Would it be too much to put wizards in a class of their own?

[Masakan]

So there's a common tier list going about showing what classes are in which tiers and why. However when it comes to tier 1, I think it's a little inaccurate.

Since I don't know enough about the Archivist, the Artificer and the Erudite.

I will only go over the 3 core classes Cleric, Druid and Wizard.

Now all of these classes are considered tier 1.
However in the case of the druid, I think it's less they are powerful and more they are easy if you have remote knowledge of the game. Let's be real here. Natural Spell makes it very hard for you to screw up as a druid, in fact as far as I know they are the only class who can theoretically say "Wildshape me into an hummingbird while spamming Meteor Swarm" walk away for the entire encounter and actually get away with it. Seriously Druids are not hard to play at all and it's very easy for them to stay alive.
They also face various restrictions, They can only be of neutralist alignment, they can't wear anything metal, and they pretty much HAVE to go straight druid to get the most out of them, throwing any sort of multi-classing concepts with them out the window. Out of the 3 I consider them to be the most manageable just due to how limited their options are if you have a druid you pretty much know what to expect, and again they are more ease of use than powerful.

Now while Druids get the most out of being a Straight Druid, Clerics are the exact opposite. You wanna prestige out of Cleric ASAP, as there is no systemic benefit for going straight Cleric. They face very similar restrictions as Druid can only be within a certain alignment and stuff like that, but a large reason they are so powerful is they are the only class in the game who has access to Turn/rebuke undead AND access to Domains at the same time which some can be traded in for basically free feats. This makes them VERY flexible in what they can do, hell some of the best character builds take a cloistered cleric dip to make them function.

But at the end of the day as powerful as these 2 classes are they both follow certain rules and restrictions.....Wizards don't have to do ANY of that. If anything they MAKE the rules. They can be whatever alignment they want, they can wear whatever they want, they can learn most any spell in the game, can go straight wizard or multiclass or prestige or gish.....these guys can basically do whatever they damn well please, and that's what makes them so powerful compared to other classes.

Wizards aren't the most powerful just because they cast spells, they are powerful because there is virtually no downside to using them compared to other classes. Or if there is someone PLEASE tell me cause I honestly do not see it. Sorcerers have a finite list of spells they can use, Bards specialize in enchantment and illusion based spells, Clerics are mostly buff orientated, and Druids sometimes don't even fit in many campaigns. And keep in mind that there are rules that allow you to make clerics and druids into spontaneous casters to keep them in check.

So what's the downside to playing a wizard if any? and should this class be in a class of it's own?

[Cruiser1]

So what's the downside to playing a wizard if any?
There are numerous downsides to playing a Wizard! Wizards are actually one of the weakest classes in the game. :smallwink: See this thread for a list of reasons why: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?76558-Wizards-Why-so-Weak

[Demidos]

Planar Sheperd makes druids unreal. Greenbound summoning's wall of thorns is also pretty nasty, though obviously nowhere in the ballpark.

[Tiri]

Well, there isn't much more benefit in going straight wizard than straight cleric, and clerics don't actually need a religion. They can be clerics of ideals, which really allows any domains or alignments, and their spell list has a fairly large number of non-buff spells. I think the wizard spell list is generally considered to be better than the cleric's, though.

[Nerd-o-rama]

The main limitation on Wizards compared to Clerics and Druids is that they have to expend resources on gaining and keeping access to their spell repertoire - Clerics and Druids maintain a good relationship with their power source, but Wizards actually have to spend gold on inking their spells, protecting or copying their spellbooks, borrowing spells from other wizards or, in a pinch, actually leaving home to go dungeon-diving for spell scrolls to copy.

They're also not going to be as effective if they multiclass except into very specific (i.e. Full Spell Progression) prestige classes, most of which are just a means of making the Wizard extra-specialized in something, or a generic power boost like Archmage or Cheater of Mystra.

Also, in a real (not Theoretical Optimization) game, Wizards are much more difficult to keep alive and useful at low levels, thanks to having half the hit die of Clerics and Druids and none of the mundane armor options, to say nothing of their farcical inability to fight using anything that isn't a spell until you get high-level buffs. Once a Wizard gets going (which can be as early as level 5 if you're a better optimizer than your DM), it's unstoppable (for three combats a day, anyway), but in many campaigns, it has to get there first. Clerics and Druids both have a much smoother difficulty curve by level.

Wizards also lack, by default, access to Divine Metamagic abuse, if we're talking strictly TO here. In fact, they lack any class features whatsoever other than spellcasting and bonus feats, which deprives them of some of the (admittedly niche) tactical options that druids have.

Wizards do have the best spell list overall, barring Clerics being able to pick up some of the more borked Arcane spells via domains. I'd consider that their main strength even if Clerics and Druids can compensate for it in other ways.

[Masakan]

The main limitation on Wizards compared to Clerics and Druids is that they have to expend resources on gaining and keeping access to their spell repertoire - Clerics and Druids maintain a good relationship with their power source, but Wizards actually have to spend gold on inking their spells, protecting or copying their spellbooks, borrowing spells from other wizards or, in a pinch, actually leaving home to go dungeon-diving for spell scrolls to copy.

They're also not going to be as effective if they multiclass except into very specific (i.e. Full Spell Progression) prestige classes, most of which are just a means of making the Wizard extra-specialized in something, or a generic power boost like Archmage or Cheater of Mystra.

Also, in a real (not Theoretical Optimization) game, Wizards are much more difficult to keep alive and useful at low levels, thanks to having half the hit die of Clerics and Druids and none of the mundane armor options, to say nothing of their farcical inability to fight using anything that isn't a spell until you get high-level buffs. Once a Wizard gets going (which can be as early as level 5 if you're a better optimizer than your DM), it's unstoppable (for three combats a day, anyway), but in many campaigns, it has to get there first. Clerics and Druids both have a much smoother difficulty curve by level.

Wizards also lack, by default, access to Divine Metamagic abuse, if we're talking strictly TO here. In fact, they lack any class features whatsoever other than spellcasting and bonus feats, which deprives them of some of the (admittedly niche) tactical options that druids have.

Wizards do have the best spell list overall, barring Clerics being able to pick up some of the more borked Arcane spells via domains. I'd consider that their main strength even if Clerics and Druids can compensate for it in other ways.

Well ok I didn't consider just how costly it would be for wizards but aside from that....

[Telonius]

The biggest in-game downside is probably how flimsy they are at lower levels. There are ways to mitigate this, but their lower hitpoint total hurts a lot until you start getting higher-level spells.

Metagame? They require a lot of work, planning, and system mastery. They're not quite the poster child for, "Really low floor, really high ceiling" (that goes to the Sorcerer) but if you don't know what you're doing on spell selection it's easy to render yourself useless or worse.

If you do know what you're doing, it's easy to start overshadowing the rest of the party. This can cause friction sometimes. If you're careful, it doesn't have to; but it's a concern.

[Masakan]

The biggest in-game downside is probably how flimsy they are at lower levels. There are ways to mitigate this, but their lower hitpoint total hurts a lot until you start getting higher-level spells.

Metagame? They require a lot of work, planning, and system mastery. They're not quite the poster child for, "Really low floor, really high ceiling" (that goes to the Sorcerer) but if you don't know what you're doing on spell selection it's easy to render yourself useless or worse.

If you do know what you're doing, it's easy to start overshadowing the rest of the party. This can cause friction sometimes. If you're careful, it doesn't have to; but it's a concern.

