000 gp. 8,000 xp if you craft it, 6,000 xp if you have the right feat reducing xp costs.


But you don't need to break out persistent spells to use your rings of spell storing usefully. A ring of spell storing with overland flight cast in it, given to the fighter/rogue, who then uses it (he can now fly all day), then hands it back to the wizard to cast draconic polymorph in it (or wraithstrike) who hands it back to the owner. The non spellcaster owner will now use his first turn in an encounter to buff into a melee machine and create chaos the next round.

(I can see a raptoran rogue/swashbuckler with flyby attack who draconic polymorphs into said hydra and then gets 12 attacks with sneak attack as soon as round 2)

Additionally there is that bracer in DMG2 which allows you to share some types of spells with the person who wears the matching bracer (duration is half).

I can do more examples, but I think I will save them for the rest of the thread after hearing your thoughts.

----------------------------------------------------------------

So in conclusion in your mind should spellcasters be arrogant little bastards who focus on buffing themselves (see codzilla/wizard/archivist/etc), should they "share the wealth" with the party and be a team player, or should they do both (but remember spell slots are limited, there is always an oppurtunity cost)?

Also use this thread to share some of your favorite combos.

Toliudar
2007-03-22, 10:51 AM
I think it's generally more fun when the buffs get spread around. My pnp group tends to have a very good sense of allowing each player to shine in a moment, and while buffs can even out the playing field (the Con 10 sorcerer is usually the first recipient of the bear's endurance spell, just to increase his chances of staying in a fight), there's also a sense of helping each character augment their strengths.

My cleric and druid are always generous to a fault about sublimating their own prowess by focusing on buffing and healing others during combat. Maybe this isn't, by the numbers, their best choice to end the combat quickly and successfully, but it does make sure that the others are more likely to have some success, and some fun. Mind you, this is supported by the fact that neither is particularly optimized for melee (either by build or player inclination).

Ramza00
2007-03-22, 10:56 AM
I don't care just about raw numbers, fun is the most important thing.

Love your avatar though :)

greenknight
2007-03-22, 10:58 AM
Should they buff themselves to near gods or should use their spell slots to buff their non spellcaster allies who could further specialize in certain aspects thus while not being as versatile as full spellcasters they may be able to do things a normal wizard can't do.

The real question is, what is there that a non-spellcaster can do that a full caster can't, at higher levels? Clerics and Druids can eventually perform the same role as Barbarians, Fighters and Monks, and cast spells besides. If you play Core Rules only, there's really not much which can substitute for a Rogue, but if you include the splatbooks, there are plenty of replacements, including the Beguiler from PHBII, which almost completely removes the need for a Rogue.

The other thing to remember is that with spells, hit points can be sidestepped. There are many spells where failing the save results in death (or domination, which is essentially the same thing), and many more where the character is rendered unable to act (some of these allow no saving throw, and a few work as an area effect). This often allows a spellcaster to neutralize one or more foes with a single standard action, something which non-spellcasters usually cannot duplicate.

Ramza00
2007-03-22, 11:05 AM
They can further specialize in damage, and can have even more hitpoints, ac, damage, etc if you give the barbarians, rogues, warriors and sneak some of the party spells via buffs. (If those casters are generous and team players)

Thus leaving the other spellcaster their own rounds to cast spells such as saves or dies, or battle field control.

greenknight
2007-03-22, 12:19 PM
They can further specialize in damage, and can have even more hitpoints, ac, damage, etc if you give the barbarians, rogues, warriors and sneak some of the party spells via buffs. (If those casters are generous and team players)

It's not so much not about being a team player, but a question of whether at higher levels Barbarians, Fighters and Monks really have any place on the team. Outside of magic dead areas, a higher level Cleric or Druid can be just as effective in combat as any member of those classes, and can cast spells as well.

As I mentioned previously, there's no real replacement for a Rogue in Core Rules, but if you use the splatbooks, a Beguiler can perform most of a Rogue's main tasks, and a Beguiler can take one or more foes completely out of battle with a single spell.


Thus leaving the other spellcaster their own rounds to cast spells such as saves or dies, or battle field control.

Buffing can make characters much more effective, but that's why it's better to have more casters in the party. Consider a typical party of 1 Fighter, 1 Cleric, 1 Rogue and 1 Wizard. The Fighter and Rogue can't cast spells (except through the use of magical items), so the buffing is usually left to the Cleric and Wizard.

