Common Patterns in all the Wizard vs Anything Else Threads

[KoDT69]

I have noticed a pattern in threads discussing absolutely any tactic that may be used against a Wizard in a 1 on 1 fight. No matter what the thought, combo, whatever is focusing on, there are at least 10 replies basically saying "Ultra Paranoid Wizbang has used a million divinations and knows everything in advance so you lose". By RAW, and TO this is true and there's no argument against that. What I see that is just irritating is how one-sided the arguments are. Sure, a single class Fighter can't even shoot an arrow anywhere near being in the Wizard's league power-wise. We know this, but it seems that some will defend the Wizard so aggressively it comes off as unpleasant to those who may not be masters of optimization, or just newer to the game.

These scenarios are always given a total RAW outlook, affording the Wizard his total control and intel gathering. What I see is that when the Fighter/mundane/T5/whatever build is counting on an NPC caster to provide a spell, there seems to be a lot of criticism and even people saying that the NPC casters might not help the mundane if they knew he was attacking another caster. First off, NPC cast spells are a service listed right in the PHB and by this theoretical RAW discussion is simply gold for spell trade. Secondly, who ever said that the NPC caster knows, likes, or respects the enemy caster of the mundane? It's just as likely that they would be all in just to see it plays out!

So are any of you in the Playground seeing this trend, or is it just me? I enjoy reading X vs Y threads and I hope to see some unbiased logic behind them. Honestly, I am a very liberal DM and help my players optimize their characters a lot. I allow almost any cheese yet the Wizard in question has never made an appearance at my table. In actual play, they are too busy to hide for months to gather info like that. The current party is about level 6 including - 2 Druids, 1 Sorcerer, 1 Paladin, 1 Ranger, 1 Rogue, 1 Duskblade. So far the Sorcerer, Paladin, and Rogue have been the star players most, but all have had time to shine.

[eggynack]

I don't think the issue with friendly spellcasters is that they might have some weird allegiance to the fighter. The issue is that it's the furthest possible thing from intrinsic to the class. You're spending pretty big quantities of money, in a manner that the wizard can duplicate, and you can't even assure access, let alone consistent access. Are you just all out buying up a wizard, or are you just seeking one out for an occasional buff? Because the latter isn't necessarily going to hold up until any fight that occurs. By contrast, everything a wizard does operates purely based off of the class, and doesn't require any outside help. It's why wizards are so powerful in the first place, and requiring incredibly specific circumstances for your fighter does them a disservice.

And yes, Schrodinger's wizard is a problem, but it is a problem that almost necessarily must exist, first because there isn't exactly one agreed upon super-wizard for these discussions, and second because it's not even a strictly theoretical game object. Beyond the aforementioned divinations, it's also possible to maintain your casting in an essentially spontaneous manner, thus making this figure a reality. It's not like that kind of power is strictly necessary for victory either. It just helps, and when using something would help your side in an argument, you use that thing. Wizards can dominate just fine with a reasonable spell list that isn't prepared for a particular adventure.

[LokeyITP]

You can always link your 100k words of fixes to make a playable game and we can discuss that. Until you do, we can only discuss RAW, with drowning being a good thing for example.

1v1 is a situation that could come up in a game I guess, but I don't find those to be the interesting conversations. In your example, it doesn't matter if it's a fighter or a commoner; that's the reason it's not a kosher strategy--it's money vs money + useful class features. Perhaps make a hypothetical where the party needs to contract spell-casting to meet their goals?

At least the most powerful RAW character just needs a few knowledge ranks to win DnD, even the tier 1 casters need to wait til the teens to do that :)

[nedz]

In a real game Player > Build > Class and yes I have seen Fighters outplay Wizards.

But, theoretically, the Wizard has so many more options that this result is easily avoidable.

[frogglesmash]

The reason that wizards always seem to win in these arguments is that solely based off of build a wizard can theoretically (don't ask me how, I wouldn't know, but I have been assured by more experience players that this is possible.) gain infinite time and infinite resources which can in turn be used to create "infinite" results, the only consistent way to beat such an "infinite" character is with a similarly "infinite" character.
As to the question of why some arguments crop up with such regularity? I'd say it's because most of those arguments are accurate. I'd attribute the gruffness of some responses to some people getting some what irritated at having to constantly explain a wizards god like abilities, and perhapse forgetting that some people are relatively knew to the game.

[ericgrau]

The Wizard Can Just Cast a Divination Spell
Divination
Level: Wiz 0
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
You know everything that will or might happen to you for the next 24 hours.

[KoDT69]

Again, I am not questioning the RAW existence of this Wizard. I am just wondering why the general attitude of the discussions end up more as "how dare you challenge a Wizard" like if anything were to actually one-up the Wizard, they take it as like a personal attack. It just seems to me that more effort should be given to the non-Wizard in developing the strategies proposed, making a group effort to flesh out a strategy and work out any bugs. Even though it's not likely to win, at least it can be given full consideration before being shot down.