Guess this is why some people are so focused on optimization, and when I say optimization I mean people who Pump Con and Int and dump everything else.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Well ok I didn't consider just how costly it would be for wizards but aside from that....

I'm just saying, while all three of these classes are stupidly good at everything, all of them have their limitations and potentially-exploitable weaknesses. And as Telonius just mentioned, you need a lot more system mastery for Wizard than the other two. I'd rate the Core Tier Is as

Druid: Easy, as you say.
Cleric: Medium. To really abuse them, you need access to specific and sometimes obscure splatbook material, but the fact that they autolearn every spell helps a lot.
Wizard: Hard. To break the game with a Wizard, you need to know exactly what you're doing, be able to think laterally, and carefully budget your spell and feat selection, as well as not giving into the Siren's call of Tier III options like gish-hood or Evocation magic.

[ComaVision]

Artificers and Spell-to-power Erudites both have better spell access than Wizards. Maybe Archivist too but I'm not 100% on that. Artificers and Archivists both have much better low-level survivability than Wizard.

[Masakan]

I'm just saying, while all three of these classes are stupidly good at everything, all of them have their limitations and potentially-exploitable weaknesses. And as Telonius just mentioned, you need a lot more system mastery for Wizard than the other two. I'd rate the Core Tier Is as

Druid: Easy, as you say.
Cleric: Medium. To really abuse them, you need access to specific and sometimes obscure splatbook material, but the fact that they autolearn every spell helps a lot.
Wizard: Hard. To break the game with a Wizard, you need to know exactly what you're doing, be able to think laterally, and carefully budget your spell and feat selection, as well as not giving into the Siren's call of Tier III options like gish-hood or Evocation magic.
Hey! Don't be Bashing on the Gishes....but your right Sorcerers imo probably make better gishes anyway.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Wizard/Warblade/JPM is always a fun one, but the point is if you're using all your spells to buff your ability to deal hit point damage with a sword, you're not exploiting the game to a full Tier I potential.

[Masakan]

Wizard/Warblade/JPM is always a fun one, but the point is if you're using all your spells to buff your ability to deal hit point damage with a sword, you're not exploiting the game to a full Tier I potential.

This is why I say Sorcerers make the better gish base as gishes are more likely to only use a handful of spells anyway, and would be very careful not to pick any that are overly situational.

Besides, I don't care how bad you think evocation is, your not gonna want to tango with the guy with a Greater Magic Weapon enchanted Rapier lobbing Dalamar's Lightning Lances like it's going out of style.

[ComaVision]

Besides, I don't care how bad you think evocation is, your not gonna want to tango with the guy with a Greater Magic Weapon enchanted Rapier lobbing Dalamar's Lightning Lances like it's going out of style.

Except it's strictly inferior to any Tier 1 optimized for straight casting.

[Masakan]

Except it's strictly inferior to any Tier 1 optimized for straight casting.
And then the DM decided to just "Randomly" trap you in an anti magic field, and or send a group of mage hunters at your group.
Idk Maybe I just prefer Jack of all trades kind of characters.

[eggynack]

However in the case of the druid, I think it's less they are powerful and more they are easy if you have remote knowledge of the game. Let's be real here. Natural Spell makes it very hard for you to screw up as a druid, in fact as far as I know they are the only class who can theoretically say "Wildshape me into an hummingbird while spamming Meteor Swarm" walk away for the entire encounter and actually get away with it. Seriously Druids are not hard to play at all and it's very easy for them to stay alive.

They also face various restrictions, They can only be of neutralist alignment, they can't wear anything metal, and they pretty much HAVE to go straight druid to get the most out of them, throwing any sort of multi-classing concepts with them out the window. Out of the 3 I consider them to be the most manageable just due to how limited their options are if you have a druid you pretty much know what to expect, and again they are more ease of use than powerful.
Druids are very difficult to play at higher levels of optimization. Not necessarily difficult to build, but they are perhaps the most difficult class out of the three on a day to day level. With wizards, your only choices on a day to day level are what spells to pick, and when to cast them. Major choices, certainly, but they are still basically the only choices. Clerics have those choices to make, but have the additional class provided options of turning and spontaneous conversion into cures and inflicts, and the occasional domain power. All of those cleric options, however, are quite binary. You just cure, or you don't, and you turn, or you don't, and most domain powers are similar. Not to say there isn't decision making, but it's certainly not decision making of the highest level.

Then, you get to druids. Druids have that basic spell selection and use responsibility, certainly, but they also have the incredibly versatile spontaneous summoning and wild shape abilities, and can also swap out their companion and take proper advantage of it. Those first two abilities are ludicrously complicated, each capable of being used in dozens or hundreds of possible ways in any given round. In point of fact, I have often noted that one could consider only SNA IV, and leave behind every other spell and class feature, and you'd have in your hands a class more complex than a good number of classes, at least in play.



But at the end of the day as powerful as these 2 classes are they both follow certain rules and restrictions.....Wizards don't have to do ANY of that. If anything they MAKE the rules. They can be whatever alignment they want, they can wear whatever they want, they can learn most any spell in the game, can go straight wizard or multiclass or prestige or gish.....these guys can basically do whatever they damn well please, and that's what makes them so powerful compared to other classes.

Wizards aren't the most powerful just because they cast spells, they are powerful because there is virtually no downside to using them compared to other classes. Or if there is someone PLEASE tell me cause I honestly do not see it. Sorcerers have a finite list of spells they can use, Bards specialize in enchantment and illusion based spells, Clerics are mostly buff orientated, and Druids sometimes don't even fit in many campaigns. And keep in mind that there are rules that allow you to make clerics and druids into spontaneous casters to keep them in check.

So what's the downside to playing a wizard if any? and should this class be in a class of it's own?
Okay, now you're just being ludicrous. These non-restrictions are basically meaningless from an optimization perspective. Being able to wear different armor doesn't have any real impact on the game in a broader context, and neither does alignment selection, if we're being realistic. Gishing and multiclassing out are also pretty bad for a wizard, so I wouldn't call that much of an advantage, especially when clerics and druids alike are essentially gishes out of the box.

Because, seriously, your argument against druids is that they, "Sometimes don't even fit in many campaigns." What does that even mean? And, more critically, what does that have to do with what the tier system is trying to assess? To assess a class' tier, you have to leave behind all of these frivolous details, like what kind of armor you can wear, or what style of spell you're casting (because "buff" is an incredibly broad type of spell, and nowhere near the only type a cleric can cast). Instead, you must ask only what a given class can do, and how well they can handle various problems across a range of levels. It turns out that, in the case of clerics and druids, the set of things they can do and problems they can solve is all of them.

In the end, the three classes do have different power levels, but it's not this cut and dried setup with wizards on top. For the first nine or so levels, druids are actually the best class of the three. Their spell list is about as competitive as it's going to be until you hit 9th's and things hit the singularity, and their class features are crazy at that stage. The animal companion is ridiculously powerful for a number of levels, and then wild shape takes over when it sags in power, with spontaneous summoning being awesome the whole time. Then, later, the druid list starts to fall off a bit, while casting starts to take on a bigger role in the game than class features, and the wizard's generally superior list gives it an edge from around level ten until the end of the game. Clerics, meanwhile, with their class features and spells alike falling in the middle of the two classes, winds up between the two classes at just about every point in the progression. This isn't a perfect diagram of the comparative power of the three classes, and it varies some with optimization, but it's close enough for most purposes.

