This Forum is (still) wrong about CR (and Wizards)

[Beheld]

Something that comes up off and on, including pretty much whenever balance comes up in this thread is the "forum consensus" that man, if you just pick some Wizards, you can walk into any fight and just totally body monsters of CR = Party level with no challenge if you just pick the right spells. Apply as you like to Druid/Cleric/Artificer/Archivist too.

But the irksome thing about this, is it pollutes every part of every balance conversation, but is never justified anywhere outside of repeated citation to forum consensus. This isn't necessarily new, by any means, but it's annoying.

I will, briefly, talk about balance:

1) Yes, if you break the RNG, you can be OP. But so can anyone. Wizards can stack a bunch of feats with Arcane Thesis to cast super dumb Orb Spells. Good for them. Barbarians can stack super dumb feats to get 1:32 power attack ratios or whatever and break the RNG that way. Yes, Wizards can totally cast off of taint with DC 123 save or dies, no one cares, because that's not a thing people actually play. (Diplomacy is also broken, but available to everyone, and falls under 3 below.)

2) Infinite spells per day or "very large numbers of spells per day" aka Persist all your buffs for free. Yes, if you DMM persist, or take 3 levels of incantatrix, or are a spelldancer, you can walk around with a suite of buffs that are effectively having like 50 times the spells per day, or alternatively, just time shift to a timeless plane to reprepare spells whenever your buffs run out, even if you have to do it every 10 rounds. That's also broken, and if, unlike above RNG breaking, it's at least playable, It is probably the case if a single feat can be removed from the game (and you play with no timeless planes, or encounters on timeless planes where Illithids try to eat your brain) and your entire strategy falls apart, that it isn't the best measure against CR.

3) Minionmancy. Minionmancy is the first broken thing that is actually spells, and it's basically the only broken spells. It's Animate Dead, Planar Bindings (all three), Gate, Dominate, Charm + Diplomacy, Animate Dread Warrior, Command Undead, and Rebuke Undead (on shadows for infinite shadow army). Basically anything that gives you a huge pile of minions for spells yesterday or a week or a month ago instead of today.

Now, those things are actually broken. But if you just make a Wizard, and you prepare some spells in your spell slots, and then you cast those spells you prepared at some encounters, you know, like the things probably like 90% of people who play D&D do most of the time, you end up with a situation in which the Wizards do not actually destroy appropriate CR and instead are pretty much right about even, along with Clerics. Druids are filthy cheaters who are slightly stronger because they also get to be fighters and carry around pocket fighters, and then everyone else underperforms.

Now, I say things like this all the time in balance discussions, and no matter what happens 100% of the time, people tell me I'm wrong, but then refuse to even provide any kind of evidence or demonstration.

So this thread exists to be the demonstration thread, if anyone thinks they have an actual demonstration for Wizards blowing apart CR with their prepared spells, I'm down to hear it. (Also, while I'm here, I will totally take requests for people who think they can demonstrate fighters keeping up if they really want.)

[Zanos]

I'm not sure that opening a thread with "everyone else is wrong and I am right, now prove me wrong" is the best way to invite productive discourse.

[Beheld]

I'm not sure that opening a thread with "everyone else is wrong and I am right, now prove me wrong" is the best way to invite productive discourse.

Seemed to work great for Draco. Plenty of productive discussion even if none of it came from him. If people disagree, they are welcome to demonstrate that I am wrong. If they don't, then they don't. I guess I just don't see how this could possibly prevent productive discussion that would have otherwise occurred when it's a subject no one is willing to talk about.

[Quertus]

Tainted Sorcerer is kinda my go-to prestige class, but no sane person walks around with huge piles of taint (get it?).

I am kinda curious, both about how this thread will turn out, and this supposed 1:32 ratio. I know Frenzied Berserker does a bit to improve the ratio, but that's the limit of my knowledge on the subject.

[Beheld]

Tainted Sorcerer is kinda my go-to prestige class, but no sane person walks around with huge piles of taint (get it?).

I am kinda curious, both about how this thread will turn out, and this supposed 1:32 ratio. I know Frenzied Berserker does a bit to improve the ratio, but that's the limit of my knowledge on the subject.

I mean, I assume that technically all things that double all your damage on a charge are also doubling your power attack damage without a corresponding additional penalty to AB (but really AC). So if you are Leap Attack, Valorous, Orc feat that doubles charge damage (or Orc Racial Substitution?) BattleJumping whatever, and that one feat in Fiendish Codex you get for being a minion of a demon, then you are effectively taking -1 AC and gaining 32 damage (per attack) on a jumping charge.

[XionUnborn01]

Seemed to work great for Draco. Plenty of productive discussion even if none of it came from him. If people disagree, they are welcome to demonstrate that I am wrong. If they don't, then they don't. I guess I just don't see how this could possibly prevent productive discussion that would have otherwise occurred when it's a subject no one is willing to talk about.

I think that he's saying that people wont want to answer because of the hostile tone. Also, it ended with Draco getting banned.

[Gusmo]

Polymorph is a very real example at many tables of, sometimes inadvertently, completely dominating what was supposed to otherwise be a very challenging encounter. In the words of this article (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a), even Wizards of the Coast admits that polymorph is "too darn good." The article rightly points out that every new monster book added to the game makes the spell stronger, but there are plenty of core forms that are stupidly good.

[flappeercraft]

Something that comes up off and on, including pretty much whenever balance comes up in this thread is the "forum consensus" that man, if you just pick some Wizards, you can walk into any fight and just totally body monsters of CR = Party level with no challenge if you just pick the right spells. Apply as you like to Druid/Cleric/Artificer/Archivist too.

But the irksome thing about this, is it pollutes every part of every balance conversation, but is never justified anywhere outside of repeated citation to forum consensus. This isn't necessarily new, by any means, but it's annoying.

I will, briefly, talk about balance:

1) Yes, if you break the RNG, you can be OP. But so can anyone. Wizards can stack a bunch of feats with Arcane Thesis to cast super dumb Orb Spells. Good for them. Barbarians can stack super dumb feats to get 1:32 power attack ratios or whatever and break the RNG that way. Yes, Wizards can totally cast off of taint with DC 123 save or dies, no one cares, because that's not a thing people actually play. (Diplomacy is also broken, but available to everyone, and falls under 3 below.)

2) Infinite spells per day or "very large numbers of spells per day" aka Persist all your buffs for free. Yes, if you DMM persist, or take 3 levels of incantatrix, or are a spelldancer, you can walk around with a suite of buffs that are effectively having like 50 times the spells per day, or alternatively, just time shift to a timeless plane to reprepare spells whenever your buffs run out, even if you have to do it every 10 rounds. That's also broken, and if, unlike above RNG breaking, it's at least playable, It is probably the case if a single feat can be removed from the game (and you play with no timeless planes, or encounters on timeless planes where Illithids try to eat your brain) and your entire strategy falls apart, that it isn't the best measure against CR.

3) Minionmancy. Minionmancy is the first broken thing that is actually spells, and it's basically the only broken spells. It's Animate Dead, Planar Bindings (all three), Gate, Dominate, Charm + Diplomacy, Animate Dread Warrior, Command Undead, and Rebuke Undead (on shadows for infinite shadow army). Basically anything that gives you a huge pile of minions for spells yesterday or a week or a month ago instead of today.

Now, those things are actually broken. But if you just make a Wizard, and you prepare some spells in your spell slots, and then you cast those spells you prepared at some encounters, you know, like the things probably like 90% of people who play D&D do most of the time, you end up with a situation in which the Wizards do not actually destroy appropriate CR and instead are pretty much right about even, along with Clerics. Druids are filthy cheaters who are slightly stronger because they also get to be fighters and carry around pocket fighters, and then everyone else underperforms.

Now, I say things like this all the time in balance discussions, and no matter what happens 100% of the time, people tell me I'm wrong, but then refuse to even provide any kind of evidence or demonstration.

So this thread exists to be the demonstration thread, if anyone thinks they have an actual demonstration for Wizards blowing apart CR with their prepared spells, I'm down to hear it. (Also, while I'm here, I will totally take requests for people who think they can demonstrate fighters keeping up if they really want.)

I in a way agree but in the same sense I disagree. Spellcasters in general when played as intended are not broken (Except for the druid because its like having 2 characters, god forbid Dvati Druids to have 3) and are to an extent level appropriate and yes other classes get nice things but the thing about spellcasters is the versatility and the ability to prepare for the most part that is gamebreaking. For the most part the true power of a caster is achieved when you prepare whether its through minionmancy, picking specific spells to counter your enemies or Persist your buffs. When on a normal game with little to no optimization the game is actually decently balanced but when you get to the point where you optimize is when you get to the ridiculousness of the playground and what actually is just completely game breaking.

[Rhyltran]

I don't think Beheld is being anything like Draco and I don't think he will (or should) get banned. As for the title? It might seem provocative but it isn't in the hostile kind of way. It's more of a challenge which I don't think is against the rules as he wrote it in a way that's very concise, that doesn't have any flaming or harassment going on. I'm kind of interested to see where this thread will go and again, I hope it stays up because I see nothing wrong with the opening body.

[eggynack]

I don't think Beheld is being anything like Draco and I don't think he will (or should) get banned.
I mean, it's a comparison that he made himself, not one that anyone else made of him. Whatever your opinion of the specific circumstances, someone apparently seeing a Draco thread as something to aim towards is troubling.

[Geddy2112]

I have seen a wizard, level 20, WBL, perfectly and utterly tear apart an encounter/entire session with only spells prepared*.

*The wizard did have wands and scrolls, but none of which were over 4th level. These were mostly minor all day buffs(like endure elements) utility spells(air bubble) and spam wands(CLW, etc), although there could have been scrolls of haste, invisibility, and some other things. These lower level spell slots were juiced with a lot of metamagic.

It basically revolved around spamming time stop, summoning a ton of creatures(I believe elementals were this particular players weapon of choice) and by the time they actually took their turn they were a giant dragon with an utter army of summoned creatures all buffed into next week(as well as the party).

The wizard player took almost an hour in total, and afterwards the dm fiat killed their character and retconned a ton of their actions.

[JNAProductions]

A poorly built Wizard is worse than a poorly built Fighter.

THAT BEING SAID! People on this forum tend to be really damn good at D&D. So they rarely build poor Wizards, and as such, Wizards are considerably stronger.

[TheCorsairMalac]

I agree with the original poster. Wizards really aren't as fantastic as they're made out to be.

The 'Batman' build who has every utility spell under the sun spends all his money on scrolls and spell copying fees.(Because you ARE supposed to spend 100gp/page in your spellbook and 1 page per spell level. In addition to the cost of the scroll. Hopefully your Batman build is also a Bruce Wayne build.)

Stacking a mountain of buffing spells on a single character is--and always will be--very vulnerable to targeted Dispel Magic. An enemy caster your level should have a 50% chance to dispel each buff affecting you. In a single standard action.

Strategies that rely on contingency either only protect against one strategy or one event. It can get you out of a fight, make you immune to grapple, or extremely durable, etc. But it can only do one.

Flight? Teleport? Plane-shifting? There is literally no spellcasting strategy that other classes can't duplicate with items(or their own casters.) There are even boots that let them cast time stop as a swift action. (Boots of Temporal Acceleration, Magic Item Compendium.)

Wizards have the option to excel at pretty much anything, but just like every other class they can't do everything. At least not at once, and not with finite gold.

[JNAProductions]

Except it's pretty easy to break WBL over your knee like Bane breaking the Bat.

[Zanos]

Except it's pretty easy to break WBL over your knee like Bane breaking the Bat.
Considering that any character class can achieve any effect in the game with sufficient WBL, assuming a scenario where WBL is broken from the get go is going to result in useless conclusions.

[icefractal]

Except it's pretty easy to break WBL over your knee like Bane breaking the Bat.But again, that's not really a "Wizard" thing, it's a "breaking WBL" thing that anyone can do with the right items, and not something that's going to fly in a "normal" campaign.