In practical play, in my 22 years or so, I have indeed played many casters. I have had mid-level Wizards that could handle any challenge solo, forcing the DM to be as petty as to steal my spellbook (multiple times), and even using dead magic zones, not just an AMF which has loopholes, but a flat out "magic won't happen here period" type of thing. Across many game worlds and gaming groups, what really ended up as truly untouchable were 2 of the Clerics I had played. 1 had an answer fr everything, even at 5th level was the star player, and the other one simply had a big red NO button that he could shut down almost anything with before it even started. Both of those ended up teh uberz and I wasn't even trying to do it like that. My highest level Wizard was actually my 3rd most powerful in practical play. YMMV

[Vhaidara]

The main reason people discredit the purchase of spellcasting services is that's like saying Commoner is T1 because it can take Leadership and get a wizard as a cohort. It doesn't actually prove anything about the class.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The main reason people discredit the purchase of spellcasting services is that's like saying Commoner is T1 because it can take Leadership and get a wizard as a cohort. It doesn't actually prove anything about the class.

See also those awful and interminable Monk threads where the answer to every problem was a wand.

[ericgrau]

I never play super high op but a couple of my strongest characters had answers for everything via magic items bought with WBL. And I could do my own shtick on top of that so I wasn't just some cheap imitation either. I think it offends people trying to make an argument because they say well that's not your character, but it's part of the game so live with it. And actually a system that lets you buy magic solves many of the problems of disparity. This solution shouldn't be ignored so casually. Wizard vs X doesn't the tiniest bit mean there's a war between wizard and X and neither will help the other. In a cooperative game with an interactive world it's a bit more complicated than that.

Heck I would have done this on my wizard too if it wasn't low wealth. Buying 1 of everything is a lot easier than trying to put a Schrodinger's wizard into practice.

[Story]

The problem is that the Wizard can use all the money saved to buy other things that make them even more powerful. At best, you're narrowing the gap slightly since a Wizard gets less marginal utility out of WBL. And many of the most powerful spellcasting tricks simply can't be bought.

[eggynack]

Again, I am not questioning the RAW existence of this Wizard. I am just wondering why the general attitude of the discussions end up more as "how dare you challenge a Wizard" like if anything were to actually one-up the Wizard, they take it as like a personal attack.
It's not about it being a personal attack. It's because these discussions happen all the time, and they rarely vanish in response to the existence of that wizard. It seems a lot like you're more annoyed by tone than by content, and that has a lot more to do with the arguer than the argument.

[bekeleven]

The problem is that the Wizard can use all the money saved to buy other things that make them even more powerful. At best, you're narrowing the gap slightly since a Wizard gets less marginal utility out of WBL. And many of the most powerful spellcasting tricks simply can't be bought.

Yep. This is known on the forums as "Wealth-by-level-mancy."Although WBLurgy would be more etymologically accurate.

[daremetoidareyo]

It's not about it being a personal attack. It's because these discussions happen all the time, and they rarely vanish in response to the existence of that wizard. It seems a lot like you're more annoyed by tone than by content, and that has a lot more to do with the arguer than the argument.

Kinda. I noticed this too. What disturbs me is the optimisation assumptions of any given wizard. Like they are all paranoid PCs with optimizing skills who make choices based on a PC lifestyle rather than specific to their setting and roleplaying fluff. Any given wizard can be this, but many, oodles of them aren't. This approach to the subject shuts down conversation for those who enjoy mundanes.

Like: its great to be rich, and being rich is way more optimised than not being rich. But due to choices the system and I have made, being rich is off the table. I can compete with a generalized rich person, but not necessarily the super optimized ones, which aren't all that common anyway. Why is all the advice geared towards getting to the get rich quick fastlane asap. Caster supremacy is acknowledged, but let's work on this build\ scenario without caster supremacy being baked into the conversation under the assumption that all wizards are built specifically to kill/outcompete all noncasters. It's an exhausting and rote diversion for those of us who like mundanes to rehash caster supremacy everytime.



And it's understandable why people kneejerk the way they do. A caster who hits the divinations every single day to prep for their assailants would be difficult to undermine\defeat. Not necessarily impossible.

The beauty of mundanes is that they represent something beautiful about human existence that casters can't (seeing as how casters are more condensed power fantasy) in that there are no problems that can't be overcome: there is only a lack of creativity in the approach. Narratively, casters, by virtue of their supernaturalness, cannot compete in this arena: they can bend reality. A mundane must obey reality while imposing their will on it to get the results they want. In this regard, playing a mundane is a fun challenge, because ideas and creativity beat the mechanics of this game RAW everytime, even if that same RAW and mechanics support caster supremacy.