Edit:
And then the DM decided to just "Randomly" trap you in an anti magic field, and or send a group of mage hunters at your group.
And then the druid uses their fancy companion, operating as well as ever in the AMF, to consume the faces of the now magicless mage hunters. Or, of course, you could just kinda leave the small radius of the AMF and use some of the spells that bypass those, because I think all three classes have a good number of spells that work just fine through an AMF. You may want to check out the druid handbook in my sig, incidentally, because you seem to have a limited understanding of the craziness that druids can get up to.

[ComaVision]

@eggy

I thought of you when I saw Masakan talking poorly of druids. Is druid your truename?

[Masakan]

Wait wait, am I reading this right or is he getting angry at me because I said druids were the easiest to play out of the 3? I never once argued against or gave flak on their power or what they could do, I just said that out of the 3 Druids are the easiest to play.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The short answer to the thread title's question is; yes, it would be wholly inappropriate.

Even just comparing cleric and wizard at any serious optimization level makes it clear when you realize that both classes can access one another's spells fairly easily, the restrictions on clerics are a non-issue when you consider how very many gods there are and the fact you don't have to pick one anyway, and that both classes PrC out ASAP since neither gets any compelling class features after level 1.

The druid's spell list isn't quite as good but it's enough for a spirit shaman to be T2 and wildshape and spontaneous summoning more than make up for the lack when you look at some of the creatures available, even more so considering the options that expand basic wildshape.

Since you're not familiar, let's go through the other 3 of the big 6.

Artificer: can access -any- spell or magic item effect in the game. Get's the item effects at a notable discount and can use spell trigger items better than anyone else. Homonculus class feature and dedicated wright homonculus option means that an artificer doesn't even need down-time for crafting after level 5.

Archivist: divine caster using wizard spell acquisition and capable of learning spells on any divine caster spell list at the lowest level they appear. This class is so obviously comparable to a wizard there's no need to even mention its other, relatively minor features.

StP Erudite: All the spells and powers, all the time, nearly whenever he wants. The top of the tier, nearly indisputably.

[eggynack]

Wait wait, am I reading this right or is he getting angry at me because I said druids were the easiest to play out of the 3? I never once argued against or gave flak on their power or what they could do, I just said that out of the 3 Druids are the easiest to play.
I didn't get angry. I just disagreed. Because, y'know, you were mostly mistaken. I did get slightly angry because you asserted that druids should be placed in a lower tier because they can't wear metal armor, and because they can't be lawful evil. That was just weird. It was also weird that you partially arrived at druids being easy because they have fewer alignment and armor choices, especially because druid alignment choice is a significantly more complex issue than wizard alignment choice.

[Masakan]

I didn't get angry. I just disagreed. Because, y'know, you were mostly mistaken. I did get slightly angry because you asserted that druids should be placed in a lower tier because they can't wear metal armor, and because they can't be lawful evil. That was just weird. It was also weird that you partially arrived at druids being easy because they have fewer alignment and armor choices, especially because druid alignment choice is a significantly more complex issue than wizard alignment choice.

No I said druids were easy because I could theoretically Wild Shape into a hummingbird and natural spell Meteor storm all day and Would remain reletively untouched even if i told the dm to repeat the same thing over and over while i went away for 10 mins.


The short answer to the thread title's question is; yes, it would be wholly inappropriate.

Even just comparing cleric and wizard at any serious optimization level makes it clear when you realize that both classes can access one another's spells fairly easily, the restrictions on clerics are a non-issue when you consider how very many gods there are and the fact you don't have to pick one anyway, and that both classes PrC out ASAP since neither gets any compelling class features after level 1.

The druid's spell list isn't quite as good but it's enough for a spirit shaman to be T2 and wildshape and spontaneous summoning more than make up for the lack when you look at some of the creatures available, even more so considering the options that expand basic wildshape.

Since you're not familiar, let's go through the other 3 of the big 6.

Artificer: can access -any- spell or magic item effect in the game. Get's the item effects at a notable discount and can use spell trigger items better than anyone else. Homonculus class feature and dedicated wright homonculus option means that an artificer doesn't even need down-time for crafting after level 5.

Archivist: divine caster using wizard spell acquisition and capable of learning spells on any divine caster spell list at the lowest level they appear. This class is so obviously comparable to a wizard there's no need to even mention its other, relatively minor features.

StP Erudite: All the spells and powers, all the time, nearly whenever he wants. The top of the tier, nearly indisputably.

Then why do people act like wizards are the best thing since sliced bread again? Also how do you access magic vestment as a wizard/sorcerer again?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Then why do people act like wizards are the best thing since sliced bread again?

Because the Wizard is one of the kings of the core classes, with which everyone is familiar. And because the power of the Spell to Power Erudite, Archivist, and Artificer comes largely from their ability to access the Wizard and Cleric lists (and Psionic powers as well, sometimes).

We use the Wizard because it's a baseline everyone is familiar with, even if other classes can occasionally outperform it in theory.

[eggynack]

No I said druids were easy because I could theoretically Wild Shape into a hummingbird and natural spell Meteor storm all day and Would remain reletively untouched even if i told the dm to repeat the same thing over and over while i went away for 10 mins.

You said both. You noted in your second paragraph I quoted that druids have certain restrictions, of the alignment and armor sort, and that these limited options somehow lead to ease of use. In any case, my issue with the claim you're making right here has been noted. It's not like a wizard can't play keep away and shoot meteor swarms, and the druid has to do that very thing while also recognizing the ideal defensive form to take, and also know whether to summon a bear instead, and simultaneously manage an animal companion or else be missing out on vital utility.

[Vhaidara]

Also because of the amusing appropriateness that Wizards made Wizards completely OP. And the fact that people who don't know how spells work properly (I'm talking the ones who think stuff like fireball is the bee's knees and monks are OP) generally think Wizards are total garbage because the chassis is so bad (2 skill points, meh list, d4 HD, 1/2 BAB, 1 good save [and Will is a pointless save anyways]).

It's a lot easier to make a bad wizard than a bad cleric. And a lot easier to make a bad cleric better. Which leads to a lot of lower optimization players (and not intentionally lower optimization) thinking that wizards are bad. So we take a perverse pleasure in using them as our main example.

Oh, and also, I think Wizard does have the most ways to break games, via native access. However, once you pass 38, they all kind of start blurring together (since Wish chaining can be accomplished via Gate chaining, does it really count as separate?)

[Masakan]

You said both. You noted in your second paragraph I quoted that druids have certain restrictions, of the alignment and armor sort, and that these limited options somehow lead to ease of use. In any case, my issue with the claim you're making right here has been noted. It's not like a wizard can't play keep away and shoot meteor swarms, and the druid has to do that very thing while also recognizing the ideal defensive form to take, and also know whether to summon a bear instead, and simultaneously manage an animal companion or else be missing out on vital utility.

Call me crazy but, do you think that DRUIDS should be put in a class of their own?


Also because of the amusing appropriateness that Wizards made Wizards completely OP. And the fact that people who don't know how spells work properly (I'm talking the ones who think stuff like fireball is the bee's knees and monks are OP) generally think Wizards are total garbage because the chassis is so bad (2 skill points, meh list, d4 HD, 1/2 BAB, 1 good save [and Will is a pointless save anyways]).