Compare this to a party consisting of a Beguiler, Cleric, Druid and Wizard. The Beguiler fills the Rogue's primary role as a scout, but also has Save or Die and buffing spells. The Cleric and Druid effectively give the party the equivalent of two Fighters and their own healing, buffing and Save or Die spells. This allows each member of the group to buff the others (which generally results in more buffs being applied overall), and still have plenty of spell slots left over for other things. Unless they go into an area where magic is ineffective (which is not the same as fighting against a creature with high spell resistance or spell immunity), this party is going to be more effective than the previous one.

Of course, someone is bound to ask what happens if the party comes across a largely spell immune creature like a Golem. In this case, the Cleric, Druid and Animal Companion can buff up (haste - from beguiler or wizard, wild shape, animal growth, divine favor, divine might, righteous might, greater magic weapon etc) and go into physical combat. They could also cast a few summoning spells to help deal with the problem.

Ramza00
2007-03-22, 12:38 PM
In a core only world you may have a point, but with the new splat books its a different matter. When I say more specialize in other things, Lets put it this way, some things spellcasters just can't do (or do well) no matter how they try. Consider this build which has been avaliable since late 2003 (one of the first 3.5 books)

Full Bab 5/War hulk 10/X 5 now use Divine Power
Massive Swing, +20 to strength, and with Divine Power Full BAB and thus 4 Attacks+Haste. Give this baby a reach weapon and watch armies die.

Or another build (Races of Dragon thus Jan 2006)
a monk/kensai who has greater mighty wallop, greater magic weapon, and overland flight (for mobility) cast on him. Sure his bab is not that good and thus have to hit problems (throw in wraithstrike in a spell storing ring to hit is no longer a problem), but when he hits it hurts and this is before you do power attack which monks can do with their fists.

And now that we have Tome of Battle (Aug 2006), melee can do many things they could do before plus the party spellcasters can still buff them making it more obscene.

--------------------------------------------

Now there are some things spellcaster can do that other builds just can't. Such as battlefield control and saves spells. Spellcasters always win at that. I am just asking is a better opportunity that if you are going to use those rounds to buff, buff the non spellcasters for they can better take advantage of the buffs. Or if you are going to use those spell slots to buff, consider casting them in a ring of spell storing and now have the melee use those to buff (in battle or out of battle) if those buffs are in battle, you now have more rounds to do other things such as save spells and battlefield control.

Variable Arcana
2007-03-22, 12:41 PM
If a wizard is still at a level where it makes sense to be travelling with tanks, then buffing those tanks is always going to make more sense than buffing himself. A 5th level wizard can cast "Fireball" doing a measely 17.5 damage (save for half) to a few targets, cast "Fly" on himself to hover above the monsters, or cast "Haste" on the whole party, using the added movement to keep himself out of melee while the 5th level fighters get to double their full attacks.

No contest.

Emperor Tippy
2007-03-22, 01:54 PM
Do you mean should in a metagame sense or an in game sense? In a metagame sense its more fun if everyone gets to play so you buff the rest of the party most of the time and maybe every fifth encounter you just beat the encounter in 1 round on your own.

Ingame wise you should be buffing yourself/soloing fights at high levels.

Whamme
2007-03-22, 02:52 PM
Do you mean should in a metagame sense or an in game sense? In a metagame sense its more fun if everyone gets to play so you buff the rest of the party most of the time and maybe every fifth encounter you just beat the encounter in 1 round on your own.

Ingame wise you should be buffing yourself/soloing fights at high levels.

Actually, if you're in-character, the typical wizard is afraid of physical violence and would rather not fight if they get someone else to do it (or at the very least is lazy enough to not want to fight)... (besides, they don't know if they might need those spell slots later - 4 encounters without rest is not one of the laws of physics).

And the typical cleric would want people to feel grateful, not useless. 'The Gods help those who help themselves' and so on... yes, they'll wade into the fight to kick ass and take names, but soloing doesn't really fit.

Ramza00
2007-03-22, 04:52 PM
Do you mean should in a metagame sense or an in game sense? In a metagame sense its more fun if everyone gets to play so you buff the rest of the party most of the time and maybe every fifth encounter you just beat the encounter in 1 round on your own.

Ingame wise you should be buffing yourself/soloing fights at high levels.

Either, it is your personal opinion why you should do X. Your reasons are your own (though an explanation why is often useful).