[ericgrau]

So are any of you in the Playground seeing this trend, or is it just me? I enjoy reading X vs Y threads and I hope to see some unbiased logic behind them. Honestly, I am a very liberal DM and help my players optimize their characters a lot. I allow almost any cheese yet the Wizard in question has never made an appearance at my table. In actual play, they are too busy to hide for months to gather info like that. The current party is about level 6 including - 2 Druids, 1 Sorcerer, 1 Paladin, 1 Ranger, 1 Rogue, 1 Duskblade. So far the Sorcerer, Paladin, and Rogue have been the star players most, but all have had time to shine.
It would be nice to take campaign tallies for all the classes. It would be hard to gauge but maybe you could do it by kills and number of challenges overcome chiefly by some player. And when some players defy the popular position of many of the classes I can see people saying so-and-so wasn't played optimally and I'd say "Yeah, so?" Actually I don't see many well played druids. Maybe a few. I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up ranked middle of the road or lower just because many people know how to play them ok but not well, and then the forums get up in arms saying the whole point system must be skewed or it's full of rookies or something.

[nedz]

It would be nice to take campaign tallies for all the classes. It would be hard to gauge but maybe you could do it by kills and number of challenges overcome chiefly by some player. And when some players defy the popular position of many of the classes I can see people saying so-and-so wasn't played optimally and I'd say "Yeah, so?" Actually I don't see many well played druids. Maybe a few. I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up ranked middle of the road or lower just because many people know how to play them ok but not well, and then the forums get up in arms saying the whole point system must be skewed or it's full of rookies or something.

Well to play a T1 effectively takes a lot of character management from the player during the game. I've even seen laptops used to run spreadsheets for daily spell selection and also things like Wildshapes.

To play a T2 effectively requires a lot of homework in planning what spells you will learn over the next few levels, but not so much during the game.

Lower tier classes usually require none of this because the options are more likely fixed.

[eggynack]

Kinda. I noticed this too. What disturbs me is the optimisation assumptions of any given wizard. Like they are all paranoid PCs with optimizing skills who make choices based on a PC lifestyle rather than specific to their setting and roleplaying fluff. Any given wizard can be this, but many, oodles of them aren't. This approach to the subject shuts down conversation for those who enjoy mundanes.

Like: its great to be rich, and being rich is way more optimised than not being rich. But due to choices the system and I have made, being rich is off the table. I can compete with a generalized rich person, but not necessarily the super optimized ones, which aren't all that common anyway. Why is all the advice geared towards getting to the get rich quick fastlane asap. Caster supremacy is acknowledged, but let's work on this build\ scenario without caster supremacy being baked into the conversation under the assumption that all wizards are built specifically to kill/outcompete all noncasters. It's an exhausting and rote diversion for those of us who like mundanes to rehash caster supremacy everytime.
That's just the nature of versus threads, not something specific to wizards. In a monk versus fighter thread, you're not going to see the fighter taking a skill focus for flavor reasons, and the monk isn't going to make weird and suboptimal choices for his bonus feats. In that sort of thread, you're necessarily getting something around the top of the range, because that's how they operate. There may be some issue with metagaming against mundane folk, but what is and isn't metagaming is difficult to determine, and figuring out the line is a decent part of those threads.

In a generalized sense, considering optimization culture as a whole, the idea is that you look at and assume the more optimal choices that exist and assume that any suboptimal choices would be specific to tables. Like, I'm not going to start rating flesh to salt highly because some arbitrary character wants to be themed around trade and merchantry. If you're building such a character, then it's your job to identify flavor details like that, and weight things accordingly. The same applies to duel situations, where specifics associated with power level desires and such are game specific. You can look at these top level characters, and modulate them all downwards in keeping with your desires. Modulating upwards is a lot more difficult.

[Svata]

The Wizard Can Just Cast a Divination Spell
Divination
Level: Wiz 0
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
You know everything that will or might happen to you for the next 24 hours.

That's a helluva cantrip.

[ryu]

That's just the nature of versus threads, not something specific to wizards. In a monk versus fighter thread, you're not going to see the fighter taking a skill focus for flavor reasons, and the monk isn't going to make weird and suboptimal choices for his bonus feats. In that sort of thread, you're necessarily getting something around the top of the range, because that's how they operate. There may be some issue with metagaming against mundane folk, but what is and isn't metagaming is difficult to determine, and figuring out the line is a decent part of those threads.

In a generalized sense, considering optimization culture as a whole, the idea is that you look at and assume the more optimal choices that exist and assume that any suboptimal choices would be specific to tables. Like, I'm not going to start rating flesh to salt highly because some arbitrary character wants to be themed around trade and merchantry. If you're building such a character, then it's your job to identify flavor details like that, and weight things accordingly. The same applies to duel situations, where specifics associated with power level desires and such are game specific. You can look at these top level characters, and modulate them all downwards in keeping with your desires. Modulating upwards is a lot more difficult.

Even if the person isn't taking the most purely optimal choice for any given thing it should be assumed their choices are meant to do something rather than be pointless or almost pointless. For example any wizard that can't think of several good uses for any given feat is either chained by some epic prereq juggling or just isn't trying.