I think the question is pretty interesting - exactly how crazy can a Wizard get without:
* Breaking WBL, spells/day, or the RNG
* Minion-mancy
* Leaving and coming back the next day

Because while they can assuredly be godlike while doing those, that's not a state of affairs applicable to most people's campaigns. I suspect the answer is still pretty damn good, but it may be more like "upper end of normal" than "a whole other league" as commonly portrayed.

However, one factor that might make people reluctant to answer - figuring out the entire details of a Wizard's build and load-out where each spell actually matters is a lot harder than just tossing NI force at the problem. Like how I'm not putting forward an answer myself at the moment, admittedly. :smalltongue:

[Dagroth]

Can't you just (Limited) Wish for spellbooks containing all the Wizard Spells you don't have in your own spellbook(s)? Or at least most of them?

[JNAProductions]

It depends what the others consist of.

Part of the issue is that Fighters can't really interact with anything other than by hitting it with a stick. Wizards can. (To be fair, so can Rogues pretty well-they actually have skill points.)

[eggynack]

Aside from Craft Contingent Spell existing, sure.
Also not really sure why freeing yourself from a grapple would be on that list. Heart of water is right there, with a long duration. And those three things are all aimed towards the exact same goal, getting you out of whatever wacky situation you're in. Some variety of teleportation would handle getting you away from an enemy that's grappling you, and getting away from an enemy that's not grappling you, and getting away from an enemy that would be harmless if only you had some durability, all in one contingency. So, contingency can actually kinda do all of those, if you're so inclined, and given that you're out of harm's way at the end of the contingency, you can just toss on a new contingency to get past the fact that you only had the one contingency.

Anyway, @Beheld, you said, "Druids are filthy cheaters who are slightly stronger because they also get to be fighters and carry around pocket fighters, and then everyone else underperforms." So, what percentage success against what CR relative to the druid would you expect here? If they're only slightly stronger, they can't be doing that much better than underperforming, so this seems within the scope of your challenge.

[Deophaun]

Stacking a mountain of buffing spells on a single character is--and always will be--very vulnerable to targeted Dispel Magic. An enemy caster your level should have a 50% chance to dispel each buff affecting you. In a single standard action.
Not really. A ring of enduring arcana and finding some way to activate a bead of karma will bring your daily buffs up to a +8 CL for the purposes of resisting dispel magic, and you can go further from there. CL boosters are common. Ways to break the cap on dispel magic, on the other hand, are rare, and the effective ones involve specific PrCs. It's actually easy for a wizard to cast his spells out of reach of even chain dispel cast by 99% of CR-appropriate enemies.

[Coretron03]

I agree with the original poster. Wizards really aren't as fantastic as they're made out to be.

The 'Batman' build who has every utility spell under the sun spends all his money on scrolls and spell copying fees.(Because you ARE supposed to spend 100gp/page in your spellbook and 1 page per spell level. In addition to the cost of the scroll. Hopefully your Batman build is also a Bruce Wayne build.)
Boccobs blessed book says hi. Collegiate wizard and elven generalists too.

Stacking a mountain of buffing spells on a single character is--and always will be--very vulnerable to targeted Dispel Magic. An enemy caster your level should have a 50% chance to dispel each buff affecting you. In a single standard action.
Reserves of strength on all your buff spells+beads of karma give you a +7 caster lefel on your spells eaisily, reducing dispeeling chance down to 15% using things that you cant use in a fight well. Theirs also a million more ways to boost caster level. Plus, saying "wizard's aren't uber because other wizards can counter them" isn't very convincing.

Strategies that rely on contingency either only protect against one strategy or one event. It can get you out of a fight, make you immune to grapple, or extremely durable, etc. But it can only do one.
Craft contingent spell feat says hi as well, giving you quite a few more contingency's. Heart of water gets you out of a grapple too and is hour/level

Flight? Teleport? Plane-shifting? There is literally no spellcasting strategy that other classes can't duplicate with items(or their own casters.) There are even boots that let them cast time stop as a swift action. (Boots of Temporal Acceleration, Magic Item Compendium.)
The age old "use magic items to get what wizards get for free" strikes and while somewhat reasonable wizards get wbl to you know. Funny, you can counter casters by getting another caster to buff someone. There is plenty wizards can do that other classes can't, though I'll wait for someone more knowledgeable about this stuff to chip in.
Guess who gets more benefit out of a standard action? The fighter who at best can move or activate a magic item or the wizard who has self buffs and teleport? Its a 2 round timestop thst takes a standard action to gain, Its the equivalent of celerity which is, you guessed it, a wizard spell.

Wizards have the option to excel at pretty much anything, but just like every other class they can't do everything. At least not at once, and not with finite gold. They can do everything actually, although that's generally on the high OP TO side of things but they still can.

Edit: So. Many. Ninja's.

[Deophaun]

Funny thing about druids vs wizards: I nearly killed a level 21 buffed Druid/MoMF druid at level 7 with a Conjuration Specialist/Malconvoker using explosive runes+summon monster III. If I hadn't been restrained in the number of slots I allocated for the runes on previous days, or just had two more days before the encounter, there wouldn't have been an "almost" about it.

[Afgncaap5]

Mmmm... whether I agree with the original post depends on whether I'm thinking about it logically or heuristically.

I think Wizards (and other Tier 1 and Tier 2 casters (much as I hate invoking the Tier system)) are subject to the Shakespeare Rule of Popularity. They are the best at what they do, and they are simultaneously the most overrated. I don't consider myself a killer DM, but I've yet to have people running wizards, psions, sorcerers, clerics, artificers, or whatever actually break the game. (Thinking over it now, I don't think I've actually had high-optimizer players who've gone for Druid in my game as they tend to gravitate toward Wizard or Psion, but I assume they'd be able to levy the same kind of minmaxing with that class.)

Having said all that, of course, I don't have players walking around as sentient thought experiments who apparently walked up to their father, and said "I wish you were dead! Now give me my inheritance WBL!" It's possible that the power gamers hold themselves back to just see where the story takes them. To date I've only had two players attempt Pun-Pun level chicanery, so perhaps I'm lucky and should consider my table experience to be insufficient.

One way or the other, though, I do think that the OP's tone is a little confrontational.

[Uncle Pine]

[original post]

1) You keep using that word, but I'm not sure you understand what RNG means. RNG (Random Number Generator/God) in D&D would refer to the randomness derived from throwing dices.
Dealing 2d6+150 (possible results 152-162) isn't breaking the RNG, it's just stacking modifiers. Using a d2 Crusader is breaking the RNG, because there is no chance but going infinite. Even the Mailman isn't breaking the RNG with his orbs, he's just really good with them.
What you're talking about is "breaking combat". Anyone can do that, Wizard or not, even though that you could argue that Wizards can have 20 contingency Celerities crafted on them (just like everyone else) and are able to cast an extra Celerity on their own to win initiative and then OHKO their opponent. As a side note, people may not play with DCs like 123, but when you reach a CD of 50 or so it's usually enough.
So everyone can break combat if built for it (although Wizards can do that and be guaranteed to win initiative). But Wizard can also break things outside combat, something the poor Barbarian can't. Because the Barbarian can only hit things well. That's why he's only tier 3 (or 4, I forgot): he can only meaningfully contribute in combat. We can discuss about this, but while making people explode using bees may be the work of a filthy optimizer you don't want to play with, flight, teleports and dominate spells are just things that exist. You can't just disregard them and say that Wizards aren't as powerful as other people say.

2) Fast time planes aren't inherently necessary in persisting shenanigans, they're just a nifty addition to the buffing routine. Similarly, even Persist Spell isn't strictly necessary: get a CL of 8, extend hour/level buffs and suddenly they'll last for your whole adventuring day; get a CL of 24, extend those buffs and they'll last for two days. Saying that removing fast time planes and a feat fixes the problem is, again, simplistic.

3) Summon Monster/Natural Ally say hi.

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't agree that Wizards played at a real table will rarely approach the theoretical effectiveness we usually describe around here. However, I believe you ought to go further down the rabbit hole before trying to comprehensively approach the subject, especially if you plan to do it in only 3 points.

[flappeercraft]

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't agree that Wizards played at a real table will rarely approach the theoretical effectiveness we usually describe around here.

Even then they are still pretty powerful but some tables will allow shenanigans of the theoretical effectiveness. For example in the campaign I'm running there is a 9th level kobold who can cast 9th level spells and he is also a pugilist necropolitan

[sleepyphoenixx]

Something that comes up off and on, including pretty much whenever balance comes up in this thread is the "forum consensus" that man, if you just pick some Wizards, you can walk into any fight and just totally body monsters of CR = Party level with no challenge if you just pick the right spells. Apply as you like to Druid/Cleric/Artificer/Archivist too.

Now, those things are actually broken. But if you just make a Wizard, and you prepare some spells in your spell slots, and then you cast those spells you prepared at some encounters, you know, like the things probably like 90% of people who play D&D do most of the time, you end up with a situation in which the Wizards do not actually destroy appropriate CR and instead are pretty much right about even, along with Clerics. Druids are filthy cheaters who are slightly stronger because they also get to be fighters and carry around pocket fighters, and then everyone else underperforms.


You don't need to optimize to destroy equal-CR encounters. You just need to build properly. Some examples.

CR 3: Monster saves are about +7 at the absolute highest. More likely they're 2-4 unless you deliberately target a strong save.
Let's assume a wizard with 18 int and Spell Focus, that's a DC 17. The wizard casts Glitterdust. Your enemies have a 65-75% chance to become blind. Unless you're fighting a monster with Blindsight (incredibly rare at this level) the encounter is pretty much over.
Even targeting a strong save means you have a 50% chance to end the encounter right there, with minimal optimization, and that's still assuming you don't play a race with +Int.

CR 5: Stinking Cloud. Nauseated for 1d4+1 rounds = pretty much dead. Your chance to land the spell actually increases because you can afford a +Int item.

CR 7: Black Tentacles. A +16 grapple modifier will likely win against anything medium or smaller pretty easily. Grappled enemies are practically helpless unless they can teleport. The encounter is over.
Or cast Solid Fog. Anything not a spellcaster that doesn't have Freedom of Movement is a sitting duck for your parties spells without even a chance to save.
And lets not even get into Polymorph.

The pattern continues like this (and that's core-only and limited to BFC). So yes, you totally can walk into an encounter with CR = party level and totally destroy it if you just pick the right spells.

And the higher your level goes the more your advantage regarding spell DCs vs monster saves grows, assuming you build properly and buy items that are good for you. That's not broken, it's simply making smart decisions. You're a caster, so you pick feats/classes/items that make you better at being a caster.

You can get similar results with a buffer, turning your parties numbers into something equal CR enemies simply can't compete with. With no saves to prevent it. There are plenty of long duration buffs, monsters with Dispel are rare, and their CL is usually low for the CR. Not to mention that a dedicated buffer is going to buy a Ring of Enduring Arcana. It's only good sense.
You can summon monsters that multiply your actions per round, soak up damage for you and have SLAs of their own (some of them quite potent, including the spells mentioned above). Again no save, and a dedicated summoner can make his minions the equal of any equal-CR encounter with proper build choices.

That's all assuming a basic wizard that focuses on improving his Int and picks feats/items for his focus (spell DCs, buffs, summons, whatever). No metamagic, no cheese, not even PrCs. And he stomps equal-CR encounters to pieces once he gets past the low levels.
Then he goes looking through splatbooks. More no SR, no save spells. More feats/items to improve his stick. Prestige Classes (it doesn't even have to be Incantatrix). Stuff like Uncanny Forethought.

[Beheld]

I want to begin by clarifying a few points:

1) First, yes, I also forgot to add "having infinite wealth by any of the 500 ways of doing that" as a thing that breaks the game that we acknowledge breaks the game, and then move on to people playing the game.

2) To be clear, when I said, druid is a filthy cheater and everyone else underperforms, that was in relation to Wizards and Clerics. So Druid overperforms, and everyone else underperforms. So yes, Wizards are definitely better than Sorcerers, who in turn are better than Rogues, who are in turn better than Barbarians, who are in turn better than Fighters, but the point was merely that against CR appropriate opposition, Wizards and Clerics end up performing where you would expect them to. Not saying Wizards aren't better than Fighters, they are, just that when you look at what they do to actual encounters, it's level appropriate against their CR.