Emperor Tippy
2007-03-22, 05:00 PM
Metagame wise its boring and not fun for everyone involved if the wizard just solos everything. Him soloing every now and again is great, its a good change of pace.

Ingame wise there is really no reason for a higher level wizard to buff the rest of the party, its actually safer for him to solo.

So for metagme reasons you should mostly buff, but its hard to justify ingame (with a generic wizard played to hsi potential).

Ramza00
2007-03-22, 05:23 PM
Ingame wise there is really no reason for a higher level wizard to buff the rest of the party, its actually safer for him to solo.

So for metagme reasons you should mostly buff, but its hard to justify ingame (with a generic wizard played to hsi potential).

What do you mean by safer? As in monsters not attacking him, or you are afraid your party is going to betray you?

Assume the second is a complete impossibility due to DM fiat, its your party against the world? What then in your mind?

AmoDman
2007-03-22, 05:39 PM
I don't think there is any blanket standard IC for wizards or other casters whatsoever, no matter how powerful they are. It all depends on their personality :P.

Emperor Tippy
2007-03-22, 05:41 PM
What do you mean by safer? As in monsters not attacking him, or you are afraid your party is going to betray you?

Assume the second is a complete impossibility due to DM fiat, its your party against the world? What then in your mind?
A level 20 wizard can solo most things at his level easily and with almost no risk. Few parties can destroy a CR appropriate monster before it can act.

So if you solo then the monster can't act and you stay safe. If you buff the monster usually gets a round to act and you can be attacked.

its_all_ogre
2007-03-22, 05:52 PM
imo the casters should buff their allies.
i am not convinced that a fighter who has spent all of his feats on being great in combat can actually be outdone by a cleric with divine power and righteous might(but thats for another thread, as indeed are most of the other comments)
the wizard being safer alone probably means that this way he is not at threat from his friend the fighter getting suddenly dominated into attacking him.

Roland St. Jude
2007-03-22, 06:43 PM
This seemed like a genuine inquiry up until you said this:
...So in conclusion in your mind should spellcasters be arrogant little bastards who focus on buffing themselves (see codzilla/wizard/archivist/etc), should they "share the wealth" with the party and be a team player, or should they do both (but remember spell slots are limited, there is always an oppurtunity cost)?

That certainly tells us what you think the "right" answer is. But, I guess my response would be that they should be arrogant little bastards if that's their personality and "share the wealth" if that's more their style. Should they self-buff and solo things or buff others and sit back? To me that's part a question of is the caster a teamplayer kinda character and what does the situation call for? Sometimes you come out firing with something to disable/kill the enemy immediately, sometimes you buff the meleers first, sometimes you do something unusual. You do what the situation calls for. It's situational and most wizards are smart, so you're reasonably in character by playing smart and pragmatic. Sure spell slots are scarce, but you can be well-prepared to be flexible if you want.

Overall, why not do everything? To me that's both the strength and fun of playing a wizard. You have a variety of tricks in your bag. If you prepare well, you can buff the party when it would be best, try to one shot the enemy when that would be best, and generally be creative about things.

greenknight
2007-03-22, 07:31 PM
Consider this build which has been avaliable since late 2003 (one of the first 3.5 books)

Full Bab 5/War hulk 10/X 5 now use Divine Power
Massive Swing, +20 to strength, and with Divine Power Full BAB and thus 4 Attacks+Haste. Give this baby a reach weapon and watch armies die.

Hit this guy with Mage's Disjunction (a Greater Dispel Magic sometimes works too), follow up with Dominate Monster and the armies which die tend to be those who used to work with this character. The problem with many builds like this is a very poor Will save.


Or another build (Races of Dragon thus Jan 2006)
a monk/kensai who has greater mighty wallop, greater magic weapon, and overland flight (for mobility) cast on him. Sure his bab is not that good and thus have to hit problems (throw in wraithstrike in a spell storing ring to hit is no longer a problem), but when he hits it hurts and this is before you do power attack which monks can do with their fists.

Once again, very vulnerable to a single Disjunction, although much less so than the previous build.

How does a full caster deal with the problem of Disjunction? First, they tend to have good Will saves, so they aren't likely to lose as many magical items. Second, they have the spells to re-apply their buffs, if given enough time to do so. Third, nearly all full spellcasters have access to Dispel Magic and Greater Dispel Magic, as well as some means to get out of a bad situation quickly if they have to (Teleport, Word of Recall). So even when they are caught at a disadvantage, they can usually just retreat to a safe place and live to fight another day.