It's a lot easier to make a bad wizard than a bad cleric. And a lot easier to make a bad cleric better. Which leads to a lot of lower optimization players (and not intentionally lower optimization) thinking that wizards are bad. So we take a perverse pleasure in using them as our main example.

Oh, and also, I think Wizard does have the most ways to break games, via native access. However, once you pass 38, they all kind of start blurring together (since Wish chaining can be accomplished via Gate chaining, does it really count as separate?)

I prefer scintillating sphere anyway. Also will is a pointless save? Seriously?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Call me crazy but, do you think that DRUIDS should be put in a class of their own?

Nope.

The only think that MIGHT merit it's own class is the Spell-to-Power Erudite. But even that doesn't.

See, the tiers aren't about raw power (a common misconception). If we wanted that the classes IN the tiers would be ranked. The tiers are about raw POTENTIAL power: you can have a Sorcerer with more killing force than a Wizard (due to having more spells), but he won't be able to adapt to as many situations, so he's down a tier.

The requirements for Tier 1 are the ability to, given enough time, have an available solution to any given problem the game throws at them. That means that all the classes are well within that tier.

The only higher tier I can think of would be being ALWAYS able to have a MULTIPLE given solutions to a given problem, and I can't think of a class that will literally ALWAYS have a solution up its sleeve.

[Vhaidara]

Call me crazy but, do you think that DRUIDS should be put in a class of their own?

Did you even look at the handbook this man wrote? It has 2 and a half pages for the INDEX. He's been writing it for over 2 years.

If a class deserves it, it's druid.


I prefer scintillating sphere anyway. Also will is a pointless save? Seriously?

...

[eggynack]

Call me crazy but, do you think that DRUIDS should be put in a class of their own?

No. Druids are around the top of the game for around the first half, but as I noted in my initial post in this thread, their power relative to other tier ones diminishes quite a bit in the second half of the game. At 5th level spells, you get stuff like call avalanche, control winds, and blizzard. Then, you go to level 11, and you enter the world of marginally upgraded 5th's like mudslide for call avalanche, sandstorm for control winds, and mummify for baleful polymorph. Sure, there are great spells besides that, mostly in the form of weird minionmancy like fey ring and valiant steed, along with cool teleportation options, but it's a bit of a step down. And then, you head into the world of 7th's, and it's a really precipitous drop. Your best spells are, I dunno, master earth, death by thorns, and word of balance. And 8th's aren't much better.

Meanwhile, the animal companion is really starting to suffer from the mundane/caster gap, though wild shape does still do great work. You're also heading into territory where your feat selection is going downhill. 12th is around where you should have used up the truly ridiculous feats, leaving you with only really good options after that point. And, of course, it is at this time that the other classes are really gearing up. Wizard and cleric spells are just getting better and better at this point, leaving druids behind by a decent margin. Thus, you have that aforementioned position swap, meaning that the average power level of the three classes across the full level range are pretty similar. And, even if they weren't as similar as they are, the difference still wouldn't be enough to justify a move into tier zero.

[elonin]

I've often wondered about the tier levels. Cleric, Wizard, and Druid can all become neigh unstoppable and there have been many posts pointing out the merits of one or all of these builds and comparing them to other classes. What baseline of optimization is used to compare these classes? One way of considering this is the level of your campaign. If you are playing a game that doesn't hit level 10 few of those levels would be owned by the casters as their tricks come online late for many strategies. Also, I've played with a few groups and only one of those would care for high op games.

[Masakan]

I've often wondered about the tier levels. Cleric, Wizard, and Druid can all become neigh unstoppable and there have been many posts pointing out the merits of one or all of these builds and comparing them to other classes. What baseline of optimization is used to compare these classes? One way of considering this is the level of your campaign. If you are playing a game that doesn't hit level 10 few of those levels would be owned by the casters as their tricks come online late for many strategies. Also, I've played with a few groups and only one of those would care for high op games.

I think a lot of this praise comes from things like the incantrix prestige class, which if i heard right. Literally has the power to make you stronger than your DM.

[icefractal]

I think some of the hype for Wizards (in particular) comes from the fact that a lot of the spells with world-shattering potential, such as Wish, Ice Assassin, Shapechange, Gate, and so forth are on the Sor/Wiz list. So while other classes can get them (and may already have a partial set), there's a perception that Wizards have more "permission" to break the game over their knee.

Like when people talk about Wizards being awesome because of infinite Wish-loop antics. At the level of optimization where that kind of thing is acceptable, any class (including Commoner) can do it. But Wizard does it in the most straightfoward way, so it seems to be thought of as a "Wizard thing".

[Masakan]

I think some of the hype for Wizards (in particular) comes from the fact that a lot of the spells with world-shattering potential, such as Wish, Ice Assassin, Shapechange, Gate, and so forth are on the Sor/Wiz list. So while other classes can get them (and may already have a partial set), there's a perception that Wizards have more "permission" to break the game over their knee.

Like when people talk about Wizards being awesome because of infinite Wish-loop antics. At the level of optimization where that kind of thing is acceptable, any class (including Commoner) can do it. But Wizard does it in the most straightfoward way, so it seems to be thought of as a "Wizard thing".

Ugh that's it if i ever run a campaign im making it a point to have people avoid any sort of cheeze

[eggynack]

That stuff is all great for what it is, but most of wizard power just comes from, y'know, the list. And not the top couple of levels of the list either. If we're talking about tier listing, then silent image is a way bigger factor than either incantatrix or shapechange.

[elonin]

Wizards don't need incantrix for the win. They do that well enough on their own. It just seems strange to me that when talking about tier ones the level seems to be set at ease of abuse where for the others its set at a more baseline level. I've always considered clerics to be a dependable but rather boring choice to the point of recommending them for new players. With the druid you almost have to know a lot about the spells and a good bit about the sources to get monsters to summon.

[Kelb_Panthera]

In regards to the tier listings, I'm just going to leave this here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266559)

I'll also point out the importance of a thorough reading since that thread points out that it's conclusions are based around mid-level optimization.

[Rakoa]

neigh unstoppable



http://cl.jroo.me/z3/S/6/1/d/a.baa-Epic-smile-of-horse.jpg

[eggynack]

Wizards don't need incantrix for the win. They do that well enough on their own. It just seems strange to me that when talking about tier ones the level seems to be set at ease of abuse where for the others its set at a more baseline level. I've always considered clerics to be a dependable but rather boring choice to the point of recommending them for new players. With the druid you almost have to know a lot about the spells and a good bit about the sources to get monsters to summon.
I don't think the assumed level of optimization is that far off the baseline relative to other classes. With, say, fighters, it's generally assumed that you're selecting good feats and using them capably. Similarly, for a tier one caster, it is only assumed that you are selecting good spells and using them capably, and doing the same for any other resources you may have. The assumption in either case is that you're making use of moderate practical optimization. The tier of the wizard doesn't rely on crafted contingencies or ice assassin abuse, but it does rely on you using something besides pure blasting, lest you become a glorified warmage. And, by the same token, the fighter doesn't require that your every feat is the most effective possible, but if you want to be a tier better than a warrior, your feats have to be doing work of some kind.

[ranagrande]

I still don't see why people always put Spirit Shaman as Tier 2. What is it that druid casting can't do?