But yes, now this thread is the same as every other thread, everyone has an opinion, and is willing to say that opinion, but no one ever really wants to back that up with any kind of evidence or demonstration. For example:


For the most part the true power of a caster is achieved when you prepare whether its through minionmancy, picking specific spells to counter your enemies or Persist your buffs. When on a normal game with little to no optimization the game is actually decently balanced but when you get to the point where you optimize is when you get to the ridiculousness of the playground and what actually is just completely game breaking.

My contention is specifically that when you optimize you don't get ridiculous, you get level appropriate Wizards fighting level appropriate monsters. (Provided your optimization consists of picking good spells and feats and items, instead of figuring out which RNG you are going to break, and then breaking that RNG.) I would say "a normal game with little to no optimization" only gets by at all by DM's natural tendency to pick lower CR monsters and to play them down to the players level.

Now, if you disagree, are you willing to try to work out some kind of method of demonstrating your conclusion, instead of just assertion?


I have seen a wizard, level 20, WBL, perfectly and utterly tear apart an encounter/entire session with only spells prepared*.

*The wizard did have wands and scrolls, but none of which were over 4th level. These were mostly minor all day buffs(like endure elements) utility spells(air bubble) and spam wands(CLW, etc), although there could have been scrolls of haste, invisibility, and some other things. These lower level spell slots were juiced with a lot of metamagic.

It basically revolved around spamming time stop, summoning a ton of creatures(I believe elementals were this particular players weapon of choice) and by the time they actually took their turn they were a giant dragon with an utter army of summoned creatures all buffed into next week(as well as the party).

The wizard player took almost an hour in total, and afterwards the dm fiat killed their character and retconned a ton of their actions.

I mean, sure? But I guess I don't see the point at which the fact that a level 20 Wizard did something with a bunch of Time Stops and Summons is that great. I don't know the specifics, but off the top of my head, CR 19-21 is made up of Balor, Pit Fiend, Tarrasque, Titan, and 21 Dragons. Balor's and Pit Fiends both have Greater Teleport at will, the Titan has Etherealness and Gate, and the Tarraque has a DC 36 Frightful Presence, and DR 15 Epic. So Wizards blowing all their 9th level slots to Time stop in order to summon an army of elementals seems like it would work on none of them. And the Dragons are universally Huge or larger creatures with faster than 100ft fly speeds who are unlikely to be inside most of the time and can just fly away for the rounds needed to outwait all the summon spells, and, if they are inside, can use their casting to just go outside, loop around, and come back after the durations of the Summon army have run out.

It seems like pretty universally, against CR 20ish opposition, if you Time Stop to summon monsters, you are spending lots of spell slots to minorly inconvenience a level appropriate opposition. I could imagine some situation in which you might be able to effectively accomplish something, but not most situations. I mean, do you really want to focus on demonstrating that a level 20 Wizard can break CR? I'd personally prefer something in the 5-14 range, for a whole host of reasons, including people playing at those levels and them being less exhaustive to run.


Polymorph is a very real example at many tables of, sometimes inadvertently, completely dominating what was supposed to otherwise be a very challenging encounter. In the words of this article (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a), even Wizards of the Coast admits that polymorph is "too darn good." The article rightly points out that every new monster book added to the game makes the spell stronger, but there are plenty of core forms that are stupidly good.

I think in general Polymorph is both a lot less good than people think it is, and also is a terribly written mess that you can never count on for anything because no two people can agree on what it does. For example, some people say "Polymorph is great because you can turn into a Cryo Hydra and use the spell as a slightly more powerful Cone of Cold a few times in a single encounter" but I can think of at least two arguments for why you can't even turn into a Cryo Hydra at all! But if you want to argue that you can turn into templated creatures, then I am willing to acknowledge that under that interpretation, Polymorph is definitely broken, since you can turn into a Half Dragon (Red) Half Dragon (Blue) Half Dragon (Black) ect. ect. ect. Troll who turns everything into non-lethal and then has a 263 Strength score and a 134 Dex score and a 83 Con score and a 125 Natural Armor bonus. But I don't think it makes sense to argue that you can polymorph into templated creatures, so I think for the most part, polymorph is just overrated.

EDIT: @Sleepypheonix, as more of what I'm talking about, your post will take some time to address, please be patient.

[Bad Wolf]

I think the question is pretty interesting - exactly how crazy can a Wizard get without:
* Breaking WBL, spells/day, or the RNG
* Minion-mancy
* Leaving and coming back the next day



Fast Time (or whatever it's called) demiplane and go nuts. Go in, cast a spell or two, go back out, prepare a whole new set.

Shapechange into a Zodar and have fun with wishes. Or Chronotyrn or Choker or whatever.

Also, what's RNG?

EDIT: Why can't you turn into a Cryohydra?

[Gusmo]

Arguing about what polymorph is supposed to do doesn't change its history as one of the most complained about things in 3rd edition. This is demonstrated by the article it spawned in response to all the complaints, and then the line of "aspect of..." spells written so that tables which had banned polymorph still had a similar but not so overpowered way to replace it. You can dumpster dive for individual threads about it on various forums if you want, but do you really think the article I linked to came out of nowhere? I have witnessed it confounding DMs in real games firsthand, and I'm sure many others here have as well. This is not a rules debate where a nuanced discussion about the meaning of exact language takes place. It's simply a fact of history that polymorph has caused many problems at many tables.

[Uncle Pine]

I think in general Polymorph is both a lot less good than people think it is, and also is a terribly written mess that you can never count on for anything because no two people can agree on what it does. For example, some people say "Polymorph is great because you can turn into a Cryo Hydra and use the spell as a slightly more powerful Cone of Cold a few times in a single encounter" but I can think of at least two arguments for why you can't even turn into a Cryo Hydra at all! But if you want to argue that you can turn into templated creatures, then I am willing to acknowledge that under that interpretation, Polymorph is definitely broken, since you can turn into a Half Dragon (Red) Half Dragon (Blue) Half Dragon (Black) ect. ect. ect. Troll who turns everything into non-lethal and then has a 263 Strength score and a 134 Dex score and a 83 Con score and a 125 Natural Armor bonus. But I don't think it makes sense to argue that you can polymorph into templated creatures, so I think for the most part, polymorph is just overrated.
A cryohydra isn't a templated monster: it's straight out of the book under the hydra entry. A cryo/pyrohydra is no more of a templated monster than a carpet animated object with the Blind (Ex) special attack.

[Coidzor]

My contention is specifically that when you optimize you don't get ridiculous, you get level appropriate Wizards fighting level appropriate monsters. (Provided your optimization consists of picking good spells and feats and items, instead of figuring out which RNG you are going to break, and then breaking that RNG.) I would say "a normal game with little to no optimization" only gets by at all by DM's natural tendency to pick lower CR monsters and to play them down to the players level.

Figure out what you actually mean and say that instead of Random Number Generator. It will make your communication a lot clearer.


Now, if you disagree, are you willing to try to work out some kind of method of demonstrating your conclusion, instead of just assertion?

Are you?


And the Dragons are universally Huge or larger creatures with faster than 100ft fly speeds who are unlikely to be inside most of the time

Dragons having lairs is pretty well established, actually.


I think in general Polymorph is both a lot less good than people think it is, and also is a terribly written mess that you can never count on for anything because no two people can agree on what it does. For example, some people say "Polymorph is great because you can turn into a Cryo Hydra and use the spell as a slightly more powerful Cone of Cold a few times in a single encounter" but I can think of at least two arguments for why you can't even turn into a Cryo Hydra at all!

But then refuse to give them. :smallannoyed:

[Harlekin]

You don't need to optimize to destroy equal-CR encounters. You just need to build properly. Some examples.

CR 3: Monster saves are about +7 at the absolute highest. More likely they're 2-4 unless you deliberately target a strong save.
Let's assume a wizard with 18 int and Spell Focus, that's a DC 17. The wizard casts Glitterdust. Your enemies have a 65-75% chance to become blind. Unless you're fighting a monster with Blindsight (incredibly rare at this level) the encounter is pretty much over.
Even targeting a strong save means you have a 50% chance to end the encounter right there, with minimal optimization, and that's still assuming you don't play a race with +Int.

CR 5: Stinking Cloud. Nauseated for 1d4+1 rounds = pretty much dead. Your chance to land the spell actually increases because you can afford a +Int item.

CR 7: Black Tentacles. A +16 grapple modifier will likely win against anything medium or smaller pretty easily. Grappled enemies are practically helpless unless they can teleport. The encounter is over.
Or cast Solid Fog. Anything not a spellcaster that doesn't have Freedom of Movement is a sitting duck for your parties spells without even a chance to save.
And lets not even get into Polymorph.

The pattern continues like this (and that's core-only and limited to BFC). So yes, you totally can walk into an encounter with CR = party level and totally destroy it if you just pick the right spells.

And the higher your level goes the more your advantage regarding spell DCs vs monster saves grows, assuming you build properly and buy items that are good for you. That's not broken, it's simply making smart decisions. You're a caster, so you pick feats/classes/items that make you better at being a caster.

You can get similar results with a buffer, turning your parties numbers into something equal CR enemies simply can't compete with. With no saves to prevent it. There are plenty of long duration buffs, monsters with Dispel are rare, and their CL is usually low for the CR. Not to mention that a dedicated buffer is going to buy a Ring of Enduring Arcana. It's only good sense.
You can summon monsters that multiply your actions per round, soak up damage for you and have SLAs of their own (some of them quite potent, including the spells mentioned above). Again no save, and a dedicated summoner can make his minions the equal of any equal-CR encounter with proper build choices.

That's all assuming a basic wizard that focuses on improving his Int and picks feats/items for his focus (spell DCs, buffs, summons, whatever). No metamagic, no cheese, not even PrCs. And he stomps equal-CR encounters to pieces once he gets past the low levels.
Then he goes looking through splatbooks. More no SR, no save spells. More feats/items to improve his stick. Prestige Classes (it doesn't even have to be Incantatrix). Stuff like Uncanny Forethought.

I think sleepyphoenixx gave a good summary of what a core wizard can do (without polymorph) at different levels. It all ends with "there is at least a 70% chance that the wizard ended the encounter in the first round, without anybody else in the party contributing".

I think now the OP should answer this and argue his point in response to this post.

[Beheld]

You don't need to optimize to destroy equal-CR encounters. You just need to build properly. Some examples.

I disagree, do you think you can demonstrate this?


CR 3: Monster saves are about +7 at the absolute highest. More likely they're 2-4 unless you deliberately target a strong save.
Let's assume a wizard with 18 int and Spell Focus, that's a DC 17. The wizard casts Glitterdust. Your enemies have a 65-75% chance to become blind. Unless you're fighting a monster with Blindsight (incredibly rare at this level) the encounter is pretty much over.
Even targeting a strong save means you have a 50% chance to end the encounter right there, with minimal optimization, and that's still assuming you don't play a race with +Int.

What you are talking about is how you have an ability to Blind creatures for 3 rounds that's not nothing, but that's also not ending the encounter right there.

First off, you have a bunch of monsters that try to ambush you, and they might have already done their thing. Secondly, you have a bunch of monsters that even blinded, for three rounds, you would have to do significant work to kill. And all of this is using your standard action, and your best spell, that you apparently prepare at least 4 times a day, to have a 50% chance. If you fail or succeed, what are you doing in the second round? It's not casting scorching ray, because that would cut into your Glitterdust for next encounter. If you fail to blind them, what are you doing then?