How does this compare to non-spellcasters? Most have poor Will saves and little benefit from boosting Wisdom, so Disjunction not only removes buffs, it destroys many magical items. They're non-spellcasters, so unless someone has given them a magical item which survives the Disjunction and allows them to re-apply their buffs, they can't do it. And even if they have an item which allows them to teleport, that's vulnerable to a Dimensional Anchor or similar magic, so unless they have some means to cast Greater Dispel Magic, their chance of making a successful escape is reduced.

This brings us back to the Beguiler, because this is one class which doesn't have Teleport or Word of Recall on his or her spell list. However, the class does have a good Will save, making it more likely that magical items will survive, and should be able to obtain Boots of Teleportation at some point in time (the party Wizard might even be able to make them). But this character does have the potentially more important Greater Dispel Magic as a class spell, so the chance of escape is still good.


I am just asking is a better opportunity that if you are going to use those rounds to buff, buff the non spellcasters for they can better take advantage of the buffs.

Maybe in some cases they can, but having non-spellcasters in your party at higher levels (other than Rogues in a Core only game) is a questionable tactic at best. Those characters can't really buff the rest of the party without magical items (which can often be used by any type of character anyway), and their (usually) poor Will save makes them more vulnerable to being disabled or controlled by enemies.


Or if you are going to use those spell slots to buff, consider casting them in a ring of spell storing and now have the melee use those to buff (in battle or out of battle) if those buffs are in battle, you now have more rounds to do other things such as save spells and battlefield control.

A Ring of Spell Storing can be a useful item, but each non-spellcaster you include in the party reduces it's usefulness. That's because while a non-spellcaster can use it, they can't put spells into it (unless it's from a magical item which can normally be used by the full spellcasters anyway). The other thing to remember here is that while the Ring is good, it does have it's limitations. You can't cast a Quickened spell from it (since the minimum casting time is 1 standard action when using the ring), and regardless of what the actual caster level is, when a spell is cast from it, it uses the minimum caster level for the spell. Those drawbacks mean it's usually better to have a spellcaster cast the spell directly, if possible, although there are a few spells (like True Strike) where it doesn't really matter.

Kantolin
2007-03-22, 07:37 PM
Personally, if Clerics could use Righteous might on fighters, and if Druids could... I dunno, wild shape at touch range, I'd like them more at the whole 'supporting other people'.

I personally like the buff-happy caster. Sitting in the back, comfortably invisible, throwing around buffs. The trouble is, cleric buffs that aren't personal suck wind, and playing the healbot isn't nearly as fun as making everyone more effective. Clerics and druids pretty much lend themselves to buffing up themselves and going to whack things.

So when I want to play a buff-unit... I go wizard, and ensure that I have enough offensive capability to do as I like on the side. Of course, the statement 'A wizard should do nothing but buff the party' is not good, because not all wizards want to do that (I certainly don't want to be the supprot character all the time).

Black Swan
2007-03-22, 08:50 PM
For clerics I'd say that for appropriate roleplaying it'd depend on the patron deity. Clerics of Kord or Heironeus are probably more likely to buff themselves and wade into combat; clerics of Pelor, otoh, are probably more likely to buff and heal their allies. The first category can still heal; it's just that'll probably wait for after combat.

As for what's more effective, it's situational. At lower levels, it might be better to just use buffs like bless and bull's strength on your allies and heal because you don't have those spells which let you fight better than fighters yet. And even then you still fight almost on the same level as the fighter. If you use that bull's strength on yourself, your str is probably as good. BAB isn't too far off, and you use the same armor. HP is less of a concern because you can heal yourself. At lower levels it's situational, but at higher levels it's probably a smarter strategy to buff yourself and start smashing things.

Ramza00
2007-03-22, 10:59 PM
I apologize its been a long day, and some of my language in this post was way too hostile than what it should be on the boards. It may not be against any rules directly, but it still not a good thing for communication. Sorry.

I will try to better phrase my questions and points tomorrow, and I apologize for my harsh language.

