PDA

View Full Version : Broken Wizard solutions



Ever Phasm
2007-04-24, 11:53 AM
Almost everyone who plays a wizard from low levels to high experiences the following:

1st level: BAM! magic missle! Okay, now what? I'm out of spells.
5th level: Stinking Cloud! Scorching Ray! Magic Missle! WHAT? There are like 8 encounters left?
10th: Feel my wrath! ENERVATION!
15th: You, dragon! don't bother trying anything. My intellect is vastly superior to yours, you should just give up before I incinerate you.
20th: Even the Gods fear me! Mwa ha ha ha ha!

However, in my experience, very few people are willing to play a character from first to 20th level (my group sure ain't). So if you are playing an adventure with high level characters, the wizard shines out. With many powerful spells he/she dominates in every situation.

To fix this problem of wizards being (in a nut shell) overpowered, I have thought of a solution that needs reviewing before use (it could make wizards at low levels the most undesirable class choice ever).

It is based around ASF (arcane spell failure) and also depends on how you imagine working in your campaign.

If you imagine magic as a set of perfect formulas and mathematical equations that always perform specific effects then my idea will require slight tweaking.

If, on the other hand, you envision arcane magic as a wild untouchable energy and wizards cast spells by tapping into that magic then my idea fits in perfectly.

The bases for my idea is that one can never completely understand arcane magic. Wizards develop hypothesis and theories but doubt is always there. Arcane material components may be needed for a purpose that we do not understand and waving your hands in a different way may cause a fireball to become a blast of negative energy. Magic Missles might rip a hole in the fabric of time and space and wizards could never be sure why it happened.

In short, because of this unpredictability of magic. Increase the ASF of a wizard when he casts a spell by the level of the spell (treat cantrips as 1 for this case).

This means that when the 20th level wizard with 0%ASF casts celerity in order to cast time stop (etc.) celerity has a 4% ASF chance of failure while time stop has a 9% chance of failure.

If our wizard was (for some strange and idiotic reason) in studded leather and casts invisibility (a 2nd level spell) he has a 17% ASF, as opposed to a 15% chance.

The problem with this is that the venerable gray elf with 38 intelligence stills fails to cast some of his spells about 5% of the time. Even though he has studied magic for 200 years.

If you guys can think of any other flaws with this idea then please speak up! I need to know if it works for my next session in which I am a 16th level gnome illusionist Nightmare Spinner (PrCl from complete mage).

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-24, 11:58 AM
Here's the flaw with this idea: random failure makes for a crappy mechanic. If the wizard is useless 10% of the time and wins the other 90% of the time, that's not balance, and it's really poor design to boot.

Sir Giacomo
2007-04-24, 12:15 PM
In the old Lankhmar ADD setting, the casting times were increased by one step to make magic rarer/more obscure/more indirect and subtle; so put to DD3.5 that would mean:
immediate action casting remains (otherwise feather fall would make no more sense)
swift action casting becomes standard action casting (it could be quickened, again with feat and metamagic rod)
standard action casting becomes full round action casting (so can no longer be quickened!)
full round action casting becomes 1 minute casting (summoning takes even longer)
etc.

This would limit at least the combat strength of casters somewhat; you may wish to equalise this by more skill points (say 4/level instead of 2) so that, say, wizards and sorcerers can do more stuff at low levels, or grant more metamagic feats.

Another method to prevent the exponential power curve for arcane casters is to limit their ability to choose 2 spells for themselves per level (say, to 1/level, or only up to 5th level spells). So their spell expansion is more vitally dependent on finding, buying, exchanging scrolls and spellbooks for wizards and in finding tutors for sorcerers (entirely in the hands of the DM).

- Giacomo

Koga
2007-04-24, 01:19 PM
The Top Three Ways To Nerf an Overconfident Wizard...

Number one:
Show him magic glowing armor. Make it attractive like a green, then, if he touches it, it magicaly teleports on his body and becomes stuck to him. Resulting in arcane spell-failure.

Number two:
Have one of his hands chopped off. Somatic compoents now are inconcenceivable.

Number three:
Have someone burn, eat, or otherwise dismantle his spellbook. Villains aren't retarded, they know that if there's a wizard, there's bound to be a library.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-04-24, 03:05 PM
[QUOTE=Koga;2467835]The Top Three Ways To Nerf an Overconfident Wizard...[QUOTE]

Your 3 tips sound more like: Top three ways to make your players mad with you without good reason.

Except maybe for number 3... it is reasonable to think about destroying a wizards library before attacking him... Of course, a high level's wizard library would be protected with all sorts of traps and spells

Emperor Tippy
2007-04-24, 03:09 PM
The Top Three Ways To Nerf an Overconfident Wizard...

Number one:
Show him magic glowing armor. Make it attractive like a green, then, if he touches it, it magicaly teleports on his body and becomes stuck to him. Resulting in arcane spell-failure.
Wizard: "I cast teleport and choose to not bring along the armor"



Number two:
Have one of his hands chopped off. Somatic compoents now are inconcenceivable.
Wizard to cleric: "Hey buddy, can you prepare a Regenerate spell tomorrow so I can get my hand back?"


Number three:
Have someone burn, eat, or otherwise dismantle his spellbook. Villains aren't retarded, they know that if there's a wizard, there's bound to be a library.

Wizard: "Time to pull out the spare blessed book, the best 12.5K I ever spent. Oh I'm running low on gold for these things, time to solo an adult black dragon and get another dozen."


If you want to nerf the wizard at least try to come up with half way decent ways. And the wizards power level is an out of game concern and should not be dealt with ingame.

Innis Cabal
2007-04-24, 03:14 PM
anti-magic field? Wild magic field....oh thats a great teleport spell.....to bad your 2,000 miles from where you wanted to be...and perhaps in a very bad situation to boot. Though in my opinon wizards are only as powerful as the DM lets them

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-24, 03:16 PM
...how much of the gameworld is covered in AMFs and wild magic areas?

Yes. The wizard isn't powerful, if the DM keeps his class features from working they way they're supposed to.

Dausuul
2007-04-24, 03:31 PM
Here's the flaw with this idea: random failure makes for a crappy mechanic. If the wizard is useless 10% of the time and wins the other 90% of the time, that's not balance, and it's really poor design to boot.

Huh? Fighters have random failure. It's called "if you don't hit the monster's AC, or get a natural 1, you miss." Why is it so unreasonable to have a similar limiting factor on the wizard? Hell, that's what spell resistance does, except it's way too easy to jack up your caster level and/or reduce SR and/or use spells that bypass it entirely. If all spells had to worry about SR, and there were no way to reduce it or raise your caster level to overcome it, wizards would be a lot less broken. (Still broken, thanks to time stop and the like, but less so.)

Nor would this necessarily mean "wizards are useless 10% and win 90%." Combat is not decided on a single die roll; if this spell fails, the next spell might succeed, and vice versa. What this would do is throw the occasional wrench in the Super Duper Spell Combos that make 20th-level wizards so obscene. The more spells are involved in the combo, the more likely it is that one of them goes pffft.

Not saying it would necessarily fix the problem, but I see no reason to dismiss it out of hand. Most RPGs require some sort of roll when you use magic. D&D is actually unusual in allowing wizards to succeed automatically.

Person_Man
2007-04-24, 03:39 PM
You know, I never have any trouble balancing casters and non-casters in the campaigns I DM. I just throw other magic users against them in encounters, and make sure that there are enough encounters each game day that the caster PC's feel as if they have to ration their spells. It's only a problem if other players are playing completely nerfed builds. But that issue is solved during character creation.

kamikasei
2007-04-24, 03:41 PM
Huh? Fighters have random failure. It's called "if you don't hit the monster's AC, or get a natural 1, you miss." Why is it so unreasonable to have a similar limiting factor on the wizard?

The fighter's random failures don't consume a finite resource, except for rounds. He is free to attack again. A wizard's ASF will consume a spell slot.

Kioran
2007-04-24, 03:43 PM
Almost everyone who plays a wizard from low levels to high experiences the following:

1st level: BAM! magic missle! Okay, now what? I'm out of spells.
5th level: Stinking Cloud! Scorching Ray! Magic Missle! WHAT? There are like 8 encounters left?
10th: Feel my wrath! ENERVATION!
15th: You, dragon! don't bother trying anything. My intellect is vastly superior to yours, you should just give up before I incinerate you.
20th: Even the Gods fear me! Mwa ha ha ha ha!

However, in my experience, very few people are willing to play a character from first to 20th level (my group sure ain't). So if you are playing an adventure with high level characters, the wizard shines out. With many powerful spells he/she dominates in every situation.

To fix this problem of wizards being (in a nut shell) overpowered, I have thought of a solution that needs reviewing before use (it could make wizards at low levels the most undesirable class choice ever).

It is based around ASF (arcane spell failure) and also depends on how you imagine working in your campaign.

If you imagine magic as a set of perfect formulas and mathematical equations that always perform specific effects then my idea will require slight tweaking.

If, on the other hand, you envision arcane magic as a wild untouchable energy and wizards cast spells by tapping into that magic then my idea fits in perfectly.

The bases for my idea is that one can never completely understand arcane magic. Wizards develop hypothesis and theories but doubt is always there. Arcane material components may be needed for a purpose that we do not understand and waving your hands in a different way may cause a fireball to become a blast of negative energy. Magic Missles might rip a hole in the fabric of time and space and wizards could never be sure why it happened.

In short, because of this unpredictability of magic. Increase the ASF of a wizard when he casts a spell by the level of the spell (treat cantrips as 1 for this case).