There are a lot of CR 3 Monsters, but let's break this down:

Here are the CR 3 SRD monsters that can "run away" for 3 rounds, and come back and be a threat:

Allip, Shadow, Earth Elemental, Minor Xorn: all of these dive into the ground and you can't do anything until the Glitterdust wears off.
Air Elemental, 50ft perfect fly after blind, Arrowhawk, 30ft Perfect Fly after Glitterdust, 10 Mephits, all have fly speeds and fast healing, all 12 of these can just ascend straight up (A couple mephits can't, but that's not the end of the world) for three rounds, and in the mephits place, possibly fly off to heal up, and then come right back to fight.
7 Dragons and the Pegasus with fly speeds of at least 100ft (average) if not faster, who if they are outside at all (probably) can just tear off into the air for three rounds and then come back.
Ethereal Maruader and Ethereal Filcher both just got to the Ethereal Plane and wait until they can see again.
Dryad can just Tree Stride to anywhere else and come back in 3 rounds.

That's 26 of 70 Right there that aren't beaten by a failed save.

Then we have the ones that are either too stupid (Ankeg, Giant Owl, Giant Eagle, Praying Mantis, Wasp) or often enough reasonably inside in tight areas (Yeth Hound) that they might not be able to do the same thing. But on the other hand, they might totally be able to.

Then we have the already blind ones, Gelatinous Cube and Assassin Vine, The Unicorn that can teleport away, but has to be careful about where it goes, since it doesn't necessarily know it will only be blind for 3 rounds. Also there's the Formian Warrior with SR 18 against your CL of 3.

Then you have all the ones that are still dangerous when blind, like the Yeth Hound, Dryad, and Ettercap, that all have huge AoE action denial effects they can use while blind, or the Locust Swarm, which can keep eating and nauseating people, or the Magmin with AoE fire damage and weapon melting, or the Wight, Cockatrice, Rust Monster which while half as likely to hit, are still things you really don't want to get hit by anyway.

And then there are monsters that are so tanky, they will probably still be alive in 3 rounds, like the Grick or Animate Object.

Of course, then there are ambush monsters, the Derro and Lion are the only ones I can see that are definitely that, and haven't been addressed elsewhere, where after they do their ambush, if you kill them you still only got the same result you were supposed to get.

Now even after all that, you only blind things that do fail the save for 3 rounds. So if 47 of 70 monster encounters are not won even with a failed save, and the other 23 you still have to prove you can kill them in 3 rounds to say you actually won the encounter. Do you see what I mean about overrated?

If you prepared Glitterdust in your four highest level spell slots, and walked into 4 encounters with 4 Glitterdusts, and you were told "Against 39% of your opposition, you will have a 50% chance of winning the encounter right then and there, and against 61% of opposition, you might, depending on the creature, have a 50% chance of giving you between 0 and 3 rounds of attacking it when it has reduced or no effectiveness, but usually just one round"

Would you really call that "Breaking CR"? Or is that just "Being about as effective as you are supposed to be."

And even that is overstating things, because tons of those 23 "Free wins 50% of the time" might have enough HP or might roll well on 50% miss chance, and still be giving the party more than a little challenge after that 3 rounds is up.

This is why demonstration is so important. Saying "Glitterdust just wins encounters" is easy. In practice, seeing whether or not that is actually true is more valuable.


CR 5: Stinking Cloud. Nauseated for 1d4+1 rounds = pretty much dead. Your chance to land the spell actually increases because you can afford a +Int item.

Except that what you actually did was put a big cloud around them. So even before we get into chances of making the save, and being immune, you just made it so that every monster that runs away runs away and you can't even see it and there's a giant cloud blocking line of sight in between you and it. So the same analysis as before applied to Dragons and Arrowhawks, and Earth Elementals that hide, and any and all flying or teleporting outsiders applies, but now you don't even know if they teleported or stayed in the cloud, and you can't attack the enemies moving away from the cloud on the other side. This even applies to purely ground based creatures like Lycanthropes, are you going to go charge right through your own stinking cloud to get to the Lycan on the other side who might not even be nauseated?

You also have all undead that are immune (Mummy, Wraith, any Skeletons and Zombies) and the Animated Object.

And it's not like a bunch of these monsters aren't ambush monsters like the Dire Lion, Hieracosphinx, Cloaker, Green Hag, Phase Spider (who can also just return to the Ethereal), all of whom might begin combat inside the group, some while literally grappling one person. Or the monsters that rely on gazes that can still cause you problems even when nauseated for 3.5 average rounds.

Again, there is a huge difference between "winning an encounter" and "having a 50% chance to deprive the enemy of 3.5 standard actions, but also I literally can't see them, and neither can the rest of the party."

Stinking Cloud isn't bad, but it's a heck of a lot more useful when you can use it on some enemies and not others than when you are just tossing it on a single creature and hoping it doesn't just walk out the back and wait for the cloud to end.


CR 7: Black Tentacles. A +16 grapple modifier will likely win against anything medium or smaller pretty easily. Grappled enemies are practically helpless unless they can teleport. The encounter is over.
Or cast Solid Fog. Anything not a spellcaster that doesn't have Freedom of Movement is a sitting duck for your parties spells without even a chance to save.

I'm going to have to take a break here for a bought of real life, and get back to this issue. But I hope you can see from the previous two CR analysis why I think it is so important to actually do the analysis and look at how these claims play out in practice, rather than just saying "This spell will win encounters" and skipping the step of looking at how encounters actually respond.

[Beheld]

Arguing about what polymorph is supposed to do doesn't change its history as one of the most complained about things in 3rd edition. This is demonstrated by the article it spawned in response to all the complaints, and then the line of "aspect of..." spells written so that tables which had banned polymorph still had a similar but not so overpowered way to replace it. You can dumpster dive for individual threads about it on various forums if you want, but do you really think the article I linked to came out of nowhere? I have witnessed it confounding DMs in real games firsthand, and I'm sure many others here have as well. This is not a rules debate where a nuanced discussion about the meaning of exact language takes place. It's simply a fact of history that polymorph has caused many problems at many tables.

The other most complained about thing is the grapple rules. The grapple rules have also caused many problems at many tables and confounded many DMs.

My point is that the Polymorph rules are really terrible, irrespective of their power, and that completely apart from that, are heavily overrated in their power.

It's not impossible to find things to do with them that are annoying, given interpretations and dumpster diving, but if casting a spell starts with an argument with your DM, and then moves on from there, it's power is always going to one of those things. I will say that I think both Polymorph Any Object and Shapechange are overpowered, but since they also come online at the same levels as Trap the Soul/Greater Planar Binding and Gate respectively, I'm not sure how much that even means.

I think Alter Self and Polymorph are tremendously overrated when compared against monsters of the appropriate CRs, ELs. They are a lot more like preparing several level appropriate spells in one slot than they are like anything broken, and even then, those spells are still limited heavily by having to actually cast only one.

[Harlekin]

I disagree, do you think you can demonstrate this?



What you are talking about is how you have an ability to Blind creatures for 3 rounds that's not nothing, but that's also not ending the encounter right there.

First off, you have a bunch of monsters that try to ambush you, and they might have already done their thing. Secondly, you have a bunch of monsters that even blinded, for three rounds, you would have to do significant work to kill. And all of this is using your standard action, and your best spell, that you apparently prepare at least 4 times a day, to have a 50% chance. If you fail or succeed, what are you doing in the second round? It's not casting scorching ray, because that would cut into your Glitterdust for next encounter. If you fail to blind them, what are you doing then?

There are a lot of CR 3 Monsters, but let's break this down:

Here are the CR 3 SRD monsters that can "run away" for 3 rounds, and come back and be a threat:

Allip, Shadow, Earth Elemental, Minor Xorn: all of these dive into the ground and you can't do anything until the Glitterdust wears off.
Air Elemental, 50ft perfect fly after blind, Arrowhawk, 30ft Perfect Fly after Glitterdust, 10 Mephits, all have fly speeds and fast healing, all 12 of these can just ascend straight up (A couple mephits can't, but that's not the end of the world) for three rounds, and in the mephits place, possibly fly off to heal up, and then come right back to fight.
7 Dragons and the Pegasus with fly speeds of at least 100ft (average) if not faster, who if they are outside at all (probably) can just tear off into the air for three rounds and then come back.
Ethereal Maruader and Ethereal Filcher both just got to the Ethereal Plane and wait until they can see again.
Dryad can just Tree Stride to anywhere else and come back in 3 rounds.

That's 26 of 70 Right there that aren't beaten by a failed save.

Then we have the ones that are either too stupid (Ankeg, Giant Owl, Giant Eagle, Praying Mantis, Wasp) or often enough reasonably inside in tight areas (Yeth Hound) that they might not be able to do the same thing. But on the other hand, they might totally be able to.

Then we have the already blind ones, Gelatinous Cube and Assassin Vine, The Unicorn that can teleport away, but has to be careful about where it goes, since it doesn't necessarily know it will only be blind for 3 rounds. Also there's the Formian Warrior with SR 18 against your CL of 3.

Then you have all the ones that are still dangerous when blind, like the Yeth Hound, Dryad, and Ettercap, that all have huge AoE action denial effects they can use while blind, or the Locust Swarm, which can keep eating and nauseating people, or the Magmin with AoE fire damage and weapon melting, or the Wight, Cockatrice, Rust Monster which while half as likely to hit, are still things you really don't want to get hit by anyway.

And then there are monsters that are so tanky, they will probably still be alive in 3 rounds, like the Grick or Animate Object.

Of course, then there are ambush monsters, the Derro and Lion are the only ones I can see that are definitely that, and haven't been addressed elsewhere, where after they do their ambush, if you kill them you still only got the same result you were supposed to get.

Now even after all that, you only blind things that do fail the save for 3 rounds. So if 47 of 70 monster encounters are not won even with a failed save, and the other 23 you still have to prove you can kill them in 3 rounds to say you actually won the encounter. Do you see what I mean about overrated?

If you prepared Glitterdust in your four highest level spell slots, and walked into 4 encounters with 4 Glitterdusts, and you were told "Against 39% of your opposition, you will have a 50% chance of winning the encounter right then and there, and against 61% of opposition, you might, depending on the creature, have a 50% chance of giving you between 0 and 3 rounds of attacking it when it has reduced or no effectiveness, but usually just one round"

Would you really call that "Breaking CR"? Or is that just "Being about as effective as you are supposed to be."

This is why demonstration is so important. Saying "Glitterdust just wins encounters" is easy. In practice, seeing whether or not that is actually true is more valuable.



Except that what you actually did was put a big cloud around them. So even before we get into chances of making the save, and being immune, you just made it so that every monster that runs away runs away and you can't even see it and there's a giant cloud blocking line of sight in between you and it. So the same analysis as before applied to Dragons and Arrowhawks, and Earth Elementals that hide, and any and all flying or teleporting outsiders applies, but now you don't even know if they teleported or stayed in the cloud, and you can't attack the enemies moving away from the cloud on the other side. This even applies to purely ground based creatures like Lycanthropes, are you going to go charge right through your own stinking cloud to get to the Lycan on the other side who might not even be nauseated?

You also have all undead that are immune (Mummy, Wraith, any Skeletons and Zombies) and the Animated Object.

And it's not like a bunch of these monsters aren't ambush monsters like the Dire Lion, Hieracosphinx, Cloaker, Green Hag, Phase Spider (who can also just return to the Ethereal), all of whom might begin combat inside the group, some while literally grappling one person. Or the monsters that rely on gazes that can still cause you problems even when nauseated for 3.5 average rounds.

Again, there is a huge difference between "winning an encounter" and "having a 50% chance to deprive the enemy of 3.5 standard actions, but also I literally can't see them, and neither can the rest of the party."

Stinking Cloud isn't bad, but it's a heck of a lot more useful when you can use it on some enemies and not others than when you are just tossing it on a single creature and hoping it doesn't just walk out the back and wait for the cloud to end.



I'm going to have to take a break here for a bought of real life, and get back to this issue. But I hope you can see from the previous two CR analysis why I think it is so important to actually do the analysis and look at how these claims play out in practice, rather than just saying "This spell will win encounters" and skipping the step of looking at how encounters actually respond.

Thank you for your detailed answer! Maybe I misunderstood what you meant in the first place.