[eggynack]

I still don't see why people always put Spirit Shaman as Tier 2. What is it that druid casting can't do?
Spirit shaman loses a lot of druid awesomeness in the conversion. First, you lose wild shape and the companion, which simultaneously provide a bunch of things that are, in essence, spells (like overland flight and some arbitrary long term minionmancy effect), and a base for a wide variety of things on your spell list (enhance wild shape being the biggest, with stuff like animal growth and mass snake's swiftness also coming into play). So, your spell list effectively winds up quite a bit shorter. Then, your actual casting is made significantly worse, because you have only a single spell of the highest level for quite some time. It doesn't impact long term effects, but druids thrive in the tactical side of magic, and that aspect takes a big hit. That your casting stat is split doesn't help matters. Finally, you lose spontaneous conversion, which sounds relatively minor given that you cast spontaneously, but it means a lot when your spells retrieved is often such a small number.

So, look at a level like 10th, with the specific focus being on 5th level spells. The spirit shaman gets one. Let's call it control winds. The druid gets two at the base, and then another one from wisdom, for three. If you're pushing things, then maybe four, but three is more likely. Already the druid is running three times as many different spells of this level, call them control winds, animal growth, and wall of thorns, and then you factor SNA V, and you actually have four times as many spells. It's much less variety, and that's before considering the fact that you can maintain persistent flight, blindsense, and high defenses with an enhanced desmodu hunting bat, and use your dire tortoise animal companion to crush your foes. The spirit shaman is great, but it's just not on the same level. Whether you're getting tossed down to low tier one or high tier two is up for debate, but you're losing enough value to make the latter stance logical.

[Windrammer]

Wizards utterly eclipse everyone else with ideal conditions. The tier system is meant to account for more than potential. Druids, as you said, are hard to screw up. They're a naturally (heh) powerful class and flexible enough as well so that they belong in the tier, right?

Wizards are so, so vulnerable. You want to know their weaknesses? Their spells per day. Their hit dice. Their reliance on a book. Their lack of actual intrinsic abilities. Clerics have spells that apply to a lot of situations. Healing, protections, controls. Wizards have so much more to choose from and most of them are far more specific in purpose. Single target debuffs, save-or-dies that won't necessarily apply to anyone, protections with finite duration, buffs that etc. There's so much people can do to you, especially if they get the drop on you. Everything kills you in one hit. Have you seen your saves? A caster half whatever level you are can probably kill you. Another wizard can freaking sing you out of your power with Dissonant Chant. There is so, so much that can be done to a wizard.

To be the Wizard you want to be you need the money to get the items you need to account for your abundance of weaknesses and lack of spell slots. You need to anticipate threats and prepare contingencies. This isn't easy to do. You can give a kid a toolbox but he can't make him fix a car, you know? Can't just WishTM for everything, because that too depends on the campaign.

If you're smart and have a fair or lenient DM in a high wealth setting then yeah, your Wizard will blow everything out of the water. If you're starting below level 6 in a non high wealth setting with an unfair or strict DM, then your Wizard will be tier 1 at best, especially if they're vetoing content like Craft Contingency Spell (if you survived to that point).

[eggynack]

Wizards utterly eclipse everyone else with ideal conditions. The tier system is meant to account for more than potential. Druids, as you said, are hard to screw up. They're a naturally (heh) powerful class and flexible enough as well so that they belong in the tier, right?
I disagree. Sure, not much compares with a wizard at 15th level, at least as far as single class builds go, but even under optimal conditions, I don't think I'm taking a 6th level wizard over a 6th level druid. Because druids can optimize too, and I don't think that wizards have much that can compete with spontaneous walls of thorns or venomfire'd fleshrakers at that level. And that stuff definitely still applies at lower levels, even moreso, and continues to apply as you go upward. Your assertion that wizards can utterly eclipse everyone else, even with ideal conditions, is thus a flawed one.

[Masakan]

I disagree. Sure, not much compares with a wizard at 15th level, at least as far as single class builds go, but even under optimal conditions, I don't think I'm taking a 6th level wizard over a 6th level druid. Because druids can optimize too, and I don't think that wizards have much that can compete with spontaneous walls of thorns or venomfire'd fleshrakers at that level. And that stuff definitely still applies at lower levels, even moreso, and continues to apply as you go upward. Your assertion that wizards can utterly eclipse everyone else, even with ideal conditions, is thus a flawed one.

You sure that isn't just the Bias talking?

[eggynack]

You sure that isn't just the Bias talking?
I'm doubtful. I mean, are you going to suggest something the wizard has at 6th level that can compete with spontaneous wall of thorns out of every slot? Sure, the wizard has dispel magic, haste, and stinking cloud, but wall of thorns is just on a whole different level where enemy destruction is concerned. This is on top of the creatures becoming crazy powerful, and the spontaneous nature of it means that you still have a full allotment of crazy spells. Spells that a wizard would be very happy casting, like sleet storm, stone shape, and heart of water. Honestly, if you want to challenge a position I'm taking, you may want to do so with bigger guns than bias. Maybe, y'know, citing spells that give the wizard an advantage over druids in the given scenario. Do note that I haven't even brought wild shape into the issue, meaning that the druid is also travelling under the effects of a significantly more powerful version of overland flight, which is an often picked wizard spell that's still three levels away.

Edit: Also note that I haven't even selected the most druid advantaged level. What that a wizard is doing at first level is going to compete with those same spontaneous walls of thorns? Can that thing also compete when you add in a roughly fighter-equivalent riding dog animal companion? It all just seems rather doubtful.

[Masakan]

I'm doubtful. I mean, are you going to suggest something the wizard has at 6th level that can compete with spontaneous wall of thorns out of every slot? Sure, the wizard has dispel magic, haste, and stinking cloud, but wall of thorns is just on a whole different level where enemy destruction is concerned. This is on top of the creatures becoming crazy powerful, and the spontaneous nature of it means that you still have a full allotment of crazy spells. Spells that a wizard would be very happy casting, like sleet storm, stone shape, and heart of water. Honestly, if you want to challenge a position I'm taking, you may want to do so with bigger guns than bias. Maybe, y'know, citing spells that give the wizard an advantage over druids in the given scenario. Do note that I haven't even brought wild shape into the issue, meaning that the druid is also travelling under the effects of a significantly more powerful version of overland flight, which is an often picked wizard spell that's still three levels away.

Edit: Also note that I haven't even selected the most druid advantaged level. What that a wizard is doing at first level is going to compete with those same spontaneous walls of thorns? Can that thing also compete when you add in a roughly fighter-equivalent riding dog animal companion? It all just seems rather doubtful.

No...I'm just saying you gotta take the word of the guy who spent 2 years on a druid encyclopedia with a grain of salt, When it comes to this topic. That's all.

[eggynack]

No...I'm just saying you gotta take the word of the guy who spent 2 years on a druid encyclopedia with a grain of salt, When it comes to this topic. That's all.
Not really. More like the opposite of that. I mean, if it were an inaccurate encyclopedia, then that'd be one thing, but I'm a bit doubtful that this is the second coming of "Beating Batman". All it really means is that I know a bunch about druids. Also, I tend to rely on objective facts in my arguments, which gets rid of a lot of potential bias. It's a fact, after all, that druids have access to these resources, so the only place where bias could exist is in the assessment of said resources. Hence my core question, whether you really think that wizards at that level are doing things better than those spontaneous walls of thorns.

[Myou]

No...I'm just saying you gotta take the word of the guy who spent 2 years on a druid encyclopedia with a grain of salt, When it comes to this topic. That's all.