This means that when the 20th level wizard with 0%ASF casts celerity in order to cast time stop (etc.) celerity has a 4% ASF chance of failure while time stop has a 9% chance of failure.

If our wizard was (for some strange and idiotic reason) in studded leather and casts invisibility (a 2nd level spell) he has a 17% ASF, as opposed to a 15% chance.

The problem with this is that the venerable gray elf with 38 intelligence stills fails to cast some of his spells about 5% of the time. Even though he has studied magic for 200 years.

If you guys can think of any other flaws with this idea then please speak up! I need to know if it works for my next session in which I am a 16th level gnome illusionist Nightmare Spinner (PrCl from complete mage).

I see two problems with this, one minor and one major problem:

- single percents make using a d100 necessesary, and allthough it´s not that big a deal, it complicates things. There´s a reason normal ASF comes in 5% increments.....though this is a minor issue

-even the full 9% won´t hurt your venerable grey elf that much. A little more penalty would do more towars balancing - but then I´d simply restructure the gained spell-slots to a pyramid shape:

say 10 lvl 1, 9 lvl 2, 8 lvl 3 and so on. This will be less complicated, still allow planning on player side and force the wizard to tone it down a bit since a timestop or similiar would now waste precious spell slots which are hard to replace.

The best way to nerf caster ingame is to force them to act continually, not allowing them to much rest - most of Tippy´s impunity/immortality tactis assume the ready avilabilty of time to refresh your spells, which is a valid assumption in times of peace but maybe not so during crisis.....

Emperor Tippy
2007-04-24, 03:49 PM
Oh you want time? Look at Arcane Genesis in the SRD. You can create a demiplane where 1 material plane round equals 10 hours.

Leave and come back next round fully spelled up.

Kioran
2007-04-24, 03:57 PM
Oh you want time? Look at Arcane Genesis in the SRD. You can create a demiplane where 1 material plane round equals 10 hours.

Leave and come back next round fully spelled up.

Well, as someone(I think it was you, actually) said before: Casters win, but even the most stupid casters automatically win when you enter Epic Magic into the equation. That´s why I, even as a player, would avoid Epic level like the plague (amongst other reasons).

kamikasei
2007-04-24, 04:02 PM
Genesis isn't an Epic spell.

Ulzgoroth
2007-04-24, 04:03 PM
Assuming you mean this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/genesis.htm), I'm not sure I'm convinced that it supports changing the timeflow property, though I can see how you might suppose it did.

Not epic, incidentally. Level 9 spell... Agh, ninja!

Kioran
2007-04-24, 04:12 PM
Genesis isn't an Epic spell.

I think there was an Epic Variant of the spell which let you create something much more powerful, and i thought that one was refferd to - my bad. But even if you can cast that demiplane and alter the timeflow, it would, at least initially, be to small for you to comfortably stay, let alone rest there....
Of course you could just prepare one for later use, but then, others could enter it just as well as you could......

EvilJames
2007-04-24, 04:26 PM
Wizard: "I cast teleport and choose to not bring along the armor"



Wizard to cleric: "Hey buddy, can you prepare a Regenerate spell tomorrow so I can get my hand back?"



Wizard: "Time to pull out the spare blessed book, the best 12.5K I ever spent. Oh I'm running low on gold for these things, time to solo an adult black dragon and get another dozen."


If you want to nerf the wizard at least try to come up with half way decent ways. And the wizards power level is an out of game concern and should not be dealt with ingame.


actually If the armor is cursed then he can't just teleport out of it also since he is in it the spell failure would prevent that anyway.

also if your ina game where some one is soloing dragons well then thats the problem not the wizard, monty hauls are the enemy

Emperor Tippy
2007-04-24, 04:36 PM
actually If the armor is cursed then he can't just teleport out of it also since he is in it the spell failure would prevent that anyway.
Unless its 100% ASF then you will eventually get a teleport off, and as a wizard I wouldn't stop using the TP slots until I was out of that armor.

Or someone else in the party could just use a scroll of TP and you can choose to not bring along the armor that way. Or the cleric uses Break Enchantment to get rid of it.


also if your ina game where some one is soloing dragons well then thats the problem not the wizard, monty hauls are the enemy
If your in a game where the DM is adding in cursed armor to power down a wizard, or destroying your spell book every day, or maiming your character to power you down then your game is already so messed up that as a player you can go to town.

Remember, the DM was an ass first in all of the previously stated situations.

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-24, 04:41 PM
Tippy's solution to the armor problem was just the straight-up basic one. The wizard can do way better. If there's a cleric in the party, remove curse. Or the wizard can do it.

Also, with a strange armor in the room why would it not be checked out by someone with an actual interest in it, like the fighter? I'd love to see that one explained by the DM:

Figher: "Ooo! Glowing green armor. I try it on!"
DM: "Uhhh... ok. As you touch it, it... teleports onto the wizard."
Wizard: "What?"

Later...

Wizard: "Let me get this straight. You homebrewed a set of full plate mail - the only special qualities of which are that it has a high arcane failure chance and you can't get it off no matter what, which teleports onto a "random" person as soon as someone touches it, and it just happened to land on me."
DM:"Pretty much, yeah."
Wizard: "Funny about the random thing though... I didn't see you roll any dice."

It's pretty darn hard to hide a wizard nerf like that. The best thing to do is set whole new limits at the beginning or level with the wizard out-of-game rather than pull some stupid stunt like that. Most wizard players really aren't that dense.

The best way to tone down a wizard, really, is to make magic less accessable rather than arbitrarily unreliable. The whole idea behind wizarding is "victory through preparation" - not "whip out some magic and maybe it will work." If your players had wanted a failure chance attached to their magic, they would have gone wild mage.

Nothing stinks worse than being a PC, and halfway through a campaign your DM decides that he doesn't like how powerful you've become, and instead of talking it over with you like a rational person he decides that he's going to abuse his DM powers to come up with a whole bunch of ******** reasons why nothing you ever do works. Believe it or not, most wizard players worth their spellbooks are not out to trash your campaign and will agree to forego cheese combos, as well as other reasonable restrictions, if you're up front with them about it. I, for one, would agree that certain unbalancing spells could have rarer material components that I can't start with (Which makes for great in-game odd loot for the wizard, too: "Why are you so eager to have the onyx ring, Jade?" "It's not the ring - it's what I can do with it!"). This is a great wizard-nerf, actually, and puts a little bit of the mystery back in magic. It's actually a little exciting to, say, compare notes with another wizard ("You're saying that the key to sustained flight is a feather from an arrowhawk? Interesting.") or rifle through an enemy wizard's notes after you've defeated him. ("So that's how he was able to turn into a lightning bolt and jump across the room. Hey guys? I call dibs on his necklace!")

Trying to take them down in-game and getting caught at it, however, will start the song "Anything you can do, I can do better" playing in the background, and the wizard will continue to find ways around your security measures until there's nothing left of the game but you, red-faced and spittle flying out of your mouth, banning entire schools of magic and shrieking "Rocks fall, you die!"

Besides, there are builds that will let you cast perfectly even with 100%+ ASFC. You start randomly attaching unwanted failure chances to them and you're going to see more and more of those.

Da Beast
2007-04-24, 04:47 PM
The Top Three Ways To Nerf an Overconfident Wizard...

Number one:
Show him magic glowing armor. Make it attractive like a green, then, if he touches it, it magicaly teleports on his body and becomes stuck to him. Resulting in arcane spell-failure.

Number two:
Have one of his hands chopped off. Somatic compoents now are inconcenceivable.

Number three:
Have someone burn, eat, or otherwise dismantle his spellbook. Villains aren't retarded, they know that if there's a wizard, there's bound to be a library.

So your solution is to turn the wizard into a commoner. I'm sure your players will love that.

CASTLEMIKE
2007-04-24, 04:48 PM
Lots of Options available.

Maybe there are No Clerics, Druids or Wizards in your Campaign (No NPC, BBEGs or PCs) Favored Souls and Sorcerers are it (Psions if you use Psionics maybe a handful of Ur-Adepts the PCs will probably Never Meet).

Another simple mechanical fix is throwing in a few Casting Level Delaying Progression Levels like the Magewright NPC does say every 4 or five levels depending on your campaign and granting the Wizard or Other Primary Spellcaster an Open Bonus Feat at that level.

That delays the use of some of the Uber Overpowering High level spells and tactics in High Level campaigns and lets everyone have a little more Fun including the DM (Who normally isn't Really trying to Destroy the Party Rarely do the Uber NPCs use the Standard Tactics of PCs (which they normally would in Reality since their purpose isn't to be Defeated or Die just to let some enemies level up and get their treasure)). Now the wizard or other primary spellcaster will still shine but but will now need to be just a little more creative.

Taking that First Level Delay at Wiz-2 and the Second Level Wizard would have the same number of Spells to Cast a Day as a Wiz-1 but with an Extra Bonus Feat. It would also delay taking some of the more powerful PRCs by a few levels. It would be at the DMs Choice to grant the Open Bonus feat to a PC taking a PRC at the dead casting level like a Magewright taking a PRC would normally lose the Bonus Spell Mastery Feat leveling up. This option would provided quite a few extra feats so a PC might not pursue a PRC because of the feat loss cost

That Bonus Feat could be used for taking "Something" like the Fiery Burst Reserve Feat which could make playing the Wizard in this example more enjoyable in lower level games Leveling Up Campaigns since he or she could be useful taking part in almost every combat having an almost always on "Useful" (Not the Best) magical attack power with a Reserve Spell without overshadowing the rest of the party.