NemoUtopia
2007-03-22, 11:07 PM
It depends on the party, and on the spellcaster. I know that's somewhat trite, but it's the simplest answer. Some groups care only about raw damage, and this means they will use their buffs to super-buff the fighter and rouge while the wizard pumps out spells. Groups that are more for fun, however, will not only play non-standard casters (which change caster role significantly), but will work together as a team rather than put all their eggs in one basket. These are the parties that invest in getting access to "mass buffnamehere" type spells when they can, and generally keep everyone effective in their own way. I know that in the most recent 10th-12th level campaign (Eberron), my Enlightened Fist was generally little more than a "and I run around and take on minions and annoy the spellcaster"...except that I used group buffs (particularly the 3.5 haste) to help the party when fights occured. In one battle, that haste did nothing more than stop a mass slow effect on us, but was well worth it in everyone's mind. This worked amazingly well, and even though I almost died quite a lot, we had lots of fun. Not to say that super-self buffing isn't fun, but I think the real answer boils down to:

Your spellcaster should be effective while playing a role that ensures the whole party has fun (as PCs).

PnP Fan
2007-03-23, 12:19 AM
My suggestion is to come up with a personality for the character in question first. This will determine his preferred tactics. Even smart people have personalities that lead them to preferrences. They might even be able to look at their little foibles and say "wow, this isn't the best option, but I sure enjoy it!". So, give your CoD/SoW some personality, and then figure out what spells the character would prefer.
As an example: Let's suppose I'm playing a LG Child of Bahamut Sorcerer, a true child of the dragons (a character in a game I'm playing in, though not actually my character). Because of the attachment of dragons, and all things draconic, and a lack of hp, this character likes energy spells. Not to exclusion, but her preference is to use lots of explosive effects. So the character has various draconic heritage feats, and many of her spells are of the blow stuff up variety. Hardly optimal, but still a very useful member of the party. She softens things up in the first round with an AoE, the melleers run in to finish off the job, as she blasts others in ones and twos. Lots of fun for everyone.

Archpaladin Zousha
2007-04-21, 10:55 PM
So far, I'm sort of a troubleshooter or problem solver. Using Complete Mage, I've been trying to sort of create a hybrid spy/strategist. Once I have access to more powerful spells, I can use divination spells to scout, and use the information obtained to rip the ground from underneath the foe!:biggrin: I'm only level 2 at the moment, but I've already proven some efficacy. Two Enlarge Persons, one on our fighter and one on our barbarian assured that we could take the ogres that had ganged up on us.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-21, 11:00 PM
I think the casters should use low level buff spells for non-combat situations to help out the face/skill monkey, and for divination. They should also buff teammates, especially in dangerous battles (throwing down a prayer, haste, etc). In not so dangerous battles, they should use low level spells to buff/debuff/make enemy easier to stab.

In serious battles, they should be dropping the cheesy stuff.

Snooder
2007-04-21, 11:30 PM
i think the problem is not whether caster's SHOULD be buffing up their comrades. Of course they should, in the same way that the fighter SHOULD be soaking hits and the rogue SHOULD be running ahead and messing with dangerous traps.

The problem is that it's more effective for the spellcasters to buff themselves. Should the wizard spend his spell slots on casting celerity/timestop on himself and go for the instawin, or essentially waste it casting it on a fighter?
Should the cleric divine power himself or waste that spell slot on a buff that's nowhere as powerful just so the fighter can be marginally better?

Ikkitosen
2007-04-23, 05:37 AM
I think the key word is "should". If you're looking for a "win as fast as possible" build, play a computer game! You "should" be looking to have fun playing an awesome game with your friends, which means being a team player. All this crap about "fighters have no place in a high level group" is crap, they're a member of the team, make it work. People have put forward some great ideas for buffing your teammates and such, so use them!

Matthew
2007-04-23, 02:49 PM
I think the key word is "should". If you're looking for a "win as fast as possible" build, play a computer game! You "should" be looking to have fun playing an awesome game with your friends, which means being a team player. All this crap about "fighters have no place in a high level group" is crap, they're a member of the team, make it work. People have put forward some great ideas for buffing your teammates and such, so use them!
Perfectly true.

Raum
2007-04-23, 03:28 PM
So in conclusion in your mind should spellcasters be arrogant little bastards who focus on buffing themselves (see codzilla/wizard/archivist/etc), should they "share the wealth" with the party and be a team player, or should they do both (but remember spell slots are limited, there is always an oppurtunity cost)?Getting past the biased rhetoric, what are your casters' goals? What resources do they have? What are the enemy resources? Abilities? Numbers? Many of your proposed methods rely on a Ring of Spell Storing, what if the party doesn't have one?

Looking for a single answer to a nearly infinite set of situations is problematic at best. The caster should do whatever is best in the situation he's in. If that means buffing the fighter, great! But don't expect the same answer for every situation.