Then I think you need to re-familiarise yourself with planar shepherd abuse - possibly the most broken thing any of the three can ever do short of pun-pun and the like.

[Masakan]

Not really. More like the opposite of that. I mean, if it were an inaccurate encyclopedia, then that'd be one thing, but I'm a bit doubtful that this is the second coming of "Beating Batman". All it really means is that I know a bunch about druids. Also, I tend to rely on objective facts in my arguments, which gets rid of a lot of potential bias. It's a fact, after all, that druids have access to these resources, so the only place where bias could exist is in the assessment of said resources. Hence my core question, whether you really think that wizards at that level are doing things better than those spontaneous walls of thorns.
I would have to say no....only because of how LONG wall of thorns lasts

[A.A.King]

What exactly is it that you want to argue? Which class is strongest? They are both strong enough that if you bring the strongest possible wizard build or the strongest possible druid build to a game you'll win within the first day, you'll have made your DM cry, you'll have your game group break up and you'll have made sure that you will never ever be invited to anything ever again. Is there really a point in arguing which class could potentially do that the best or the quickest?

In fact, in your opening post you seem to argue that wizards are more versatile. You mention that they don't have Alignment restrictions and that they can wear anything they want and that they can learn most any spell in the game. Except of course that Clerics can have any alignment you want to play (just add the believe after you decided the alignment), Clerics/Druids can wear Armour which the wizard can't (and the Druid's No-Metal restriction is really insignificant) and a wizard only CAN learn any spell instead of Clerics/Druids who know EVERY spell they have. Fact is of course that in realistic game play the number of spells your wizard knows is very restricted and you'll most likely not have the same versatility the Cleric/Druid has when mid-dungeon you realise you completely miscalculated your opponent and you really should have learned spell X instead of spell Y. You mention that you can Gish, but Clerics/Druids can be in melee without giving up spell progression. Being only able to cast 4th Level Spells when your party members can cast 5th Level Spells hurts your power level more than you think. In fact, if you Gish you build a fighter which isn't very good at being "The Fighter" who happens to be a wizard, but isn't actually all that good at being "The Wizard" either. With the right Prestige Class and Domain choices you can build a cleric who fills the role of Arcanist better than a Gish, while still also being a Cleric.

There is not a single party role you can't fill with a well build Wizard, but the same goes for Cleric or Druid and the wizard doesn't do it any easier. When you build a Cleric or a Druid you can also still multi-class (even though Eggynack will probably scream at me when you I suggest you can make the Druid better by adding Rogue (everything is better with a bit of rogue))

Also, having mentioned Eggynack, when you are basically trying to argue that Wizards are an entire Tier better than Clerics/Druids because of they are stronger or have more options, who better to argue with than the guy who wrote the Druid Handbook? Knowledge isn't bias, it's just knowledge, and it is this knowledge which allows him to counter any set of wizard options with an equally powerful set of Druid options.

[eggynack]

There is not a single party role you can't fill with a well build Wizard, but the same goes for Cleric or Druid and the wizard doesn't do it any easier. When you build a Cleric or a Druid you can also still multi-class (even though Eggynack will probably scream at me when you I suggest you can make the Druid better by adding Rogue (everything is better with a bit of rogue))
Well, not scream, but maybe just regularly disagree. By my way of thinking, the point of druid optimization is to get the druid to be the most druid it can be, because what a druid is by its very nature is incredibly powerful. So, you can ditch the progression of wild shape and the animal companion a bit, but you have to be pushing your other major class features, casting and summoning, beyond the point they would otherwise reach. It is an oversimplification often proposed, however, that druids cannot optimize significantly beyond druid 20 without entering planar shepherd. ACF's and prestige classes in great number offer things that you just can't get without leaving druid for at least a little while. It's not like I much support the idea of adding rogue to wizard either though.

[icefractal]

Below 17th level, it's unlikely that Rogue is worth losing a caster level (exception for games that start on an even numbered level and never advance). After 17th, it's not as much a sacrifice, but by that point you can get decent Sneak Attack via feats (Martial Stance (Assassin's Stance) + Craven) or spells (Shapechange -> Gloom gives 13d6 SA, for example).

[Masakan]

Well, not scream, but maybe just regularly disagree. By my way of thinking, the point of druid optimization is to get the druid to be the most druid it can be, because what a druid is by its very nature is incredibly powerful. So, you can ditch the progression of wild shape and the animal companion a bit, but you have to be pushing your other major class features, casting and summoning, beyond the point they would otherwise reach. It is an oversimplification often proposed, however, that druids cannot optimize significantly beyond druid 20 without entering planar shepherd. ACF's and prestige classes in great number offer things that you just can't get without leaving druid for at least a little while. It's not like I much support the idea of adding rogue to wizard either though.

Meaning you think the unseen seer is a bad class? But I digress. Tell me something, If a DM knew not only how powerful Druids are and can get, but how ease of use they are to handle even for the most green of Players and decided to ban Druids from play, but keep every other caster. Would that be unreasonable or even unfair?

[eggynack]

Below 17th level, it's unlikely that Rogue is worth losing a caster level (exception for games that start on an even numbered level and never advance). After 17th, it's not as much a sacrifice, but by that point you can get decent Sneak Attack via feats (Martial Stance (Assassin's Stance) + Craven) or spells (Shapechange -> Gloom gives 13d6 SA, for example).
Yeah, there are definitely better things you can be doing after you cross that threshold. Even in core, there's always a dip into hierophant for that fancy power of nature ability.

[Windrammer]

I disagree. Sure, not much compares with a wizard at 15th level, at least as far as single class builds go, but even under optimal conditions, I don't think I'm taking a 6th level wizard over a 6th level druid. Because druids can optimize too, and I don't think that wizards have much that can compete with spontaneous walls of thorns or venomfire'd fleshrakers at that level. And that stuff definitely still applies at lower levels, even moreso, and continues to apply as you go upward. Your assertion that wizards can utterly eclipse everyone else, even with ideal conditions, is thus a flawed one.

Druids can optimize, but they don't have an answer for every situation as Wizards do. Wizards have an answer to almost every situation, even at 6th level. It's not difficult to keep a fleshraker from getting you at all. You're describing a Druid getting the drop on a Wizard - that isn't a Wizard's "ideal conditions". What I'm saying is that Wizards can do more in more situations in "ideal conditions" than the other classes. Yes, a venomfire fleshraker does a lot of damage. Wizards don't need to do damage.

So you have a Druid and a Wizard each prepared for the encounter with each other - the Wizard has a counter for virtually anything the Druid can conceivably do, and it's seldom likewise for the Druid.

That's not to say I don't think a Druid wouldn't kick a wizard's ass in most situations, because they absolutely would. I'm only arguing that Wizards have higher encounter-solving potential.

[Masakan]

Druids can optimize, but they don't have an answer for every situation as Wizards do. Wizards have an answer to almost every situation, even at 6th level. It's not difficult to keep a fleshraker from getting you at all. You're describing a Druid getting the drop on a Wizard - that isn't a Wizard's "ideal conditions". What I'm saying is that Wizards can do more in more situations in "ideal conditions" than the other classes. Yes, a venomfire fleshraker does a lot of damage. Wizards don't need to do damage.

So you have a Druid and a Wizard each prepared for the encounter with each other - the Wizard has a counter for virtually anything the Druid can conceivably do, and it's seldom likewise for the Druid.