This could be a lot of "Fun" if implemented accross the board for All Primary Casters (NPC, BBEGs and PCs) kind of like the sorcerer is generally rated as one of the most Fun characters to play despite the problems with the base class. Any Players who think this is to Nerfed in your game either won't play or they will choose other PCs to play.

Saph
2007-04-24, 04:55 PM
I don't think including ASF on everything is a good idea. If you want something similar that's better supported by the game mechanics, give every monster in the game Spell Resistance and boost all existing SR scores by 5-10 points or so.

Simpler approach:

Ban the more overpowered spells like Ray of Stupidity, Celerity, Polymorph line, etc. Limit downtime and preparation time. Assume that all intelligent creatures treat magic as the most serious threat (since it is) and set up adventures and encounters accordingly. Even with this, wizards will still be very powerful at high levels, but not game-breaking.

Simplest approach:

Don't do overpowered stuff, and play with people who don't do overpowered stuff. Requires no houseruling at all, but does require a nice group of players.

- Saph

Dausuul
2007-04-24, 05:07 PM
The fighter's random failures don't consume a finite resource, except for rounds. He is free to attack again. A wizard's ASF will consume a spell slot.

Rounds are an extremely finite resource, worth far more than spell slots at high levels. That's why time stop is so utterly broken. Even with all the limitations on what you can do while it's active, and even with costing you a 9th-level slot, those extra 1-4 rounds are insanely useful.

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-24, 05:09 PM
And yet, it's still not a good idea to slap a bunch of ASF on a wizard out of the blue.

Ulzgoroth
2007-04-24, 05:24 PM
Making even relatively weak SR common...really, really common, as in everyone has some...might be better. It's not just an arbitrary barrier, and the wizard can counteract it, overwhelm it, or go around it. Of course, this only makes the no-SR spells already on the Batman's list even better, and any kind of blaster even worse.

PaladinBoy
2007-04-24, 06:04 PM
Oh you want time? Look at Arcane Genesis in the SRD. You can create a demiplane where 1 material plane round equals 10 hours.

Leave and come back next round fully spelled up.

Frankly, since the spell doesn't say anything either way about messing with the time trait of your demiplane, I generally interpret it to be that WotC would want the same limit on the arcane version that exists on the psionic version. Namely, normal time, and no messing with that.

I agree that it's interpreting the rules against the wizard, but since the wizard is already rather deadly, I think that putting limits on the most unbalanced stuff isn't unreasonable.

As for the OP, I do like the idea a little. I think I would set the baseline failure chance higher, but allow wizard levels, INT score, and perhaps a feat to lower it. That way, it can be lowered or perhaps removed completely (for lower-level spells) but is still something to consider. Not sure that it fits the flavor of any of my campaigns, though.

The only problem I have with the universal SR idea is that it makes blaster mages even more useless then they already are, since most magic that does damage permits a saving throw and SR.

I certainly think that any of these ideas should definitely be shared with your players at character creation. And I still think that lack of time and intelligent enemies that will use an 8 hour break to prepare are the best ways to hamper an out of control wizard.

Caelestion
2007-04-24, 06:12 PM
One of the options in Unearthed Arcana was that all blasting (not save or die) spells are SR: No. A simple extension to that is that all other spells are SR: Yes.

Saph
2007-04-24, 06:17 PM
The only problem I have with the universal SR idea is that it makes blaster mages even more useless then they already are, since most magic that does damage permits a saving throw and SR.

All they have to do is use the Orb spells instead. Those are already good enough to deserve a place in the spellbook, even for non-blaster mages.

Nearly all save-or-die or save-or-lose spells allow SR, so increasing SRs would weaken those spells proportionally.

- Saph

Yahzi
2007-04-24, 06:24 PM
you, red-faced and spittle flying out of your mouth, banning entire schools of magic and shrieking "Rocks fall, you die!"
I wanna play in Jade's game. :smallbiggrin:

Yahzi
2007-04-24, 06:26 PM
Ban the more overpowered spells like Ray of Stupidity
How, exactly, did a spell with a name like that ever get past the balancing process?

"Hey, let's make a stupid spell that eats monsters brain instantly. And we'll call it something stupid, like..."

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-24, 06:29 PM
The worst part? The material component is a miniature dunce cap, and when you fire it, it makes a "duh" sound.

SRSLY. WTF, mate?

Caelestion
2007-04-24, 06:31 PM
Well, that utterly broken spell which inflicts 3d6 Dex damage (which made it into the Spell Compendium!!) is just ridiculous. It makes Ray of Stupidity look intelligent.

Counterpower
2007-04-24, 06:31 PM
Unless its 100% ASF then you will eventually get a teleport off, and as a wizard I wouldn't stop using the TP slots until I was out of that armor.

Or someone else in the party could just use a scroll of TP and you can choose to not bring along the armor that way. Or the cleric uses Break Enchantment to get rid of it.

You know, if I went to the effort to make a cursed suit of armor that would attach to the wizard to give him an ASF, I absolutely would not allow that to be removed with such a pathetic solution. Don't most of the DMG's cursed items say "this may only be removed with <spells>"? The break enchantment is the viable solution, not a teleport that shouldn't even be able to serve that purpose anyway.


If your in a game where the DM is adding in cursed armor to power down a wizard, or destroying your spell book every day, or maiming your character to power you down then your game is already so messed up that as a player you can go to town.

Remember, the DM was an ass first in all of the previously stated situations.

And what about the player? Sure, the DM shouldn't resort to such tactics to nerf a wizard. Luckily, I have not had to nerf either of my wizards yet, and I doubt I'll have to. They're not crazy enough to ruin the fun of the game for the rest of the group yet.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-24, 06:32 PM
That spell is Shivering Touch, and it didn't make it into the Spell Compendium. It's in Frostburn.

Emperor Tippy
2007-04-24, 06:41 PM
You know, if I went to the effort to make a cursed suit of armor that would attach to the wizard to give him an ASF, I absolutely would not allow that to be removed with such a pathetic solution. Don't most of the DMG's cursed items say "this may only be removed with <spells>"? The break enchantment is the viable solution, not a teleport that shouldn't even be able to serve that purpose anyway.

Actually, per RAW, teleport can remove most cursed items. You get to choose what you bring along with you. You just choose to not bring along the cursed item.

And if any DM ever placed an item like that in a game to power down any wizard I play, he would get his entire campaign destroyed very quickly. As soon as I got rid of the armor (which you can do in numerous ways) I would break out all of the various tricks to utterly destroy everything and start cloudkilling random cities and generally be an ass. Or just go Pun-Pun.

Out of game problems should never be dealt with in game. And character power is an out of game problem.


And what about the player? Sure, the DM shouldn't resort to such tactics to nerf a wizard. Luckily, I have not had to nerf either of my wizards yet, and I doubt I'll have to. They're not crazy enough to ruin the fun of the game for the rest of the group yet.


The DM should use no ingame tactic to nerf a wizard. Out of game discussion with the player or houserules decided ahead of time are the only real legitimate solutions for the out of game problem of the wizards power level.

Caelestion
2007-04-24, 06:42 PM
You sure it isn't in the Spell Compendium, Bears? I wasn't in any doubt that it wasn't. Either way, it's still a ridiculous spell. (It goes on my banned list, along with Divine Power for cleric-tanks and Time Stop etc.)

Counterpower
2007-04-24, 06:55 PM
Actually, per RAW, teleport can remove most cursed items. You get to choose what you bring along with you. You just choose to not bring along the cursed item.

From the SRD:

-2 Sword, Cursed
This longsword performs well against targets in practice, but when used against an opponent in combat, it causes its wielder to take a -2 penalty on attack rolls.

All damage dealt is also reduced by 2 points, but never below a minimum of 1 point of damage on any successful hit. After one week in a character’s possession, the sword always forces that character to employ it rather than another weapon. The sword’s owner automatically draws it and fights with it even when she meant to draw or ready some other weapon. The sword can be gotten rid of only by means of limited wish, wish, or miracle.

Strong evocation; CL 15th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, bestow curse, and limited wish or miracle; Price 1,500 gp.


Isn't that interesting. I think that clause makes it into my "cursed armor" idea. Admittedly, that's not in all or even most of the item descriptions. But that's what I was thinking of.


And if any DM ever placed an item like that in a game to power down any wizard I play, he would get his entire campaign destroyed very quickly. As soon as I got rid of the armor (which you can do in numerous ways) I would break out all of the various tricks to utterly destroy everything and start cloudkilling random cities and generally be an ass. Or just go Pun-Pun.

Out of game problems should never be dealt with in game. And character power is an out of game problem.

Did I say anything else? I distinctly remember typing "Sure, the DM shouldn't use such tactics to nerf a wizard." And I wouldn't, either. I would use sensible tactics that the villian would be smart enough to employ, such as:

1. Going after the spellbook. If the enemy needs a book to prepare spells........
2. Time-critical missions. "You can't rest for 8 hours! The magical ritual will be finished in only 4!"
3. Employing means to counteract some common cheese spells. After all, creatures immune to poison are unaffected by cloudkill. Especially if you give them 8 hours to prepare while you rest for spells.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-24, 07:01 PM
Going after the spellbook is almost like encasing them in unremovable antimagic armor. You can only do it so often, and when you do it, the wizard is helpless (provided the spellbook can be stolen despite Alarm+Rope Trick and the party keeping watches). That means the wizard is operating at either 0% or 100%, not the 80% you want them to work at.

Emperor Tippy
2007-04-24, 07:02 PM
From the SRD:


Isn't that interesting. I think that clause makes it into my "cursed armor" idea. Admittedly, that's not in all or even most of the item descriptions. But that's what I was thinking of.