Allip, Shadow, Earth Elemental, Minor Xorn: all of these dive into the ground and you can't do anything until the Glitterdust wears off.
Air Elemental, 50ft perfect fly after blind, Arrowhawk, 30ft Perfect Fly after Glitterdust, 10 Mephits, all have fly speeds and fast healing, all 12 of these can just ascend straight up (A couple mephits can't, but that's not the end of the world) for three rounds, and in the mephits place, possibly fly off to heal up, and then come right back to fight.
7 Dragons and the Pegasus with fly speeds of at least 100ft (average) if not faster, who if they are outside at all (probably) can just tear off into the air for three rounds and then come back.
Ethereal Maruader and Ethereal Filcher both just got to the Ethereal Plane and wait until they can see again.
Dryad can just Tree Stride to anywhere else and come back in 3 rounds.

Your totally right, these monsters have easy ways to deal with 3 rounds of blindness and be a threat afterwards.
I just don't see most other classes at level 3 being able to do anything against these monsters. But you're right, maybe thats not the wizard overperforming, it's just that mundanes are hopelessly bad vs. monsters with special movement modes, incorporeal or ethereal creatures and maybe even some other monsters.

[Shackel]

Forcing a creature to flee for an amount of time more than long enough to either run(or leisurely stroll) away, buff yourself to relative oblivion(which 3 rounds at CR3 more than allows you to do) or prepare any other possible solution sounds like a win state to me.

Especially if they just have to flee completely. If one spell can force an encounter into near-complete withdrawal, they've solved the problem, because if nothing else the party has plenty of time to solve it in the time they are predisposed, and if they can't(which brings into question if it was level-appropriate at all), they walk away.

EDIT: And if 39% of your opposition at that CR level can be defeated with one spell(let alone all the NPC enemies), while another, what, ~33% are now forced to run away for 3 rounds... that's not overrated.

That means 72% of encounters of one creature at that CR can be either stomped or forced into a retreat that wins them the battle or gives them an easy out by one person in one turn half the time with mediocre optimization. Without bringing into question the other spells, the other three, their actions or their capabilities. At all.

[Gusmo]

Beheld, you can claim that polymorph's power is overrated if you'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that it was still too powerful for most people. It is also a complex spell, to be sure. But grappling is complicated too, so why was grappling not subject to tons of errata and banned from RPGA, while polymorph was? Because complexity was never the core problem. The problem was that no matter how it was interpreted, it was still too powerful for many tables, including RPGA. If the problem were it being complicated, they could have tried to fix that with the errata sweep where they struck references to polymorph from all other abilities in the game (or most, I'm not sure how successful they were). But they didn't try and fix it, they just left it alone. Then they recommended people not use it, banned it from their own organized play, and created a whole line of spells to replace polymorph at tables where it was banned, because it was simply too powerful. Again, this is not opinion, this is history. It's all substantiated right there in the article I linked to earlier (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a). Unless you're unwilling to take the designer's words at face value, this is basically an open and shut situation.

[Calthropstu]

Can't you just (Limited) Wish for spellbooks containing all the Wizard Spells you don't have in your own spellbook(s)? Or at least most of them?

Yes, yes you can. And when the horrendously pissed off super lich who wrote it appears next to you and turns you into a grease stain for stealing his book, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Don't mess with wishes, they will ALWAYS end badly.

[Beheld]

Forcing a creature to flee for an amount of time more than long enough to either run(or leisurely stroll) away, buff yourself to relative oblivion(which 3 rounds at CR3 more than allows you to do) or prepare any other possible solution sounds like a win state to me.

Especially if they just have to flee completely. If one spell can force an encounter into near-complete withdrawal, they've solved the problem, because if nothing else the party has plenty of time to solve it in the time they are predisposed, and if they can't(which brings into question if it was level-appropriate at all), they walk away.

EDIT: And if 39% of your opposition at that CR level can be defeated with one spell(let alone all the NPC enemies), while another, what, ~33% are now forced to run away for 3 rounds... that's not overrated.

That means 72% of encounters of one creature at that CR can be either stomped or forced into a retreat that wins them the battle or gives them an easy out by one person in one turn half the time with mediocre optimization. Without bringing into question the other spells, the other three, their actions or their capabilities. At all.

1) Buffed to what oblivion? You are a level 3 Wizard. What buffs are you casting (after using all your second level spells) that make it impossible these creatures to fight you in 3 rounds when they come back?

2) "Flee completely" again, three rounds of leaving and 1-2 rounds of coming back means hardly anything. Going 60ft up on the first turn removes like, 95% of what the party can even do, if you shoot a few arrows from the one guy with a bow and maybe do a few HP damage, that's not worthless, but that was also your highest level spell that had a 50% chance of doing nothing and a 50% chance of doing some HP damage. This whole "they ran away" thing is really just not a good argument. They temporarily retreated, and all have vastly faster than the PC fly speeds, you are going to fight them again in 4-5 rounds, only this time they won't be blind and you won't have any 2nd level spells. (and they might have 2 attacks worth of less HP from your Cleric Archer and/or Archer Fighter and/or Archer Rogue who probably only got SA for one round at best, and you probably didn't have an entire party of archers.)

3) Again, to say you actually beat that 39% with one spell you have to first acknowledge: a) You have a 50% chance of doing nothing with your spell, and not beating them at all. b) You have to show how you kill them in 3 rounds while they are blind. If they aren't smart enough or capable enough to flee, maybe your rogue can do that, but then, it sure looks like you didn't beat that encounter, you contributed maybe 50% towards beating the encounter, with the other 50% being the people who prove they can do enough damage to kill the thing in the very limited time window your 50% chance of doing nothing spell grants.

[eggynack]

2) To be clear, when I said, druid is a filthy cheater and everyone else underperforms, that was in relation to Wizards and Clerics. So Druid overperforms, and everyone else underperforms. So yes, Wizards are definitely better than Sorcerers, who in turn are better than Rogues, who are in turn better than Barbarians, who are in turn better than Fighters, but the point was merely that against CR appropriate opposition, Wizards and Clerics end up performing where you would expect them to. Not saying Wizards aren't better than Fighters, they are, just that when you look at what they do to actual encounters, it's level appropriate against their CR.
This isn't particularly clear in the way that I was indicating. While you think the druid is better than classes that are not the druid, your contention in the opening post seems to be that this is a decent advantage, one that perhaps gets you a somewhat above average positioning on your, "Excellent chance against equal CR encounters," scale, but not one that stretches things beyond the realm of plausibility. So, let me put this in a very straightforward manner.

Take a tenth level druid, for the sake of argument. Not necessarily sticking to that if I were to actually do this, but it's a reasonable number, I think, and could represent a final number. It's designed in a high op way, but does not use ridiculous stacking to break the RNG, as you put it, does not have infinite spells/day or even any persistent spells (wouldn't even take the feat), commands no minions that were not called within the day itself (and perhaps not even that) besides the animal companion, and uses direct from book WBL to determine its itemization despite the technical capacity to destroy WBL. I might expect something like primal instinct to be allowed to be extended such that you can cast it one day and apply it the next, because it's a pretty straightforward, cheap, and not particularly ridiculous trick, but that obviously wouldn't be the insane core of power here.

So, we have this explicit rule following tenth level druid. What percentage of CR 10 encounters would you expect it to crush? What percentage of CR 10 encounters would you expect it to get crushed by? What about CR 11? Maybe even CR 12? At what level of performance would you stand back and say, "Huh, I guess characters can do better against monsters than I'd assumed,"? I'd think it would have to happen at some point, because even if druids are better than other tier ones (don't necessarily agree with this contention), they can't be that much better, and, more importantly, they can't possibly be so good as to render this whole construct you're proposing obsolete. As you say, they're slightly stronger because they have pocket fighters and can be fighters themselves. Well, the former can't possibly be offering that much utility at level 10, and even if the latter were all that great, it wouldn't be a main thing I rely on in this analysis.

[ayvango]

Barbarians can stack super dumb feats to get 1:32 power attack ratios or whatever and break the RNG that way.
You could cast lion's charge to get pounce and heroics to get all needed feats. So now you could charge as well as barbarian (arcane disciple to get divine power). That is how every comparison goes: you lists spells that could do the same thing as other class. And it is only one possibility. You could do any other thing too.

The glorious charging barbarian described by has a little efficiency vs regeneration creatures. But wizard could employ efficient strategy to finish them.

[Tuvarkz]

Issue is, you are just naming some of the most commonly known stuff the Wizards (And other T1s) can do to break the game and equal CR encounters solo.

Others have already brought up more stuff the wizard does. I'll add Divinations in general and debuff stacking (negative levels and ability damage, amongst others) to the bunch. And it's not just that. At some point, you need to negate the large majority of spells available to the wizard to stop the class from achieving its gamebreaking potential.

[Beheld]

You could cast lion's charge to get pounce and heroics to get all needed feats. So now you could charge as well as barbarian (arcane disciple to get divine power). That is how every comparison goes: you lists spells that could do the same thing as other class. And it is only one possibility. You could do any other thing too.

The glorious charging barbarian described by has a little efficiency vs regeneration creatures. But wizard could employ efficient strategy to finish them.

Uh...

1) This is not about Wizards versus Barbarians and why Barbarians are great, see for example, what Eggy just quoted above, which I posted elsewhere in this thread.

2) I am talking about how you can come up with some RNG break that breaks the game for a lot of classes, but the specifics of each weird build might be super interesting a in a general sense, in a specific "Wizards versus CR" sense, the fact is that you in 95% of games, those things are not used (probably 99%) so it matters about as little as an argument about how you can beat CR 5 opposition by using a Candle of Invocation to wish for a Belt of Magnificence +50000.

3) Glorious Super Charge Barbarians do lose efficiency versus some enemies, like Aboleths and Ice Devils and other Illusion monsters, but their efficiency against creatures with regeneration is still 100%. If a creature has 2k non-lethal damage after a charge, and heals 5-20 per round, then you have an untold number of rounds to drag their body to the nearest puddle, river, bucket you conveniently have on hand, ect. and drown them to death.


Issue is, you are just naming some of the most commonly known stuff the Wizards (And other T1s) can do to break the game and equal CR encounters solo.

Others have already brought up more stuff the wizard does. I'll add Divinations in general and debuff stacking (negative levels and ability damage, amongst others) to the bunch. And it's not just that. At some point, you need to negate the large majority of spells available to the wizard to stop the class from achieving its gamebreaking potential.

Do you have a way of demonstrating that, or is this merely an assertion, just like all the other assertions?

[Uncle Pine]

http://i.imgur.com/7JaloAX.gif

[Swaoeaeieu]

I read the OP a few times now, and i got to say, i cant figure out what the question is you are asking.

also, what do you mean with breaking RNG?

[eggynack]

Or is this merely an assertion, just like all the other assertions?
I mean, I'm pretty directly asking you to give me some numbers to beat such that you would accept the failure of your claims, so it seems disingenuous to claim that nothing has moved past an assertion. I'm not gonna go into some arbitrary challenge like this with absolutely no at least somewhat defined win state. If 90% of CR 10 monster encounters lack the capacity to plausibly beat a high op 10th level druid, do I win? Do you lose? Is the forum right about CR? You seem oddly unwilling to actually set up failure states for your claims.

[Beheld]

I mean, I'm pretty directly asking you to give me some numbers to beat such that you would accept the failure of your claims, so it seems disingenuous to claim that nothing has moved past an assertion. I'm not gonna go into some arbitrary challenge like this with absolutely no at least somewhat defined win state. If 90% of CR 10 monster encounters lack the capacity to plausibly beat a high op 10th level druid, do I win? Do you lose? Is the forum right about CR? You seem oddly unwilling to actually set up failure states for your claims.

1) I'm at work, so my answers are limited. 2) I'm still literally in the process of replying to someone on page 1, 3) You asked me "How much better than the Wizard does a Druid have to be before you admit that the Wizard is better than the Wizard?" Which is absent literally any possible response because the question is invalid.

If what you want to say is "You are totally right about the Wizard and/or I have absolutely no ability to argue about the Wizard, and I want to argue about the Druid vs CR" may I suggest another thread? I will happily discuss expected Druid success rates in a SGT or in party test, or in whatever you want when I get around to your Druid vs CR thread, but since in this thread I took a position about Wizards and Clerics, I'm mostly going to focus on continuing to response to people who have points about Wizards and Clerics that I am still in the process of responding to.