That's not to say I don't think a Druid wouldn't kick a wizard's ass in most situations, because they absolutely would. I'm only arguing that Wizards have higher encounter-solving potential.

While this would be purely table based, how about this for balance? There are alt rules for making Clerics and Druids spontaneous casters, Make them play by those rules. Not only that but force anyone who is playing a wizard to go focused specialist. This way they get a little extra power early game, while not being as overbearing and effectively having an "I Win" button. Of course, I'm sure there are many who would object to this but really, the rules are there. You effectively have a way to nerf all 3 and keep them under control. Why not make use of em?

[ComaVision]

While this would be purely table based, how about this for balance? There are alt rules for making Clerics and Druids spontaneous casters, Make them play by those rules. Not only that but force anyone who is playing a wizard to go focused specialist. This way they get a little extra power early game, while not being as overbearing and effectively having an "I Win" button. Of course, I'm sure there are many who would object to this but really, the rules are there. You effectively have a way to nerf all 3 and keep them under control. Why not make use of em?

Yeah, a Wizard losing Necromancy and Evocation is totally on par with restricting the spells available on Druid and Cleric...

[Masakan]

Yeah, a Wizard losing Necromancy and Evocation is totally on par with restricting the spells available on Druid and Cleric...
I never said it was perfect but it's something, besides taking away necromancy and the like, doesn't that just turn the wizard into a glorified debuffer?

[ComaVision]

I never said it was perfect but it's something, besides taking away necromancy and the like, doesn't that just turn the wizard into a glorified debuffer?

It means the Wizard continues to do whatever it wants.

Required reading. (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1146876)

[Masakan]

It means the Wizard continues to do whatever it wants.

Required reading. (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1146876)

Good point, Wizards are banned from PC play, especially if they are gonna be ***** about it.

[eggynack]

Meaning you think the unseen seer is a bad class?
Not badly designed, but not especially good from a power perspective. You're losing a caster level, and you get what? Some damage? Divination spells that are probably worse than those you're already getting natively? A caster level bonus to divination that's mostly irrelevant when weighed against the other losses? A mediocre bonus feat that doesn't even really replace the more versatile bonus feats you're getting from wizard levels? A permanent version of a spell that's already hours/level and low in level enough that you can afford to cast it all the time? A chassis upgrade in the form of some extra skill points and BAB that, like that damage, doesn't really do all that much given how powerful wizards are? It just doesn't seem worth it. It's a cool class, don't get me wrong, but if you want power, I don't think it's a good one.


But I digress. Tell me something, If a DM knew not only how powerful Druids are and can get, but how ease of use they are to handle even for the most green of Players and decided to ban Druids from play, but keep every other caster. Would that be unreasonable or even unfair?
The first issue with this argument is that I don't think druids are all that easy to handle. It's like all the book keeping of a wizard, plus a massive amount of other book keeping layered on top. The second is that, whether they're easy to use or not, no one druid is going to simultaneously benefit from both the powerful ceiling and the powerful floor, so only one of those factors is going to be relevant at any given point in time. With those things in mind, I don't think it makes much sense to ban druids and not wizards or clerics. Problems with druids occur mostly at points on the optimization curve where wizards and clerics are also going to be very powerful. The only cause I could see for banning just druids is their great performance at very low levels, but I dunno that that's sufficient cause in and of itself.


Druids can optimize, but they don't have an answer for every situation as Wizards do. Wizards have an answer to almost every situation, even at 6th level. It's not difficult to keep a fleshraker from getting you at all. You're describing a Druid getting the drop on a Wizard - that isn't a Wizard's "ideal conditions". What I'm saying is that Wizards can do more in more situations in "ideal conditions" than the other classes. Yes, a venomfire fleshraker does a lot of damage. Wizards don't need to do damage.
I'm not describing the druid getting the drop on a wizard at all, especially because this certainly isn't an arena situation. Wall of thorns is simply more effective than most anything a wizard is pulling out when it comes to dealing with encounters, whether those encounters are ones the casters are prepared for or not.


That's not to say I don't think a Druid wouldn't kick a wizard's ass in most situations, because they absolutely would. I'm only arguing that Wizards have higher encounter-solving potential.
I just don't really think that's the case. My proposed greenbound summoning based plan would be likely to take out encounters at a higher CR than whatever the wizard can pull off, and it's likely to do so for more encounters per day. Moreover, whether the wizard can reliably evade the fleshraker or not, the fact remains that a good number of foes will not be able to do so, meaning a number of encounters taken out by what is effectively a single spell. I doubt that the wizard can claim such efficiency or power, even given the ability to prepare for specific problems.

[Deadline]

I never said it was perfect but it's something, besides taking away necromancy and the like, doesn't that just turn the wizard into a glorified debuffer?

Blasting can still be done (usually better) by Conjuration, Buffing and Debuffing still operate at mostly full effectiveness (you lose out on the Necromancy debuffs). Losing Contingency from Evocation hurts (although Shadow Evocation, Greater is a thing), but it hurts less if Craft Contingent Spell is allowed. Everything else that makes the Wizard a versatile powerhouse is still present, even if you make them lose a third school (which is likely to be Enchantment). If you force a Wizard to ban Conjuration, Transmutation, and Illusion, that's a tougher setup, but still a powerhouse.

[Masakan]

Not badly designed, but not especially good from a power perspective. You're losing a caster level, and you get what? Some damage? Divination spells that are probably worse than those you're already getting natively? A caster level bonus to divination that's mostly irrelevant when weighed against the other losses? A mediocre bonus feat that doesn't even really replace the more versatile bonus feats you're getting from wizard levels? A permanent version of a spell that's already hours/level and low in level enough that you can afford to cast it all the time? A chassis upgrade in the form of some extra skill points and BAB that, like that damage, doesn't really do all that much given how powerful wizards are? It just doesn't seem worth it. It's a cool class, don't get me wrong, but if you want power, I don't think it's a good one.


The first issue with this argument is that I don't think druids are all that easy to handle. It's like all the book keeping of a wizard, plus a massive amount of other book keeping layered on top. The second is that, whether they're easy to use or not, no one druid is going to simultaneously benefit from both the powerful ceiling and the powerful floor, so only one of those factors is going to be relevant at any given point in time. With those things in mind, I don't think it makes much sense to ban druids and not wizards or clerics. Problems with druids occur mostly at points on the optimization curve where wizards and clerics are also going to be very powerful. The only cause I could see for banning just druids is their great performance at very low levels, but I dunno that that's sufficient cause in and of itself.


Which is why I suggest using spontaneous caster rules as a DM for Clerics and Druids, makes them WAY more manageable. And Unseen seer is more of an infiltrator than a damage dealer, That is of course assuming you wanna do more than just sit on your ass and cast your daily "I win" Spell all the time. Power gaming at it's finest Ladies and Gentlemen.

[eggynack]

Which is why I suggest using spontaneous caster rules as a DM for Clerics and Druids, makes them WAY more manageable.
Cool, I guess. Don't really see why your variant rule use is pertinent to this particular conversation though.

And Unseen seer is more of an infiltrator than a damage dealer, That is of course assuming you wanna do more than just sit on your ass and cast your daily "I win" Spell all the time. Power gaming at it's finest Ladies and Gentlemen.
But is it really that effective as an infiltrator? You're getting stealth skills, sure, but you're losing advancement to one of the greatest assets for infiltration in the game, which is casting. You get the various spells in the invisibility line a level late, you get teleportation spells a level late, and even the divinations that are so key to the class are obtained a level later than the wizard that just went full on wizard. And, yes, the spells that allow you to crush your opponents into a fine powder if you're discovered are gained late as well.