Getting rid of and wearing are 2 different things. And this is all assuming that the wizard would even put on the armor in the first place.


Did I say anything else? I distinctly remember typing "Sure, the DM shouldn't use such tactics to nerf a wizard." And I wouldn't, either. I would use sensible tactics that the villian would be smart enough to employ, such as:

1. Going after the spellbook. If the enemy needs a book to prepare spells........
Going after and successfully destroying/stealing are 2 very different things.


2. Time-critical missions. "You can't rest for 8 hours! The magical ritual will be finished in only 4!"
Good thing I have this bed roll that allows me to regain all my spells in 1 hour.


3. Employing means to counteract some common cheese spells. After all, creatures immune to poison are unaffected by cloudkill. Especially if you give them 8 hours to prepare while you rest for spells.

Most enemies aren't immune to poison and you can always use other things to take out enemies with the immunity.

Caelestion
2007-04-24, 07:19 PM
Yes, Tippy. You can defeat anything with anything, provided you try hard enough. That's not what the discussion is really about.

Demented
2007-04-24, 07:19 PM
Actually, per RAW, teleport can remove most cursed items. You get to choose what you bring along with you. You just choose to not bring along the cursed item.

By RAW, you end up with the cursed item on you anyways. At best, that means you get to save on encumbrance while teleporting.

Why bother with a teleport anyway? Remove curse is on your class's spell list.
(Anything beyond that isn't even worth considering. In a battle of in-game escalation, the DM always wins. In a battle of out-game escalation, everyone always loses.)

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-24, 07:39 PM
I'm hearing almost verbatim echoes of previous threads here.

Demented
2007-04-24, 07:56 PM
Think about that. It makes perfect sense.

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-24, 11:21 PM
Oh, I never said it didn't. I just don't want to relive some of those threads.

Sir Giacomo
2007-04-25, 06:30 AM
Yes, Tippy. You can defeat anything with anything, provided you try hard enough. That's not what the discussion is really about.

I guess in the OP Ever Phasm wanted to get some ideas on how to provide challenges for the PHB arcane casters (wizard, sorcerer) who are weak (but useful!) at low levels, strong at mid-levels and incredibly powerful at high levels, but THROUGHOUT their career the DM is faced with the challenge to challenge such a character without outright killing him with one hit/spell whatever.

Say, at first level: sleep spell does not work on all opponents, one gets through, hits and downs the wizard (OK, suspense could be built here in that a party member can heal/stabilise the wizard).
Say, mid-level: the typical auto-win-suspects solid fog/tentacles is cast, and DM is faced with either a) opponent does not get out, is therefore "defeated" automatically, with no suspense or b) opponent was faster/got out with magic/grapple check/whathave you and then kills wizard with one blow.
Say, high-level: wizard casts gate, expends XP, outright overwhelms any non-epic opponent with a 34HD+ creature. Or, if the opponent somehow survives/sneaks away/is immune to the creature summoned, wizard loses 1000 XP, wizard's player is angry and feels nerfed (just before the opponent does the usual 100-200, protection-bypassing damage to him normal for that level, ending his life, anyhow).

As such, the POWER CURVE, and NOT the RAW POWER of arcane casters per se is the problem in normal play, which the OP apparently wishes to remedy. And I'd agree.

Some suggestions around that with the existing rules for a DM:
- encourage using spells (say, by only or mostly having only those available as treasure) that have full effect if not saved/SRed, but also some useful (not auto-win) effect even if saved/SRed. Similarly, spell components can be more restricted (the RAW do not state any availability for bat guano and stuff since those have no price listed. The economics of that are entirely campaign-specific)
- if wizards/sorcerers are powerful in combat, they will be targeted by opponents as such. However, once opponents do that, they divert their attention to the non-casters/divine casters in the party so those become more important. As soon as that becomes more apparent, once again the opponents switch their attention back to them at the expense of their actions vs arcane casters etc. Repeat as DM to provide constant challenges for everyone. Btw., this is not necessarily in only 1 combat. It can happen over the course of the campaign, since fame will run ahead of the characters. If a BBEG in mid-level knows that said player wizard had single-handedlly defeated a black dragon, he'll target that guy. If after the adventure, the BBEG was killed by the fighter of the group (who jumped in after the wizard took the brunt of the BBEG's anger), then again the wizard is a bit outside the attention and the group's fighter becomes the next BBEG's focus. Etc.
- at low levels provide opportunities for the arcane casters to shine outside using magic (say, with their knowledge skills, or bluff if a sorcerer). If they find low magic items, those could maybe boost their health, rather than their casting power, which makes them last several hits before they die, so a DM can involve them more in the suspense of being hit when one of their spell fails.
-At high levels, make more use of situations which highlight an arcane caster's weakness without shutting them down completely: necessity to re-learn spells. Powerful opponents may make use of that weakness (until mind blank is available for arcane caster pcs) with nightmare spells, or with harrassing arcane casters in adventures by low CR minions to wear their spells down. Do not nerf or punish any player using their magic to give more protection (like MMM, rope trick, Private sanctum, Foresight, MoP etc). However, illustrate, that even when using up considerable part of their resources for that, they are never 100% safe (as per the RAW). If you preserve certain campaign logic (not ALL opponents in the campaign world are out to get an arcane caster's neck, in particular not if that caster was quite friendly/low profile so far), you should be able to prevent any "arms race" developing between the DM and the arcane caster player.

- Giacomo

JellyPooga
2007-04-25, 07:29 AM
My personal favourite 'solution' to Wizard power is Material Components. Not necesarily keeping track of 32g of sulphur, 3 paper plates and a miniature sword, but certainly more than...oh, I've got my spell component pouch, therefore I've got all the spell components I'll ever need for all eternity.

Instead of banning the 'super-spells' (time stop, celerity, polymorph, etc.), make the component for them (if there is one or enforce one if there isn't) rare and/or expensive. If a Wizard only has one platinum vial of quicksilver that's been mixed, on a wet tuesday afternoon, with powdered minotaur horn by a 23 year old virgin hermaphrodite to cast Time Stop with, he might think twice before using it on the 5 Goblin Patrol that just happens to be in the way of getting to the BBEG.

Also, all those foci and components that the wizard carries around are blatantly going to take up more room than a poxy little pouch. Unless he only as components for half a dozen spells, he's probably going to need a dedicated backpack with ordered compartments and an inventory list to keep them all in order (that is, unless he gets an extradimensional space like a Handy Haversack).

Oh yeah, I know a wizard could take Eschew Materials, but I can't count the number of times i've heard the wizard-lovers on the boards say that it's a waste of a Feat...with enforced components, maybe it's not...and it still doesn't avoid the requirement for costly components (of which there are now more).

Of all the 'wizard-fixes' that I've heard, it's the one that just screams "HELLO! Why wasn't this the case anyway?". Other 'fixes' talk about actually changing the rules, this one concerns enforcing them sensibly (o.k. so adding costly components to the more powerful spells is a change to the rules, but it's a minor (yet significant) one). With good DM-ing and this "fix", you no longer need to worry about making Armour of Arcane Spell Failure or stealing spellbooks every other session (though there's nothing stopping you from doing so anyway).

Goff
2007-04-25, 07:52 AM
Yes, Tippy. You can defeat anything with anything, provided you try hard enough. That's not what the discussion is really about.

Good lord, I'm glad I wasn't the onlyone thinking that.

Personally, while this idea is interesting, I think that I like Jade_Tarem's solution best; rare material components for the most concerning spells. That way the supercool powerful spells only get pulled out in the epic battles where they are desperetely needed, there's no "Time Stop is so passé" sort of feeling.

Caledonian
2007-04-25, 08:03 AM
Huh? Fighters have random failure. It's called "if you don't hit the monster's AC, or get a natural 1, you miss." Why is it so unreasonable to have a similar limiting factor on the wizard?

Because fighters can swing away all day, and don't expend a precious and extremely limited resource every time they use their class abilities.

That's why it's so unreasonable.

Morty
2007-04-25, 08:28 AM
ASF for all spells works only if you don't lose that spell if it fails. Rule that you regain that spells x rounds after failing check, and it might work.

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-25, 12:18 PM
ASF for all spells works only if you don't lose that spell if it fails. Rule that you regain that spells x rounds after failing check, and it might work.

It might work, but then you would have to call the effect "magical constipation" and no one wants that. :smalltongue:

Indon
2007-04-25, 12:57 PM
I'm hearing almost verbatim echoes of previous threads here.

Naa, the Fighter/Wizard duels haven't started yet.

If you're concerned about Wizards having a myriad of powerful spells for every occasion, why not simply control your Wizards access to arcane magics?

Wizards are powerful, and they are capable of and inclined towards controlling access to magic by anyone not possessed of the same affiliation. Thus, powerful spells (example: Polymorph) are controlled by armies, or powerful guilds, and wizards who want such magic have to research it on their own (Edit: Or become affiliated with such an organization, which has its' own complications).

Even while letting Wizards get two spells of whatever they want for free every level (and they decide to get ridiculously powerful spells with every opportunity), they're still limited in how many such spells they can obtain.

Agatsuma
2007-04-25, 01:51 PM
I have never actually had a problem with wizards, mainly because I have never been around players who actually play them in the way that makes everybody call them overpowered. That said, maybe the easiest solution is to have good players, ones who are not out to "Win D&D" as it were. A wizard could spend all their free time scribing scrolls, but the DM can make sure they miss out in one way or another. If the player is more concerned with being effective than having fun, then they, the DM, and the rest of the party won't be upset.