[Deeds]

But if you just make a Wizard, and you prepare some spells in your spell slots, and then you cast those spells you prepared at some encounters, you know, like the things probably like 90% of people who play D&D do most of the time, you end up with a situation in which the Wizards do not actually destroy appropriate CR and instead are pretty much right about even, along with Clerics.

So this thread exists to be the demonstration thread, if anyone thinks they have an actual demonstration for Wizards blowing apart CR with their prepared spells, I'm down to hear it. (Also, while I'm here, I will totally take requests for people who think they can demonstrate fighters keeping up if they really want.)
Beheld, I agree that the forum has a hivemind bias for Wizards and other tier 1 classes. I agree that your typical session doesn't include the 3 broken things you listed.

However, spellcasters can and have blown apart CR appropriate encounters. I've done it, I've seen others do it, and I've been on the DM side of the table. A web spell may stop the encounter in its tracks, glitterdust may blind the squad of baddies, and persisted mass lesser vigor means all that damage from the troll meant nothing.

Sometimes discussions of OP builds live only in theory (infinite damage builds, level 20 builds.) To say that "I win" spells don't exist is kinda silly.

[eggynack]

1) I'm at work, so my answers are limited.
Long as the answers are in your head, they should take up the space of a rather moderately lengthed sentence to put forth. And they should be in your head. Do you not have a good idea of how good a character has to be against monsters before you think CR is broken, such that you can modify it a bit upwards in this case? If you don't, then I would suggest that your claim, being impossible to falsify because there's no upper limit of success where you're wrong, is a meaningless one.


3) You asked me "How much better than the Wizard does a Druid have to be before you admit that the Wizard is better than the Wizard?" Which is absent literally any possible response because the question is invalid.
That's not what I asked at all. You supposed some specified minor distance in power between the wizard and the druid. Assuming this distance holds, then proving sufficient quality for the druid should serve to disprove your fundamental claims regarding the accuracy of CR.


If what you want to say is "You are totally right about the Wizard and/or I have absolutely no ability to argue about the Wizard, and I want to argue about the Druid vs CR" may I suggest another thread? I will happily discuss expected Druid success rates in a SGT or in party test, or in whatever you want when I get around to your Druid vs CR thread, but since in this thread I took a position about Wizards and Clerics, I'm mostly going to focus on continuing to response to people who have points about Wizards and Clerics that I am still in the process of responding to.

Your thread's argument is that we're wrong about CR. Your assertion in the OP is that druids are only slightly better than wizards, so druidic power should serve adequately as a slightly high end model for wizard power. If your claims are to be consistent, either the druid is somehow so amazing that it transcends any notion of CR, which, I dunno why the wizard wouldn't do so as well in that case, or you should be able to state some values that once reached disprove your claim. Doing the latter should be trivial. Also, you explicitly state in the OP, "Apply as you like to Druid/Cleric/Artificer/Archivist too," which connotes that the claims generalize in this way.

Edit: If you want, I guess you can edit the OP, such that that what you're actually saying is that CR totally holds up specifically and only for clerics and wizards among the tier one classes. Less broad claim, that.

Double-edit: Ooh, or you could say that druids are too beautiful and wondrous to ever be constrained by something so pedestrian as a CR system. That'd work for me.

[daremetoidareyo]

Don't ever ever imply that casters, particularly wizards, can't have every spell or defeat any opponent on the forum!

People get really flippin defensive over exactly that. The reaction is nearly always the same : It's almost like you insulted them.

[Beheld]

Or I could say that the amount by which druids exceed wizard in testing metrics varies based on the kind of testing metric used and the cheese level of the druid in question. I mean druids do really good in level 1-4 tests where there ability to cast a spell they are only supposed to be able to cast at level 9 is just so impressive that it alone can win a huge number of encounters. Presumably if wizards where casting wall of stone at level one they would be doing really well too.

And I could say that regardless of whether I was wrong by some specific amount about how much better druids are than wizards that would not in fact prove that wizards are better than cr, only that I was wrong about druids.

[JustIgnoreMe]

Don't ever ever imply that casters, particularly wizards, can't have every spell or defeat any opponent on the forum!

People get really flippin defensive over exactly that. The reaction is nearly always the same : It's almost like you insulted them.

It's more like a first-year university student wandering into the professors' lounge and saying "Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man" about a matter that was settled, proved beyond reasonable doubt, done and dusted 10 years ago that everyone else is happy to take as a given. Like trying to argue that "maybe 1 x 1 = 2, because how can it equal one? If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect. One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told it's two, and that cannot be."

[eggynack]

Or I could say that the amount by which druids exceed wizard in testing metrics varies based on the kind of testing metric used and the cheese level of the druid in question. I mean druids do really good in level 1-4 tests where there ability to cast a spell they are only supposed to be able to cast at level 9 is just so impressive that it alone can win a huge number of encounters. Presumably if wizards where casting wall of stone at level one they would be doing really well too.
That shouldn't matter overmuch. My analysis wouldn't get too far away from level ten, where that thing you just said is less the case, and if I alter that a bit, I'd probably be making it level eleven.


And I could say that regardless of whether I was wrong by some specific amount about how much better druids are than wizards that would not in fact prove that wizards are better than cr, only that I was wrong about druids.
The thing is though, you weren't all that wrong about how much better druids are. Level ten is the breakpoint where wizards start being pretty close to equal to druids. Anyway, I don't care that much about wizards. You said the forum was wrong about CR. Either druids are so amazing, even at higher levels (they are amazing at higher levels, but their value relative to other tier ones is generally thought to reduce), that they transcend the CR system entirely, which would represent a pretty reasonably sized hole in your contention that tier one casters don't crush CR, or you should be able to give me your estimate of where this class is relative to monsters. Your core contention, after all, isn't just that wizards aren't as great as people think. It's that monsters of a given CR are better than people think.

[Beheld]

It's more like a first-year university student wandering into the professors' lounge and saying "Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man" about a matter that was settled, proved beyond reasonable doubt, done and dusted 10 years ago that everyone else is happy to take as a given. Like trying to argue that "maybe 1 x 1 = 2, because how can it equal one? If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect. One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told it's two, and that cannot be."

Wow that sure looks a whole lot like a demonstration of the point and not at all like a citation to the mighty forum consensus that has never been proved in the last six years this argument or in the years before and that no one ever proves.

[JNAProductions]

My contention is specifically that when you optimize you don't get ridiculous, you get level appropriate Wizards fighting level appropriate monsters. (Provided your optimization consists of picking good spells and feats and items, instead of figuring out which RNG you are going to break, and then breaking that RNG.) I would say "a normal game with little to no optimization" only gets by at all by DM's natural tendency to pick lower CR monsters and to play them down to the players level.

Snipped for length and brevity.

What EXACTLY do you mean by picking good spells, feats, and items? Because, in my own, personal experience, I've crushed an 8th level Wizard, his 5th level Fighter Cohort, and 20 Commoners as a 4th level caster. We were a party of two, by the way.

That might not be the best anecdotal evidence, but the point is good selections typically result in you winning significantly more than 50% of the time, even against enemies that are supposed to be more powerful.

In addition, what about stuff like Guidance of the Avatar? Not a Wizard spell, but a Cleric one, but the point is, it lets you absolutely wreck skill-based encounters if you have warning of them. You can even buy a pretty cheap Lesser Rod Of Persist to persist up to three of them to have emergency +20s to any given spell check.

Plus, Beheld, I've literally played in one of your games. You're not very good at judging encounter difficulty-you threw a "CR 3" monster against me and my group that we had pretty much no chance of defeating, because it was absurdly under-CRed. So I'm inclined to believe the forum at large and my own personal experience more than you.

[eggynack]

You can even buy a pretty cheap Lesser Rod Of Persist.
I don't think this is a thing.

[Goladar]

Uh, isn't a single level 3 PC an effective party level of 1? So shouldn't it have to fight a CR1 creature to determine it's brokenness?

[JNAProductions]

I don't think this is a thing.

It is in PF, at least. Here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/rods/metamagic-rods/).

[JustIgnoreMe]

Wow that sure looks a whole lot like a demonstration of the point and not at all like a citation to the mighty forum consensus that has never been proved in the last six years this argument or in the years before and that no one ever proves.
You should check out some other forums. Perhaps Gleemax, or the Minmaxboards, or Brilliant Gameologists, or literally any of the many many MANY D&D3.5 forums that actually crunched the maths back in the day and posted their results for literally the entire world to see. You're basically trying to restart a long-dead topic. Feel free to do so, but don't be surprised when people suggest you read around the subject first.

[eggynack]

It is in PF, at least. Here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/rods/metamagic-rods/).
Not really. Persistent spell is a completely different thing in PF.

[Beheld]

@eggynack How about if you want to talk about how great some specific cheese build is, you make a thread where you post that cheese build and then I post. "Wow that's really op" and then we can skip the part where you clutter up this thread until I post "an average druid is about X% better than an average wizard at a level 10 SGT" and then you yell "Gotcha! This not at all average druid that uses assume supernatural ability and aberration wildshape gets regeneration and then casts a spell to be immune to nonlethal and 100%s the SGT. And next level casts energy immunity acid to be immune to all damage. This proves that glitterdust is actually a save or die that wins fights by itself at level 3."

And then I can talk about wizards in this thread and I can point out that said druid is Probably not representative of most druids in that thread.

[eggynack]

@eggynack How about if you want to talk about how great some specific cheese build is, you make a thread where you post that cheese build and then I post. "Wow that's really op" and then we can skip the part where you clutter up this thread until I post "an average druid is about X% better than an average wizard at a level 10 SGT" and then you yell "Gotcha! This not at all average druid that uses assume supernatural ability and aberration wildshape gets regeneration and then casts a spell to be immune to nonlethal and 100%s the SGT. And next level casts energy immunity acid to be immune to all damage. This proves that glitterdust is actually a save or die that wins fights by itself at level 3."

How about you have already well defined what cheese is in the context of this thread, and if literally all you care about is wizards then you shouldn't say we're wrong about CR as a whole. Also, gotta say, you don't even need a single feat to get regeneration at level ten.

Edit: Also, since when is this about "average" characters? Your opening post specifically excludes certain things, but feat, spell, and item optimization seems allowed to the extent it doesn't cross that boundary.

[Beheld]

You should check out some other forums. Perhaps Gleemax, or the Minmaxboards, or Brilliant Gameologists, or literally any of the many many MANY D&D3.5 forums that actually crunched the maths back in the day and posted their results for literally the entire world to see. You're basically trying to restart a long-dead topic. Feel free to do so, but don't be surprised when people suggest you read around the subject first.

So you have no evidence and you are unwilling to present any and I just need to read the other forums that I've been posting at for years that have also failed to demonstrate the same point. Or alternatively you could present evidence or leave if you reject the fundamental conceit of the thread, that these things will be demonstrated with something besides "but I know it's true because the forum says so".

[Uncle Pine]

@eggynack How about if you want to talk about how great some specific cheese build is, you make a thread where you post that cheese build and then I post. "Wow that's really op" and then we can skip the part where you clutter up this thread until I post "an average druid is about X% better than an average wizard at a level 10 SGT" and then you yell "Gotcha! This not at all average druid that uses assume supernatural ability and aberration wildshape gets regeneration and then casts a spell to be immune to nonlethal and 100%s the SGT. And next level casts energy immunity acid to be immune to all damage. This proves that glitterdust is actually a save or die that wins fights by itself at level 3."

And then I can talk about wizards in this thread and I can point out that said druid is Probably not representative of most druids in that thread.

Here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?439991-Being-Everything-Eggynack-s-Comprehensive-Druid-Handbook) However, I must warn you that this is most likely representative of most druids everywhere - because it probably includes them.

So, same question as eggynack but different subject: what % of any given published monsters of a CR should a Wizard be able to best to be considered by you to perform reasonably over the designers' expectations?