[Masakan]

Cool, I guess. Don't really see why your variant rule use is pertinent to this particular conversation though.

But is it really that effective as an infiltrator? You're getting stealth skills, sure, but you're losing advancement to one of the greatest assets for infiltration in the game, which is casting. You get the various spells in the invisibility line a level late, you get teleportation spells a level late, and even the divinations that are so key to the class are obtained a level later than the wizard that just went full on wizard. And, yes, the spells that allow you to crush your opponents into a fine powder if you're discovered are gained late as well.

Sigh...This is probably why a lot of people have issues with casters....they effectively make every other mechanism of the game completely pointless.
I mean why bother learning any other skill other than spellcraft and concentration, when you can just cast a spell for it?
Makes it feel like a waste of time when you can just cast a spell to solve all your problems. Just abuse broken spells and win every encounter your dm throws at you. If we can just bulldoze through it anyway he's a bad DM and deserves to be humiliated...
This is why I have no respect for pure wizards and thanks to you I don't think too fondly of druids either. The ability to just sit back, cast your I win button and let your underlings do all the dirty work. Which wouldn't be so bad if both didn't brag about how awesomely broken they are...That gets obnoxious.

Look I get it. Spells are powerful, But I rather you get rewarded for being interesting or solving things in ways that aren't just, "oh I have a spell for that, I win MF"
And im talking about out of combat too not in combat. If it was just in combat it wouldn't be a problem, but it gets grating knowing that the wizard or the Druid can effectively solve every problem that comes their way with a particular spell, and maybe I'm wrong but you don't seem like the kind of person that enjoys watching his teammates feel completely worthless.
Before you reply I would ask you to think about what your going to say, I rather not have to deal with someone who says what can be amounted to "Not my fault I'm broken as hell."

[eggynack]

It is what it is. High tier classes are, by definition, capable of overshadowing low tier classes in their areas of greatest competency. That doesn't mean that they're bad classes. It just means that you shouldn't necessarily have a wizard and a rogue in the same party. Encounters can be calibrated to be a solid challenge to a wizard and druid party, but mixing tiers can sometimes mean that any given encounter will either crush the rogue or be crushed by the wizard. After all, any given party can always face the trivial case of an exactly identical party, providing the PC's with something that, all things being equal, will defeat them 50% of the time.

And, gotta say, it's not really bragging when you ask me to tell you how broken various classes are. If you don't want to hear all the crazy ways that a wizard can out-rogue a rogue, then the best way to avoid such a fate is by not seeking out the information. If it helps, know that these classes can be as complicated as they are powerful. My handbook is long because it needs to be long, because druids are ludicrously dense, touching on most of the books in the game in the quest for peak optimization.

[Masakan]

It is what it is. High tier classes are, by definition, capable of overshadowing low tier classes in their areas of greatest competency. That doesn't mean that they're bad classes. It just means that you shouldn't necessarily have a wizard and a rogue in the same party. Encounters can be calibrated to be a solid challenge to a wizard and druid party, but mixing tiers can sometimes mean that any given encounter will either crush the rogue or be crushed by the wizard. After all, any given party can always face the trivial case of an exactly identical party, providing the PC's with something that, all things being equal, will defeat them 50% of the time.

And, gotta say, it's not really bragging when you ask me to tell you how broken various classes are. If you don't want to hear all the crazy ways that a wizard can out-rogue a rogue, then the best way to avoid such a fate is by not seeking out the information. If it helps, know that these classes can be as complicated as they are powerful. My handbook is long because it needs to be long, because druids are ludicrously dense, touching on most of the books in the game in the quest for peak optimization.

Ok fair enough.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Don't hate the player, hate the poorly-balanced game.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Sigh...This is probably why a lot of people have issues with casters....they effectively make every other mechanism of the game completely pointless.
Yep, this is the issue with 3.5 in a nutshell. At high optimization levels, whatever you want to do*, spells are better.

But.

Not every game is played at high, "9th level spells or bust" optimization levels. There are plenty of tables out there where wizards are happily throwing around fireballs and scorching rays while protected only by mage armor, where clerics are second-rate fighters with a loadout of healing and support spells, and where druids are second-rate clerics who never bother with summons for being "too complicated." Where the rogue is the best at stealth and the barbarian does the highest damage.

The thing about casters is that they take a lot of time, knowledge, and/or effort to play well. There are hundreds of spells in the PHB alone, and the most powerful usually aren't directly obvious. Who here hasn't seen someone prepare the same spells every day because they don't have the time or inclination to look up new ones? Oh, you're probably not going to be useless as a caster, since you only need one or two good spells per level to contribute, but it's not necessarily a case of "I pick druid, therefore I win everything."

Moreover, those who have the optimizing knowledge to make a god-caster usually also have the experience to know why that's not the best idea. Instead we'll go for support, or gish, or focus on a theme, or otherwise weaken ourselves. Or at the very least we'll tone it down if it gets out of hand. And if a player goes ahead and overshadow the party anyway, well... they're not a good player. Not because they optimize, but because they're a ****-- the two conditions are completely unrelated.

I mean, should you remove Tier 1 classes? Absolutely-- they're not just unbalanced, they're overcomplicated and have a ludicrously enormous power range that makes them very hard to predict. There are some replacements burried in the 3.5 cannon-- Favored Souls, Shapeshift Druids, Spirit Shamans, Warmages, Beguilers, Dread Necromancers... even things like Binders, Incarnates, and Totemists can serve with sufficient re-fluffing. If you're willing to dig into homebrew solutions, well... there's the better part of a decade of work out there, some of it from exceptionally clever and creative people. As a not-at-all-modest example, I'll leave a link to my Fixed List Caster Project (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?317861-Fixed-List-Caster-Project-%283-5%29&p=16545265#post16545265), which has Beguiler-style replacements for every magical theme I could think of-- they're more balanced (since the lists remove access to a lot of the more broken spells), easier to build (since you don't need to pick spells), and have more options in play (since they have a larger list of spells known than sorcerers, and more available at a time than prepared casters).

If you want something less drastic...

For the Druid, replace Wild Shape with the Shapeshift ACF from the PHB 2, replace his animal companion with a familiar, and remove his spontaneous summoning.
For the Cleric, give him all spells on his deity's domains as spells known, with the ability to cast them spontaneously. Add all Cure spells for a good cleric, and all Inflict spells for an evil, and remove all other Cleric spells. Let them learn maybe one of their choice every even-numbered level.
For the Wizard, just turn him into an Int-based Sorcerer clone. Grant Arcane Preparation (Complete Arcane) as a bonus feat at 1st, so he can use metamagic better and still get into Wizard PrCs, and give him an extra spell known/level. Enforce specialization, but don't grant extra spells/day with it.
To help the Sorcerer a bit, give him a free Heritage feat at first and every 5th level. (There are some in Complete Arcane, and more in Complete Mage and PHB 2, I believe).

And/or reduce all their casting to the Bard's progression for spell level, so they cap out at 6th level spells. (Although you might grant the Wizard and Sorcerer in particular more spells/day). Those are the common easy fixes, I believe.


*Apart from seriously niche cases, like diplomancer cheese