That said, just target them. Some glowing person sixty feet in the air hurling down spells is bound to draw attention in one way or another, especially if that is how they consistantly defeat the villian's forces. Sooner or later the villian is bound to come after them, probably when they are away from their Batcave, in some normal room scribing scrolls. No, not many places in the world are anti-magic fields or wild magic zones, but this key area in the villian's stronghold can be. And the next room is full of undead and golems. If smart players exist, then logically smart villians do too.

MethodicalMeat
2007-04-25, 02:03 PM
The Top Three Ways To Nerf an Overconfident Wizard...

Number one:
Show him magic glowing armor. Make it attractive like a green, then, if he touches it, it magicaly teleports on his body and becomes stuck to him. Resulting in arcane spell-failure.

Number two:
Have one of his hands chopped off. Somatic compoents now are inconcenceivable.

Number three:
Have someone burn, eat, or otherwise dismantle his spellbook. Villains aren't retarded, they know that if there's a wizard, there's bound to be a library.

Number1
DM Cheese Factor of 7000
Number 2
Somatic components only require one hand, (look it up in the Magic Chapter, the one I've never actually seen people study)
Number 3
Any decent wizard has traps and such on his spellbook.

Aquillion
2007-04-25, 02:09 PM
Ok. Here are my attempts at fixing casters (not just wizards). Note that even with all this, wizards will still be very powerful... I do think that they're supposed to be. This just blocks some of the worst abuses.

1. No casting more than one spell per round of turns. Period.

This nerfs quickened spells into near-unusability (you can still use them and take another action, I guess.) It also nerfs celerity, since you can't cast a spell in a celerity round. Most significently, it nerfs Time Stop--since time stop counts as your spell for that round of turns, you can't cast any spells in the time granted by time stop. This is possibly too strict, but I think it's necessary... actions are the basic unit of currency in D&D. Even with a 9th level spell, casting fast is just too powerful. (A few other tricks, like changing into chokers, are also fixed by this.) Fixing Haste to prevent double-casting was one of the most significent changes to wizards from 3.0 to 3.5, and I think they should've gone further with that.

Spells 'cast' via spell-like-abilities that explictly mimic a spell (like those gained by an archmage) count against this limit. So do spells cast by or through a familiar (so imbue familiar is nerfed here, too.) If another non-familiar character casts the spell, though (like with the clerical spell that imbues other characters with spell-like ability versions of your spells) it counts against their limit, not yours.

2. No prestige classes with full caster progression.

Taking a prestige class, and still getting full spell progression at level 20, is not allowed under most circumstances. Any prestige class that would grant full caster progression instead grants no progression at its first level. An exception is made for prestige classes where the loss of progression is inherent in their prerequisites(like mystic theurge), and possibly, on a case-by-case basis, for classes that require some other significant sacrifice to enter, such as taking another banned school.

3. Polymorph restrictions

This is, well, hard, by the nature of the polymorph line, but I like them too much to give up on them completely. Any good rule is likely to require a degree of DM adjucation. A general guideline is that no polymorph-line spell should grant more powers than the average spells of its level. Attempting to go beyond this is treated like trying to break the rules with a Wish--you get the form you were aiming for, but wrong somehow, sickly, flightless, whatever. This probably won't fix Shapechange, but what can you do?

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-25, 02:54 PM
Ok. Here are my attempts at fixing casters (not just wizards). Note that even with all this, wizards will still be very powerful... I do think that they're supposed to be. This just blocks some of the worst abuses.

1. No casting more than one spell per round of turns. Period.

This nerfs quickened spells into near-unusability (you can still use them and take another action, I guess.) It also nerfs celerity, since you can't cast a spell in a celerity round. Most significently, it nerfs Time Stop--since time stop counts as your spell for that round of turns, you can't cast any spells in the time granted by time stop. This is possibly too strict, but I think it's necessary... actions are the basic unit of currency in D&D. Even with a 9th level spell, casting fast is just too powerful. (A few other tricks, like changing into chokers, are also fixed by this.) Fixing Haste to prevent double-casting was one of the most significent changes to wizards from 3.0 to 3.5, and I think they should've gone further with that.

Spells 'cast' via spell-like-abilities that explictly mimic a spell (like those gained by an archmage) count against this limit. So do spells cast by or through a familiar (so imbue familiar is nerfed here, too.) If another non-familiar character casts the spell, though (like with the clerical spell that imbues other characters with spell-like ability versions of your spells) it counts against their limit, not yours.

This is a wee bit harsh. You just killed several feats and spells, but instead of just banning them from your games, you left their rotting corpses out in the sun.


2. No prestige classes with full caster progression
.

Taking a prestige class, and still getting full spell progression at level 20, is not allowed under most circumstances. Any prestige class that would grant full caster progression instead grants no progression at its first level. An exception is made for prestige classes where the loss of progression is inherent in their prerequisites(like mystic theurge), and possibly, on a case-by-case basis, for classes that require some other significant sacrifice to enter, such as taking another banned school.

Or you could take a closer look at the prestige classes. Do you really think Geometer or Loremaster is going to unbalance the game? Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, yes. Fatespinner, maybe (although as I recall the final level lacks casting progression). And a few others besides, but most just really aren't that bad.

You aren't going to find a blanket solution to PrC's, short of "No PrC's." This is fine, but you're missing out on a lot.


3. Polymorph restrictions


This is, well, hard, by the nature of the polymorph line, but I like them too much to give up on them completely. Any good rule is likely to require a degree of DM adjucation. A general guideline is that no polymorph-line spell should grant more powers than the average spells of its level. Attempting to go beyond this is treated like trying to break the rules with a Wish--you get the form you were aiming for, but wrong somehow, sickly, flightless, whatever. This probably won't fix Shapechange, but what can you do?

Didn't polymorph recently get nerfed into oblivion? By WotC?

Lapak
2007-04-25, 03:14 PM
Huh. On the 'making I-win spells' more expensive front, Time Stop could perhaps be fixed by tossing back in a blast from the past: Haste's aging effect from previous editions.

If the massive acceleration provided by Time Stop irreversibly aged the caster by 1% of their total life span, I imagine it would be pulled out only when desperately needed by most casters.

Belteshazzar
2007-04-25, 03:24 PM
The way I deal with all casters is by enforcing a possability of failure as well as extraordinary success. Magic both divine and sorcerous (arcane as well by the extension that it is a combination of both disciplines) have a degree randomness determined by rolling a d20 and confirming either a critical success or failure on 20 or 1 respectively (all other results have no effect). When rolling a second time to confirm the critical they add their casting stat bonus and try to beat the spell level plus 10.

kamikasei
2007-04-25, 03:37 PM
That said, maybe the easiest solution is to have good players, ones who are not out to "Win D&D" as it were. A wizard could spend all their free time scribing scrolls, but the DM can make sure they miss out in one way or another. If the player is more concerned with being effective than having fun, then they, the DM, and the rest of the party won't be upset.

I doubt it's your intent, but the way you say this implies that you think the DM should be presenting the player of a wizard with two choices: to be effective but have no fun, or to have fun but be ineffective. This is a false dilemma, since most would find it more fun to be effective than not.

A mid- to high-level wizard who's played to his strengths is very, very hard to defeat outright. You can still arrange matters so that accomplishing their goals is difficult or requires hard choices. Remember that the DM's role is not to beat the players but to challenge them, and while uber-wizards may be hard to challenge it's not impossible. A thoughtfully-played wizard can have a scroll for every occasion and spells to give him the time to use them in a pinch, yes; but he still has to work out how to use those resources to achieve his ends, which is challenging.

I believe Tippy has spoken about this elsewhere: the idea that actual combat is devalued at high levels, and that the game works better with more abstract goals such that being able to shut down, bypass or escape any combat becomes a boon to the party.

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-25, 03:40 PM
Huh. On the 'making I-win spells' more expensive front, Time Stop could perhaps be fixed by tossing back in a blast from the past: Haste's aging effect from previous editions.

If the massive acceleration provided by Time Stop irreversibly aged the caster by 1% of their total life span, I imagine it would be pulled out only when desperately needed by most casters.

Aaaaaand Dragon Characters just got a heck of a lot more effective.

Lapak
2007-04-25, 03:46 PM
Aaaaaand Dragon Characters just got a heck of a lot more effective.

by 1% of their total life span,
Unless dragons are true immortals in your campaign, I still don't know that they'd want to give up a significant fraction of their whole life.

And pre-great wyrm dragons that are ALSO capable of tossing 9th level spells around are already going to be far more powerful than they have any right to be; letting themselves age themselves forward if they want isn't changing things that much. :)

Emperor Tippy
2007-04-25, 04:06 PM
We have Elans so that we can use TS as much as we want. They have no max age. So what is 1% of infinity?

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-25, 04:07 PM
1% of infinity is infinity. Therefore, Elans would age infinitely once they used Time Stop.

Indon
2007-04-25, 04:07 PM
We have Elans so that we can use TS as much as we want. They have no max age. So what is 1% of infinity?

The universe locking up and needing to be restarted.

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-25, 04:15 PM
Unless dragons are true immortals in your campaign, I still don't know that they'd want to give up a significant fraction of their whole life.

And pre-great wyrm dragons that are ALSO capable of tossing 9th level spells around are already going to be far more powerful than they have any right to be; letting themselves age themselves forward if they want isn't changing things that much. :)

You may be missing the point. I was just bringing up a possible munchkin strategy - It wouldn't need to be a realistic choice, just an expedient one.