[eggynack]

Basically, you're just leaving things arbitrarily undefined enough that you can claim correctness no matter what. Someone presents a wizard that beats 80% of equal CR encounters with no problem? Sorry, that's not enough, we're going to need some unstated amount more than that. I implicitly claim that I could do whatever it is you're asking with a druid? Sorry, even though I explicitly included druids in my claim, I'm going to exclude that where convenient. Someone manages to present you with some tricks that can overcome encounters at your desired level without seeming run up against your explicit limits? Sorry, that's too powerful so it goes up against a completely unstated rule, or otherwise happens to fall into the category of "breaking RNG", whatever that's supposed to mean. You've set things up so you can't fail, because you can arbitrarily turn aside anything that breaks your supposed challenge in half, and if failure is impossible then success is meaningless.

[Menzath]

Despite the proposed limits, I think that in 3.5 options=power.
More is obviously better, so a wizard with 40 different things he COULD do, compared to mundanes that have 5, is severely underpowered.
And as far as beating equal or higher challenge encounters, the same could be said.

[sleepyphoenixx]

You've either missed most of my point or you're being deliberately obtuse.

First: That 50% chance for a monster to fail the save? That's both targeting a good save and for a wizard that doesn't optimize his DCs at all (18 Int + Spell Focus is pretty much the least you can do without being an idiot about it).
The more regular case for all but the most casual gamers is at least basic knowledge of what types get what good saves. Con, Dex and Wis can usually at least be estimated.
So usually that chance to negate the encounter is somewhere between 65-80% if you use a spell that suits your enemy. If you don't optimize your DCs at all despite being a BFC caster.

Even if you don't want to metagame, wizards have high int and all knowledge skills for a reason. They take no action, and "undead generally have good will but weak ref and fort saves" is precisely the kind of basic, useful information they should provide. This is the stuff a wizard would learn, fluffed appropriately.

Then there are tons and tons of DC boosters scattered through the books, some school specific, some not.
Some examples:
Spell Focus, Greater Spell Focus (+1 each) - school specific. Note that a Master Specialist gets GSF for free.
Spell Focus:Good (+1) & Mark of the Enlightened Soul - MotES gives all your spells the [Good] descriptor for 3 rounds as a swift action. It also empowers 3rd level or lower spells against evil targets.
Cold Spell Focus, GCSF (+1 each) & Snowcasting - Snowcasting gives all your spells the [Cold] descriptor so they all benefit.
Snowcasting & Drakken Familiar ACF with Draconic Aura:Energy(Cold) (+1-4, depending on level)
Snowcasting & Icemail Armor/Cape of the White Witch (+2 to cold spells each)
That's just what comes to mind right now. All of the above stack, and there's tons and tons more DC boosters that stack as well.
Bottom line? A caster that wants to be good at BFC and selects his feats/gear accordingly WILL land the spell against equal-CR enemies 95% of the time.

You're basically saying "A wizard that doesn't do anything for his spell DCs and doesn't bother picking his spells intelligently "only" has a 50% chance of completely negating an encounter in the first round, so that's pretty balanced".
What you're forgetting is the corollary that "A wizard that actually picks his spells intelligently and builds to succeed at what he's doing will crush most equal-CR encounters with a 90-95% chance. With his first spell."
That's what people are talking about when they talk about the OPness of T1 casters. A DM trying to challenge a remotely well-build T1 shouldn't use equal-CR encounters, because they're not challenging for one, let alone a party with 2 or more. That this leads to problems with classes that ARE challenged by equal-CR encounters shouldn't need explanation.

Second: Spell selection. No, you don't prepare Glitterdust 4 times. Those were examples, using the most common core BFC spells.
Because i'm not going to type up a detailed analysis of every wizard BFC spell ever printed. There's handbooks that do that kind of thing if you're interested.

More examples? More examples:
Wall of Thorns will trap anything that isn't incorporeal or capable of teleport. You need a DC 25 strength check to move even 5ft (that's a 50% chance for something with 40 Strength, fyi). Throw a Haboob/Vortex of Teeth on there and just wait for your enemies to die. No save, just death.
Wall of Sand does something similar. It's easier to move through, but it deafens and blinds everything withing. Hope your emergency teleport doesn't have a verbal component. Combine it with any other BFC (even a basic 1st level Entangle will do) and watch your enemies suffocate to death if you can't be bothered to throw some cheap AoE damage on there.

There are tons such combos if you just bother to look at your spells and think, starting at level 2 with stuff like Drifts of the Shalm + Blood Snow (which will absolutely murder most encounters not immune). Or just look at the handbooks available if you're lazy, because people have already figured this stuff out.
And that's all assuming you don't have 2 or more casters working together, picking their spell selection for such synergies.
The basic concept of "lock them down in something that kills them" shouldn't be that hard to understand. And since you know you'll be using it you can actually make your party immune to it beforehand.
Example: Your party members don't care about Stinking Cloud if they have Blindsight and immunity to poison. A warforged chain fighter will stand in Blood Snow all day and lock down your enemies with no problems. Your party rogue will probably be quite happy about you casting Darkness if you inform him in time to buy a wand of Ebon Eyes and use it first.
Agree on a strategy instead of just casting whatever and you'll be a lot more successful. Spellcasters benefit from playing smart, who knew?

The general idea is that you either scout/gather information to know what you're up against or you only prepare a small selection of generally useful spells and leave slots free to prepare accordingly once you get that information.
Or you could just prepare Summon Monster. SM3 and up come with an absolutely enormous pile of SLAs that will get you out of 95% of situations and you can choose on the fly if preparation is too much for you.
Uncanny Forethought does the same in general, but it's probably too high-op for this argument.
For druids it's even easier. Summon Nature's Ally with the proper feat support (even disregarding Greenbound) will absolutely crush any equal-CR encounter if you actually take the time to know your summon lists and summon the appropriate thing to what you're facing.

Or you could just be a buffer. It doesn't really matter just what you're up against if the rest of the party only misses on a natural 1, almost always wins initiative, gets extra attacks, has high enough AC/saves to make being actually hit the exception instead of the rule and is immune to the most dangerous attacks.
I'll grant that wizards don't make the best buffers (that's the domain of clerics and bards), but they do the job well enough against equal-CR encounters. That's before adding PrCs like War Weaver of course.

Again this is disregarding PrCs, which will appear in the vast majority of games.
Shadowcraft Mages don't care about spell selection at all, they just heighten Silent Image and pick on the fly.
War Weaver's store an entire array of short-term buffs to release at the start of combat as a move action, and buff the whole party even with single-target spells.
Mage of the Arcane Order also picks spells on the fly. Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil crushes most encounters with sheer power. Malconvokers bury encounters in hordes of beefed-up demons.
Swiftblades not only cast quickened Haste by default, they're also incredibly hard to hit or lock down without expending any further spell slots. Not to mention they get an extra standard action every round, just because.
This is not cheese. People pick up PrCs that make them better at what they do (unless they're druids), and there's a lot of really good caster PrCs for every flavor you may want.

[Segev]

I've been on this theme in a couple other threads recently, but I think an interesting question lies in determining just how many spells a wizard must have available in his spellbook before he really is living up to being Tier 1. People gave some interesting efforts towards a "free spells only" spellbook for a wizard when I posted a thread asking about it. But I didn't actually ask in that thread if such a wizard was still Tier 1.

What I mean by this is that the wizard spends literally 0 gp on his spellbook. I asked it originally because I have had DMs who were stingy - often not purposefully - with how available other wizards were and/or 'magic mart' scrolls were to acquire spells with gp. So I was wondering what spells the Playground would recommend be in a spellbook if the only spells the wizard had in it were the ones he got for free for being a wizard of X level.

The difference between a Wizard and a Sorcerer that puts the Wizard in Tier 1 and the Sorcerer in Tier 2 is generally accepted to be that the Wizard has so many more niche options, the ability to either pull out a "stored" version of the perfect spell (e.g. a scroll he got for half the price a sorcerer would spend) or to come back tomorrow or to divine the adventure and prepare specifically for it. Where the Sorcerer has to have a generally useful swath of fewer spells known.

So, then, is a wizard with the barest minimum spell access - i.e. what he gets for free as he levels up - still Tier 1?


I bring this up here because the cut-off point between Not Tier 1 and Tier 1 in terms of spells-in-spellbook can be used to judge how accurate Beheld's claims are. He's right that white room discussions tend to assume semi-arbitrary spell access for the wizard. The trouble with real play is that wizards' access to other wizards' spellbooks or to scrolls with spells they don't already know is highly variable by campaign and DM. So, again, knowing how many spells they must have in their spellbooks before they really live up to their reputation can help us judge things. (Please note that I'm not describing a WBL limit, but rather a limit on access to outside sources for spells at any price.)



As a side note, the Batman Wizard is not necessarily single-handedly "owning" every encounter. He is, however, making his companions able to handle them much more efficiently than "normal." That glitterdust might not kill the enemies on its own. He may not even have the buffs that the party spends 3 rounds putting on themselves (getting those from the cleric or druid, perhaps). But he bought them the time and - potentially - nigh-helpless enemies to make the win much, much easier.

[Beheld]

what % of any given published monsters of a CR should a Wizard be able to best to be considered by you to perform reasonably over the designers' expectations?

Over the "Designers expectations" I don't care. But I would expect that an overly optimized but non cheesetastic (like ANYONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE AN 18 INT AND A RACE WITH AN INT BONUS SHOULD BE DRUG OUT INTO THE STREET AND SHOT type over optimization, but not like OF COURSE I CAN GET REGENERATION AND IMMUNITY TO NON LETHAL, AND IF YOU SAY THAT'S CHEESEY YOU ARE BEING MEAN TO ME level) Wizard who isn't built specifically for SGT conditions and would actually see play to hit about 65% on the a SGT like test run by me. I would say that a lower level Wizard who is being built as the same Wizard all along will probably underperform early at around 55%, because it will probably be built using tactics that would probably benefit from the inclusion of another person to do the brunt hitting, though it can go along way with a Scythe at the really low levels.


Basically, you're just leaving things arbitrarily undefined enough that you can claim correctness no matter what. Someone presents a wizard that beats 80% of equal CR encounters with no problem? Sorry, that's not enough, we're going to need some unstated amount more than that. I implicitly claim that I could do whatever it is you're asking with a druid? Sorry, even though I explicitly included druids in my claim, I'm going to exclude that where convenient. Someone manages to present you with some tricks that can overcome encounters at your desired level without seeming run up against your explicit limits? Sorry, that's too powerful so it goes up against a completely unstated rule, or otherwise happens to fall into the category of "breaking RNG", whatever that's supposed to mean. You've set things up so you can't fail, because you can arbitrarily turn aside anything that breaks your supposed challenge in half, and if failure is impossible then success is meaningless.

I understand that you are mad because I won't let you argue in bad faith about Druids and pull out cheese I didn't mention in a thread about Wizards because I was focusing on Wizards not Druids to prove that I'm wrong about Wizards, but I think there are probably enough people willing to argue in good faith that your complete unwillingness to talk about Wizards is not going to kill the thread if you just go make a Druid thread.

@sleepyphoenixx as usual, yours will take longer.

[Menzath]

just how many spells a wizard must have available in his spellbook before he really is living up to being Tier 1.

I think this is an interesting concept to try and quantify.
Now are ACF's allowed, or will it be core only?
Cause a quick Google brought me "the easy bake wizard" that learns 5spells/lvl, which would easily make it into the T1 bracket (granted that does use dragon magizine stuff.)

[Somensjev]

So, I think, I speak for a number of people, when I say, I have no idea what RNG and SGT mean, in relation to this thread.

On topic: wizards have a very large number of options, whether TO or PO, and in 3.5 options are power. A wizard can easily become overpowered without even touching WBL, feats, or cheese. This is why they're considered very powerful, their optimisation ceiling is so incredibly high.

[Calthropstu]

It's more like a first-year university student wandering into the professors' lounge and saying "Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man" about a matter that was settled, proved beyond reasonable doubt, done and dusted 10 years ago that everyone else is happy to take as a given. Like trying to argue that "maybe 1 x 1 = 2, because how can it equal one? If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect. One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told it's two, and that cannot be."