In addition, this really does "change things that much." Even late in the game, a single casting by a red or gold dragon of time stop would be enough to advance them one or more age categories, boosting their ECL by 3-6 or so every time they do it. That's pretty significant, especially when you take hit dice into consideration.

akira72703
2007-04-25, 05:25 PM
Maybe Im not understanding all of this

I have recently started coming to these boards and I am constantly amazed at all of the "fixes" for wizards power levels and or rebalancing them. It has been hinted at around the edges by several different people just within this thread but I will say it out right. With anything as "powerful" as magic in a campaign you must use common sense in allowing its uses. No fixes needed just good old fashioned common sense and the ability to communicate with the player (or players) who are spellcasters. I routinely run games that go epic and the players feel that spellcasters have no more advantage over the other classes relatively but they do feel they have more options and thats fine with me, wizards are options machines (batmen as it were) but they also realize they have to pay for those options and they also understand that attempting to break the game will be frowned upon not by me (im the DM and I can fix anything they break) but by the other players involved.
Some practical things I do to control spellcasters:
-Use the material components rules for the spells that have them and add it to others that you think are game breakers. I use this to great advantage on a small handful of spells.
-Provide Options: One thing I hate is the teleport spell. It is still in my games but I have attatched a material component to it that limits its use. Instead there is a system of gates on the continents that the spellcasters can access and operate. Of course knowledge of how to operate these is closely guarded (as magic should be) and learning this information comes at a cost and if all else fails theres still teleport.
-Guard Magic: I am sorry but it makes absolutely no sense to me that upon achieving 18 level a wizard can just choose the time stop spell and add it to his spellbook after makeing a spell craft check. Magic that potent would not just be hanging out. Instead I make the character stick to the spell research rules for their two spell slots prior to the levels they would gain them if they want to research them or if they want to quest for it, theres certain to be some powerful entity that will teach the spell to them at a price.
-Its your game: Finally it is your game and you can decide to not allow spells in it that you do not approve or that you think would break the game. Basically only the spells in the PH are allowed in my game. Now I do allow spells from outside sources but on a case by case version and typically the player asking for them gains them as one or both of his 2 new spells for going up a level.

I hope this does not sound to ranty but these are my thoughts on this.

Bouldering Jove
2007-04-25, 05:34 PM
So, you're not applying any fixes, just common sense... by implementing houserules to fix the aspects of wizards that you don't like?

Counterpower
2007-04-25, 06:24 PM
I like akira's suggestions. My favorite idea is the one about how "they [the players] also understand that attempting to break the game will be frowned upon..." I believe I can trust my players not to go insane with their power. It does help that everyone in the party is some kind of spellcaster, although the half-dragon bard pushes that a little with a greatsword and high STR. He doesn't do much casting. The warmage enjoys evocation and blowing stuff up. The party wizard has hampered himself with 3 levels of a PrC that gets no spellcasting bonuses, and typically buffs up himself and his crossbow anyway. The druid.......... well, I'll be kind and say he isn't able to prepare spells without help from the rest of the party as to what he should pick.

I would also like to expand on the time-critical missions. If this thread is supposed to be a proposal of ways to "fix" wizards, then: Require, absolutely, them to get 8 hours of downtime before they can regain spells. If that requirement exists, wouldn't time-critical missions start to be a problem? (No, no arcane genesis that allows you to mess with the demiplane's time trait either.)

As for the objections to destroying spellbooks: is it a bad idea for the BBEG, having heard stories of the wizard's prowess and skill, to try to hamper said person any way he can? Including destroying the spellbook?

Finally, having the BBEG plan ahead for the caster. If the BBEG knows what the wizard generally does to kill things, then the BBEG takes what he can to prevent said tactics from working effectively.

PaladinBoy
2007-04-25, 06:43 PM
There are even ways to limit the teleport and rest trick without putting up a time limit.

One of them is intelligent enemies. Even if you have all the time in the world to clear out the BBEG's stronghold, leaving and resting for 8 hours is going to do you a lot of good when you teleport in 18 seconds after you intended to, facing a small army of minions, the BBEG, and three delayed blast fireballs that explode in your face. (Greater anticipate teleport is fun!) Again, something to use sparingly (after all, they can't figure out exactly where you'll come in every time), but it will remind your players that the world doesn't sit still when they hit the rest button.

Of course, effects like forbiddance that prevent teleportation, or any extradimensional travel, within their area of effect can certainly help for this also. Given that forbiddance can cover entire strongholds.

kamikasei
2007-04-25, 07:07 PM
Akira, it's certainly true that "game-breaking" behavior on a wizard's part - use of extremely cheesy and obviously broken spells to destroy the fun in the game - can be dealt with through common sense and communication; pointing out to the player that certain options are broken or unbalanced and asking him to refrain from them is the obvious way. However, you can't call it "common sense" (implying that it's simply enforcing the rules already present) to alter spells and abilities to make them less powerful or more balanced; it's a house rule. It's a fix. It's a change in game balance and likely to have unintended effects.


With anything as "powerful" as magic in a campaign you must use common sense in allowing its uses. No fixes needed just good old fashioned common sense and the ability to communicate with the player (or players) who are spellcasters.
...
Some practical things I do to control spellcasters:
- Use the material components rules ... add it to others that you think are game breakers.
- One thing I hate is the teleport spell... I have attatched a material component to it that limits its use.

These are house rules, not applications of common sense. They may alter the game to bring it in line with your commonsense intuitions, but they do change the game. They are, in fact, "fixes" of the sort you say common sense renders unnecessary.


- Guard Magic: I am sorry but it makes absolutely no sense to me that upon achieving 18 level a wizard can just choose the time stop spell and add it to his spellbook after makeing a spell craft check. Magic that potent would not just be hanging out. Instead I make the character stick to the spell research rules for their two spell slots prior to the levels they would gain them if they want to research them or if they want to quest for it, theres certain to be some powerful entity that will teach the spell to them at a price.

Not so much a house rule as a deviation from the assumptions at the basis of the game. Prices are given for scrolls of ninth-level spells. Price limits are given for settlements of various sizes. The default assumption is that if you go to a large enough city you can find a scroll for any given spell. Ruling otherwise is partly a matter of campaign setting and flavor (maybe the city of Gurthanor doesn't have any high-level mages despite its size, but Arcanville down south has a glut of them) but ruling that no copy of a scroll may be found except via quests is a major change. The other side of this is that the two free spells per level don't magically pop in to a wizard's head when he gets enough XP. They're supposed to represent independent research on the wizard's part and such research is assumed to be enough to let the wizard learn any two spells he likes. "Common sense" does not apply to telling a wizard that certain spells, simply because they're harder on the DM than others, are harder to work out from careful reading of the Encyclopedia Magica. House-ruling that knowledge of certain spells is not generally available for all the purposes it's assumed to be (and are Spellcraft checks involving this spell therefore also harder? Is a Knowledge (arcana) check to have heard of it higher than for other spells?) might be reasonable or even desirable but it is a house rule and must be recognized as such.

The_Werebear
2007-04-25, 07:15 PM
I like the idea of setting wizards on a Bard's spellcasting progression. Including the Max spell level of 6.

Not perfect, but it helps, and gets rid of some of the higher end cheese, as well as severely limiting quickened spells.

kamikasei
2007-04-25, 07:18 PM
I like the idea of setting wizards on a Bard's spellcasting progression. Including the Max spell level of 6.

Not perfect, but it helps, and gets rid of some of the higher end cheese, as well as severely limiting quickened spells.

That's not a Wizard Fix. That's removing the wizard from the game and replacing it with a Bard with lower skill points and no other special abilities besides its nerfed casting.

Even if it's still got the prepared, extensible-spells-known mechanic, it's too much of a depowering.

Saph
2007-04-25, 07:32 PM
Come on, guys, wizards really aren't as big a problem as you're making them out to be. You don't need these kind of brute-force fixes.

Keep in mind that:

- Most people do not play at high levels, and very few people indeed play at levels 17+ (the point at which you get those 9th-level spells). Those players who do play at that level are usually experienced enough to have some way to deal with spellcaster power.

- Most people simply do not know how to play wizards in a way that's seriously game-breaking, and of those players who do know, most don't do it anyway. Why do you think so many people post threads about how 'broken' classes like warlocks and damage-dealers are? It may be true that wizards can be more overpowered than just about any other class, but if hardly anyone's doing it, it isn't a very serious problem.

- Wizards, more than any other class, are very vulnerable when caught off guard or when the player makes a mistake. (Note that I didn't say if the player makes a mistake, I said when the player makes a mistake.) Of course they're devastating when they prepare in advance and get everything right - it's what they're supposed to do. The problems come when they miss something. For this reason I've always thought that, on balance, clerics and druids are more overpowered than wizards, since they require less skill to play well and are a lot less vulnerable.

Add these things together, and you've got the reason why in the great majority of D&D games, wizards don't particularly dominate.

- Saph

The_Werebear
2007-04-25, 07:48 PM
That's not a Wizard Fix. That's removing the wizard from the game and replacing it with a Bard with lower skill points and no other special abilities besides its nerfed casting.

Even if it's still got the prepared, extensible-spells-known mechanic, it's too much of a depowering.

It still has bonus feats, a familiar (for all the good that does), the ability to specialize, a much wider spell list( that you undervalue). Consider though, even with sixth level spellcasting, wizards can whale the stuffing out of higher level fighters most days. It just isn't quite so absurd.

If you really feel it is that bad, you can boost their skill points a bit, or increase their weapon proficiencies.

Jasdoif
2007-04-25, 08:06 PM
As for the objections to destroying spellbooks: is it a bad idea for the BBEG, having heard stories of the wizard's prowess and skill, to try to hamper said person any way he can? Including destroying the spellbook?A bad idea for the BBEG, no. A bad idea for the DM, yes.

Assuming it works as intended, you've reduced your party's wizard to a commoner. You've significantly weakened everyone sitting at your table, because the party is now that much weaker.


And then, perhaps, comes the next realization: the cleric gets access to every single last one of the non-domain spells the moment he can prepare a spell of their level, and he doesn't even need a bedroll or spellbook to be able to prepare all his spells in an hour. Are you going to destroy his deity as you did the wizard's spellbook?


That's not a Wizard Fix. That's removing the wizard from the game and replacing it with a Bard with lower skill points and no other special abilities besides its nerfed casting.

Even if it's still got the prepared, extensible-spells-known mechanic, it's too much of a depowering.Yeah. If someone was considering this route, I'd recommend they at least consider keeping the spells per day progression but cap spell levels at 6. Wizards get those metamagic bonus feats, now they have dedicated slots for them too!

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-25, 08:17 PM
It still has bonus feats, a familiar (for all the good that does), the ability to specialize, a much wider spell list( that you undervalue). Consider though, even with sixth level spellcasting, wizards can whale the stuffing out of higher level fighters most days. It just isn't quite so absurd.

If you really feel it is that bad, you can boost their skill points a bit, or increase their weapon proficiencies.


No. Just no. No sane player is going to agree to this.

"By the way, I'm axing off half your casting ability. The good half."

The_Werebear
2007-04-25, 08:21 PM
No. Just no. No sane player is going to agree to this.

"By the way, I'm axing off half your casting ability. The good half."

It is the half with the most troublesome spells, but by no means all the good ones.

I am willing to bet a Wizard with that spell progression could still beat on fighters several levels higher.

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-25, 08:54 PM
It is the half with the most troublesome spells, but by no means all the good ones.

I am willing to bet a Wizard with that spell progression could still beat on fighters several levels higher.

Ok, are you willing to take the same measures against all other full casters?

Lord Tataraus
2007-04-25, 08:54 PM
*snip*

- Most people do not play at high levels, and very few people indeed play at levels 17+ (the point at which you get those 9th-level spells). Those players who do play at that level are usually experienced enough to have some way to deal with spellcaster power.

- Most people simply do not know how to play wizards in a way that's seriously game-breaking, and of those players who do know, most don't do it anyway. Why do you think so many people post threads about how 'broken' classes like warlocks and damage-dealers are? It may be true that wizards can be more overpowered than just about any other class, but if hardly anyone's doing it, it isn't a very serious problem.

*snip*

Both of these are very true in my case. I do not like to play above level 12, in fact my group usually gets bored around that level. And one of my players decided he wants to play a sorcerer (not wizard, but close enough) and he wants to blast. he doesn't know how to play a cheese wizard and doesn't want to either. In fact, the only one of my group who might know how is an ineffective optimizer.

The_Werebear
2007-04-25, 09:24 PM
Ok, are you willing to take the same measures against all other full casters?

Probably.

12345

Foeofthelance
2007-04-25, 10:30 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that perhaps Wizards don't need to be "fixed". Perhaps the other classes just need to be un-nerfed, with perhaps the exceptions of druids and clerics, who are basically variant wizards in armor anyway. (Full spell casting progression, 3/4 BAB, and two good saves, better HD, lack of spell book restrictions...why are we complaining about wizards again? Oh right, longer spell list with all around better choices. Anyway, on with the post!) Seriously, the problem with wizards is that they can generally do what the other classes are meant to at least as well, if not better. So instead of restricting them, why not make the other classes better at what they do?

For fighters, start allowing more overlap, as well as removing penalties. Wielding an oversized weapon is already a penalty, so instead of preventing exhaustion perhaps Monkey Grip should prevent exhaustion and remove the penalty. Same thing with dual weapon fighting, reduce it to a -0 penalty with the feats. Allow Improved Crit and Keen to stack again. Why does having a sharper sword mean I can't be better at stabbing things as well? Condense Cleave and Great Cleave into one feat available at Level 3, using the Great Cleave bonuses. Reduce skill trees to a maximum of four feats. A level 20 fighter shouldn't just be really good at one thing at the best, he should be good at many things at the least, or extremely good in one field to compensate. When the best feat toted around the board (in my experiences here at any rate) is Power Attack, a level one feat that seems in most peoples opinions to outclass entire feat trees, then fighters need an overhaul.

Paladins and Rangers? Increased spell capacity, either through more spellcasting levels, or through broader lists. Not saying they have to be allowed up to level 9 spells, but surely a couple of level 7 spells, plus ability bonus, wouldn't be that bad? Give the Paladin his mount earlier. The ranger gets an animal companion at level 2, why shouldn't the Paladin get his? Because its a horse? It might be deadly for a bit, but it will either end up getting upgraded or traded in eventually, so where's the harm? Especially since the mount is less likely to go into the Dungeon, while the wolf is going to be hard to keep out. Make the Paladin's abilites a bit more available, such as an extra smite for every two levels + CHA bonus. So a level 12 Paladin with a 16 Charisma has 9 smites a day, 6 for his levels and three for his charisma. Rangers should get no penalty for choosing to dual wield, and should get bonuses to ranged comabt if they choose, to offset the penalties for things like many shot. (They might anyway, I admit to not being as familiar with their class abilites)

Monks? Not sure if they really need anything, but give them full BAB just for the heck of it.

Rogues? Again, might not need much of a fix, as they are already geared to be the party skill monkey. Maybe increase their HD to a d8 instead of a d6, just to make them a little less fragile and a little less dependant on their constitution score.

Bards...I really, honestly have no clue. I will leave bards to people who are little more familiar with them. Perhaps their abilities can add more then a +1 morale bonus, so that they can contribute more? (Bard: Ha, have +1 Morale Bonus on attack rolls my melee friends! Wizard: *Casts Mass Bulls Strength) I really don't know...maybe they should just become a variant rogue, or some how incorporated as level substitutions. I.E. Give up Backstab damage for spells.

Barbarians are probably ok for what they are, and sorcerers are just wizard lite, so I don't have any ideas there. Feel free to chip in if you can come up with something I didn't. But remember: Players are alot happier when you take away their fellow party member's liabilites then when you decide to saddle them with extra burdens out of preconcieved notions of "fairness"

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-25, 10:30 PM
Probably.

12345

Then we're talking about a lower-magic campaign, which is a perfectly fine way to run a game! Agreement! Cookies all around! :smallsmile:

The_Werebear
2007-04-26, 12:30 AM
Then we're talking about a lower-magic campaign, which is a perfectly fine way to run a game! Agreement! Cookies all around! :smallsmile:

Yay!

Maybe lower magic is what DnD needs. Not in terms of numbers of spellcasters, but in terms of the relative power of each one.

Ulzgoroth
2007-04-26, 12:48 AM
That's really the entire point of the thread, isn't it? Wizards are too powerful, and need to be less so. Less so to the tune of no spells above level 6 may be a bit further than some would prefer...

Last_resort_33
2007-04-26, 03:30 AM
Here is a solution that I have thought of, it has been done before, but I think that it's not too bad, and it's quite simple

Make a spellcraft check, DC 10 + Spell level + desired caster level.

cantrip at level 1 = DC 11
Wizard with +3 int and 4 ranks succeeds on a 4 or higher


Level 9 spell at level 20 = DC 39
Wizard with +8 int and 23 ranks succeeds on an 8 or higher

It might need a little more thought but it seems like a sensible idea... forget balance, but for flavour, I hated that wizards could do everything, all the time perfectly.

akira72703
2007-04-26, 06:00 AM
BoulderingJove: Point taken.
Kamikasei: Understood.
They are fixes no matter how "common sensy" they may seem. I guess my assumption came in because my gaming group and I do not consider them house rules (they are not written down) but they are discussed between myself and the characters.

Arbitrarity
2007-04-26, 07:30 AM
Hey, I'm the venerable Grey elf!

Hi :P.

Indon
2007-04-26, 07:52 AM
And then, perhaps, comes the next realization: the cleric gets access to every single last one of the non-domain spells the moment he can prepare a spell of their level, and he doesn't even need a bedroll or spellbook to be able to prepare all his spells in an hour. Are you going to destroy his deity as you did the wizard's spellbook?


You manipulate _him_ into committing an act that requires Atonement, then strike while both spellcasters are powerless.

Heck, if they actually live, it'd be a hell of a story.

Lapak
2007-04-26, 08:59 AM
You may be missing the point. I was just bringing up a possible munchkin strategy - It wouldn't need to be a realistic choice, just an expedient one.

In addition, this really does "change things that much." Even late in the game, a single casting by a red or gold dragon of time stop would be enough to advance them one or more age categories, boosting their ECL by 3-6 or so every time they do it. That's pretty significant, especially when you take hit dice into consideration.True enough.

I could fix that problem by taking the age off the other end - 'Casting Time Stop permanently lowers the maximum age of the caster by 1%,' or somesuch - meaning that you don't get to Great Wyrm any faster but you will enjoy much less time AS a great wyrm when you do get there - but that doesn't resolve the Elan issue.

Fiddlesticks.

Woot Spitum
2007-04-26, 10:12 AM
You manipulate _him_ into committing an act that requires Atonement, then strike while both spellcasters are powerless.

Heck, if they actually live, it'd be a hell of a story.

And if the party gets wiped out it would make an equally good "Evil DM" story.

...and after I cast grease on Eronio the Magnificent our self-buffed cleric rolled a double critical. We could see the DM's face turn purple with rage. He liked Eronio the Magnificent. Far more than was healthy. You know, Eronio was actually a Lawful Good Paladin in disguise. You lose your powers! And the wizard's spellbook burns up. From swamp gas.

serow
2007-04-26, 10:50 AM
Book of 9 Swords?
I dunno, why re-balance everything when you can just slot in something that's already balanced somewhat against the casters?
Players (both fighting and casting) get to play high power, DM is also justified in throwing crazy stuff at them.

Unless it's a case of extreme budget limitation...

Yahzi
2007-04-26, 11:55 AM
That said, maybe the easiest solution is to have good players, ones who are not out to "Win D&D" as it were.
But that's not a good role-player.

If you're role-playing a wizard, with a genius IQ, years of dedicated, focused training, and the willpower to bend reality by thought alone, then when you are in fear for your life you are going to react in the most effective way. You're not going to pick your spells by "flair" or "flavor."

If the encounter doesn't possess the threat of killing you, you shouldn't get XP for it; and if it does, you should resolve it like a real, intelligent being would - as quickly and safely as possible.

I guess you could be a happy-go-lucky (read: retarded) sorcerer, but we're talking about wizards here.

The best solution I've seen so far is to make material components for the game-breaking spells. This forces wizards to save them for the BBEG super-epic time battles, which is where they belong. The DMG tells you the wizard can only cast Timestop 3 times a day; the GM tells you the wizard can only cast it when it really matters. Since games are about making decisions, then the player trying to decide if this is one of those times that really matters = fun. Viola! Everyone wins.

Maybe we could come up with a formula. The DMG says NPCs charge 10 gp * spell level * caster level to cast spells, and it also says magic items sell for twice what they cost to create. That implies you could charge 1/2 the NPC spell rate to cast spells and still be in the ballpark (this would be in addition to any existing material components, of course).

If you wanted to pay less for a spell, you could cast it at a lower caster level and save some money. Obviously spells whose caster level don't matter will always be cast at the minimum (like cantrips, which only ever cost 2.5 gp to cast). Equally obviously you can't allow casters to increase caster level simply by spending more money. And the GM can house-rule different prices for a handful of spells that are rare or common.


Cost in GP to cast a spell
.............. Caster Level
Spell Level.. 1 ...... 5 ...... 9 ...... 13 ..... 17
1 ............. 5
2 ............ 10
3 ............ 15 .... 75
4 ............ 20 ... 100 ... 180
5 ............ 25 ... 125 ... 225
6 ............ 30 ... 150 ... 270 .... 390 .... 510
7 ............ 35 ... 175 ... 315 .... 455 .... 595
8 ............ 40 ... 200 ... 360 .... 520 .... 680
9 ............ 45 ... 225 ... 405 .... 585 .... 765
Having made the chart... it seems too cheap at the high end.


Cost in GP to cast a spell (squaring caster level)
............... Caster Level
Spell Level . 1 ........ 5 ....... 9 ...... 13 ....... 17
1 ............. 5
2 ............ 10
3 ............ 15 .... 375
4 ............ 20 ..., 500 .... 1620
5 ............ 25 ..., 625 .... 2025
6 ............ 30 ..., 750 .... 2430 .... 5070 ..,,. 8670
7 ............ 35 ..., 875 .... 2835 .... 5915 .... 10115
8 ............ 40 ... 1000 .... 3240 .... 6760 .... 11560
9 ............ 45 ... 1125 .... 3645 .... 7605 .... 13005
That seems closer.

Obviously this creates a different game than RAW. For one thing, the party will have to help pay the wizard's expenses. This could be role-played by having every third adventure a quest to get material components for the wizard.

Another thing is that suddenly wands make more sense than casting spells. I suggest multiplying the price of wands by x10.

If you're looking for a world where magic is powerful but not daily used, would this help?

Yahzi
2007-04-26, 12:22 PM
cap spell levels at 6.
Well, if you want to do it the easy way, sure.

:smallbiggrin:

Indon
2007-04-26, 12:25 PM
If you're role-playing a wizard, with a genius IQ, years of dedicated, focused training, and the willpower to bend reality by thought alone, then when you are in fear for your life you are going to react in the most effective way. You're not going to pick your spells by "flair" or "flavor."


Well, really, if you're playing a wizard, with a genius IQ, years of study, and perfect pragmatism, you won't ever adventure. You'll just hire adventurers with the zillions of gold you make by casting spells on demand; NPC spellcasting is lucrative, not nearly the risk of adventuring, allows for more time studying and lets you set up a vastly better lab than any adventuring hedge wizard could.

So really, it takes a certain kind of wizard to even be in a run-around-killing-things campaign.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-26, 12:26 PM
But casting spells for money doesn't get you tasty, tasty XPs. Adventuring is, because of How D&D Works, a direct highway to world-shattering power.

Indon
2007-04-26, 12:33 PM
"Killing things makes me more powerful!" does not strike me as something most characters would believe in-character.

Those that do would probably be the stuff BBEG's are made of; especially dangerous BBEG's if they actually got experience based on what they killed.

Jasdoif
2007-04-26, 01:18 PM
"Killing things makes me more powerful!" does not strike me as something most characters would believe in-character.It's not just killing things. Avoiding traps, thwarting intricate plots, even avoiding combat through good use of diplomacy or strategery...all these things get you XP as well.

Above all, remember that playing D&D is not the same as writing a novel. A roleplaying game is still a game, and the players need to have a reason for their characters to do all this stuff they're doing. That's where XP and levels come in, they establish definitive points where characters will get better at what they do and/or get new things they can do; giving the players a goal to strive for. As for explaining that in character...even the most altruistic good cleric doesn't want to spend his entire life fighting zombies and skeletons, he wants to progress to where he can put an end to those creating those zombies and skeletons. They want to feel they're actually making a difference in the world, not just eking out a living.

Last_resort_33
2007-04-26, 02:23 PM
You can make a perfectly good game out of a wizard who just casts spells for money and can pay for adventurers. What about another wizard with better adventurers going after "your" loot. What about a new ruler putting a ban on magic... these are very cliched ideas, but you get my point. Yes it does make sense to do that, and you can get XP, but you won't get experiance casting the same spells over and over again. An intelligent person would realise that there is more to their life than keeping themself alive, that they have to see and do things for themselves, ultimately, getting XP.

Then, yes, your life in in danger and you have to choose the best combination of funky spells becasue you're smart enough to do so... I DO like the idea of spell failure.... the idea that every wizard can cast each spell perfectly each and every time just stinks.

Indon
2007-04-26, 03:15 PM
You can make a perfectly good game out of a wizard who just casts spells for money and can pay for adventurers. What about another wizard with better adventurers going after "your" loot. What about a new ruler putting a ban on magic... these are very cliched ideas, but you get my point. Yes it does make sense to do that, and you can get XP, but you won't get experiance casting the same spells over and over again. An intelligent person would realise that there is more to their life than keeping themself alive, that they have to see and do things for themselves, ultimately, getting XP.


A Wizard can improve themselves (gain levels) through doing nothing but book study. In fact, the overwhelming majority of D&D Wizards would do so; only a fraction of individuals in a campaign world gain levels through encounter-based experience (Namely, the PC's).

This small fraction of individuals can develop amazing abilities in a miniscule fraction of the time that a normal individual would. A level 1 fighter, a private, might fight Orcs over years in a military campaign before he reaches level 2 (coinciding roughly with his rise in rank to Sergeant). Another, identical level 1 fighter, could get into a handful of fights over the course of two weeks and accomplish the same thing. And barring careful study, there is no way to determine which individuals are affected by this phenomenon.

The point? Experience Points from encounters do not exist in-character, and Player-characters are freaks of nature.

PaladinBoy
2007-04-26, 07:00 PM
But that's not a good role-player.

If you're role-playing a wizard, with a genius IQ, years of dedicated, focused training, and the willpower to bend reality by thought alone, then when you are in fear for your life you are going to react in the most effective way. You're not going to pick your spells by "flair" or "flavor."

If the encounter doesn't possess the threat of killing you, you shouldn't get XP for it; and if it does, you should resolve it like a real, intelligent being would - as quickly and safely as possible.

I guess you could be a happy-go-lucky (read: retarded) sorcerer, but we're talking about wizards here.

And having a genius IQ and years of focused training does not mean that the only personality available is the one you describe. Why can't a high-Int wizard do something illogical? Maybe he was suitably impressed by repeated thunderstorms while he was a child, and now loves to use electricity magic, control weather, and wind spells, even though he could pull out a celerity+timestop+maximized DBFs and turn just about anything into flakes of ash. Maybe he's more interested in unlocking his dragonmark powers and using dragonmark-based magic than getting 9th level spells (that would be my current character). And really, he has no way of knowing how much more or less powerful that that will make him. Maybe he's a bit of a daredevil, who realizes that he's taking more risks but likes the thrill of danger.

Good roleplaying doesn't only involve setting limits on what your character will do........ it's also finding why you do things. It really is impossible to roleplay the "wrong" way; so long as you create an interesting story for your character, and create an interesting 3-dimensional character, you're doing fine. If you keep coming out with the same thing every time, then that might be a warning that your characters are a little static and 2-dimensional.

All this leads up to one point: yes, its possible to avoid broken wizards by having players that don't massively twink out their wizards. And those players are doing nothing wrong.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-26, 07:04 PM
Define "twink out their wizards". A wizard doesn't have to use Celerity+Timestop or Shapechange to be ridiculously powerful.