Actually, it's more like a grad student walking up to other grad students who think they are better than everyone else saying "Hey, jackasses... stfu."

The wizard touters are simply WRONG. I've killed enough wizards to know: wizards are NOT "all that." I watched the wizard in my current campaign get creamed by a half ogre. If it hadn't been for the uber defense monk, it would have been a tpk. In fact, the martial characters in my games tend to do a LOT more than anyone else in combat.

Seriously, most tables the wizard really doesn't reach the ridiculousness that you people seem to tout. In fact, I've honestly never seen it. Ever. Nor do they in the stories. So the wizard fans can shove their TO up their collective TO asses. I'll stick with my Sorcerer/Oracle/Summoner/etc and enjoy ripping wizards to pieces.

Stop acting like you're better than people. You're not. I am actually starting to sympathize with Drako. I can see why he went all rage on you guys.

[Beheld]

First: That 50% chance for a monster to fail the save? That's both targeting a good save and for a wizard that doesn't optimize his DCs at all (18 Int + Spell Focus is pretty much the least you can do without being an idiot about it).

No the least you could do is have an elite array or a roll with no 16 or higher, and then have no int race, and then have spent your two feats on literally anything else at level 3. I wouldn't call that the average, but that is in fact, the least. You could also have only rolled a 17 as your high stat, and have spent your feats elsewhere, and still be below that. (How many people actually take Spell Focus at level 1?)

But even then, that's not you targeting the good save, that's you targeting the only save, because you are a level 3 Wizard, so you prepared Glitterdust in all your slots because it's the best spell (Web is also the best spell, but it's only the best spell if you can actually make it stick, so if you don't know, you prepare Glitterdust.)


The more regular case for all but the most casual gamers is at least basic knowledge of what types get what good saves. Con, Dex and Wis can usually at least be estimated.
So usually that chance to negate the encounter is somewhere between 65-80% if you use a spell that suits your enemy. If you don't optimize your DCs at all despite being a BFC caster.

Even if you don't want to metagame, wizards have high int and all knowledge skills for a reason. They take no action, and "undead generally have good will but weak ref and fort saves" is precisely the kind of basic, useful information they should provide. This is the stuff a wizard would learn, fluffed appropriately.

So which spells are you preparing to target the Allip's fortitude or reflex save at level 3?


You're basically saying "A wizard that doesn't do anything for his spell DCs and doesn't bother picking his spells intelligently "only" has a 50% chance of completely negating an encounter in the first round, so that's pretty balanced".

Except you missed the entire point of what I said which was that for 60% of the encounters even if you had a 95% chance of them failing the save, you still wouldn't have completely negated the encounter, and that's before even doing the math on the remaining 40% to see which ones are "completely negated" by coming at you with 50% of their HP and 100% of their offense in three rounds.


What you're forgetting is the corollary that "A wizard that actually picks his spells intelligently and builds to succeed at what he's doing will crush most equal-CR encounters with a 90-95% chance. With his first spell."

And what your forgetting is that the entire point of this thread is that people say that all the time and then never have any evidence whatsoever. And you are one of those people.


Second: Spell selection. No, you don't prepare Glitterdust 4 times. Those were examples, using the most common core BFC spells.
Because i'm not going to type up a detailed analysis of every wizard BFC spell ever printed. There's handbooks that do that kind of thing if you're interested.

Yeah, I wrote one. Get off your high horse. Honestly, you probably do prepare Glitterdust 4 times, because you are going to have 4 encounters, and chances are very good that in every one of those, casting Glitterdust is the best thing you could do.


More examples? More examples:
Wall of Thorns will trap anything that isn't incorporeal or capable of teleport. You need a DC 25 strength check to move even 5ft (that's a 50% chance for something with 40 Strength, fyi). Throw a Haboob/Vortex of Teeth on there and just wait for your enemies to die. No save, just death.

Wall of Thorn is a spell you get at level 9! 1/2 of encounters can teleport and everything that can't is flying and you can't cast it in the air. Do you want my CR 9 analysis of Wall of Thorns to come after Solid Fog and EBT at level 7?


Your party rogue will probably be quite happy about you casting Darkness if you inform him in time to buy a wand of Ebon Eyes and use it first.

You are probably thinking of 3.0 Darkness.


Or you could just prepare Summon Monster. SM3 and up come with an absolutely enormous pile of SLAs that will get you out of 95% of situations and you can choose on the fly if preparation is too much for you.

I think you will find that is not the case.

[Uncle Pine]

Over the "Designers expectations" I don't care. But I would expect that an overly optimized but non cheesetastic (like ANYONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE AN 18 INT AND A RACE WITH AN INT BONUS SHOULD BE DRUG OUT INTO THE STREET AND SHOT type over optimization, but not like OF COURSE I CAN GET REGENERATION AND IMMUNITY TO NON LETHAL, AND IF YOU SAY THAT'S CHEESEY YOU ARE BEING MEAN TO ME level) Wizard who isn't built specifically for SGT conditions and would actually see play to hit about 65% on the a SGT like test run by me. I would say that a lower level Wizard who is being built as the same Wizard all along will probably underperform early at around 55%, because it will probably be built using tactics that would probably benefit from the inclusion of another person to do the brunt hitting, though it can go along way with a Scythe at the really low levels.

1) Please chill. :smallconfused:

2) What's SGT? Sergeant? Specifically-Geared Towards?

3) You completely dodged my question, so I'll try to reword it differently this time: what % of any given published monsters of a CR should a Wizard be able to best to be considered by you to perform well enough that they can "blow apart CR with their prepared spells"?

[Menzath]

. If it hadn't been for the uber defense monk

That made me lol.
But it is true that not all wzzrds are the Uber divine every encounter bro
Fore they happen Batman lockdown machine the playground builds them to be. Because the prep work is way more than what most players or dm's care to manage.
But that your wizard didn't have an "oh sh*t" spell prepped says something as well.
I had another PC in the party, a psion, who was the same. Poor resource management, no BFC, sure a good save or die and blaster, but not much else. Typical glass cannon.

But that's the difference in player play style, not how that class is in every game.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

About the general point, I get that if you want to show Wizards are overpowered all by themselves, you want them to annihilate encounters on their own. That's fine. But what if you just wanted to argue the more general point conveyed in the original post? Specifically:
if you just pick some Wizards, you can walk into any fight and just totally body monsters of CR = Party level with no challenge if you just pick the right spells. Apply as you like to Druid/Cleric/Artificer/Archivist too.And this point of contention seemed more relevant, anyway. Even if a low/medium-op support wizard struggles by his lonesome, he does usually have a party around to help. So even if Glitterdust doesn't technically end a fight, it might still effectively end the fight if there are people prepared to take advantage of it. In other words, shouldn't the thought experiment be a party of T1s dealing with problems? Or we might even consider ye olde Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric, and then examine how the Wizard and Cleric change the game's dynamics and turn CR on its head.

Speaking from personal experience, in most games I've ever DM'd in 3.5, I've had to effectively reduce the CRs of most creatures for CR to adequately represent the level of challenge to the party. The same seemed to be true when I played. Even if the classes were somehow perfectly balanced against each other, the CR system would still be borked, honestly; this is a very strange hill to die on.

And then a couple of esoteric points:

Re: Spellbook additions
It's really not that hard to get a bunch of free ones, if it's that big of an issue. Just borrow some items from the Easy Bake Wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?325933-Easy-Bake-Wizard-Handbook) and you're set - often enough there's no pressing need to go the full Eidetic route, and many of the options (like Domain and Elven Generalist) are things worth taking anyway. There's also the blessed book if you're really invested in knowing every spell without actually breaking WBL.

Not to mention that WBL assumes everyone is using some wealth along the way in the form of potions, scrolls, etc, just not as much as a wizard.

Re: Buff stacking and protecting against dispel
To add to what has already been mentioned, and since a persistomancer should take dispels very seriously, here are some other ways to boost buffing CL, not exhaustive, along with other methods to deal with dispel:
All day CL boosters:
- Circle magic, which at this level of optimization may be on the table, can get sky high CL by itself
- Persistent Suffer the Flesh, +5 CL (Paladin wand of lesser restortion, probably made by an archivist, is ideal here)
- Create Magic Tattoo, +1 CL
- Orange Ioun Stone, +1 CL
- Ring of Arcane Might, +1 CL

All day dispel DC boosters:
- (As stated) Ring of Enduring Arcana +4 DC
- Mysterious Magic, +2 DC

Buffing CL boosters:
- (As stated) Bead of Karma, +4 CL
- Elder Giant Magic, +3 CL
- (As stated) Reserves of Strength, +3 CL, and the sane interpretation actually helps protect buff stacks
- Terran Brandy, +2 CL

Even without circle magic, on a troublesome adventuring day that wizard could be walking around with a probably-excessive dispel DC of [char level+37] or more (there are a lot of little temp CL boosters), which should hard stop dispels. In addition, countering and turning are options as well. Spell blades may be considered too much, even for a table with an Incantatrix, but the Ring of Spell Battle, a straight up Ring of Counterspells, spells like Battlemagic Perception, and the Divine Defiance feat (for those Incant/Dweomers with a cleric level) all help here. So yeah, dispels are a huge concern for wizards, but they also have countermeasures.

If someone pulls out AMF, the tinfoil hat trick should create distance, and Shrink Item'd boulders dropped on the subject are a decent counter... as are other more standard ranged options, but I just like Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies, AMF edition.

[eggynack]

I understand that you are mad because I won't let you argue in bad faith about Druids and pull out cheese I didn't mention in a thread about Wizards because I was focusing on Wizards not Druids to prove that I'm wrong about Wizards, but I think there are probably enough people willing to argue in good faith that your complete unwillingness to talk about Wizards is not going to kill the thread if you just go make a Druid thread.

You are the one arguing in bad faith. You have made claims in your OP that you are either unwilling or unable to support. I am simply holding you to your word. And, I gotta say, when you go around saying that the entire forum is wrong, you have to accept that people are going to take your claims in their exact wording. This is the problem with apparently purposefully attracting enmity. You get less wiggle room. Why do you think most of the on topic posts in the Lord Draco threads you apparently aspire to are picking away at whatever random inconsistencies they can get their hands on?

[Calthropstu]

I've been on this theme in a couple other threads recently, but I think an interesting question lies in determining just how many spells a wizard must have available in his spellbook before he really is living up to being Tier 1. People gave some interesting efforts towards a "free spells only" spellbook for a wizard when I posted a thread asking about it. But I didn't actually ask in that thread if such a wizard was still Tier 1.

What I mean by this is that the wizard spends literally 0 gp on his spellbook. I asked it originally because I have had DMs who were stingy - often not purposefully - with how available other wizards were and/or 'magic mart' scrolls were to acquire spells with gp. So I was wondering what spells the Playground would recommend be in a spellbook if the only spells the wizard had in it were the ones he got for free for being a wizard of X level.

The difference between a Wizard and a Sorcerer that puts the Wizard in Tier 1 and the Sorcerer in Tier 2 is generally accepted to be that the Wizard has so many more niche options, the ability to either pull out a "stored" version of the perfect spell (e.g. a scroll he got for half the price a sorcerer would spend) or to come back tomorrow or to divine the adventure and prepare specifically for it. Where the Sorcerer has to have a generally useful swath of fewer spells known.

So, then, is a wizard with the barest minimum spell access - i.e. what he gets for free as he levels up - still Tier 1?


I bring this up here because the cut-off point between Not Tier 1 and Tier 1 in terms of spells-in-spellbook can be used to judge how accurate Beheld's claims are. He's right that white room discussions tend to assume semi-arbitrary spell access for the wizard. The trouble with real play is that wizards' access to other wizards' spellbooks or to scrolls with spells they don't already know is highly variable by campaign and DM. So, again, knowing how many spells they must have in their spellbooks before they really live up to their reputation can help us judge things. (Please note that I'm not describing a WBL limit, but rather a limit on access to outside sources for spells at any price.)



As a side note, the Batman Wizard is not necessarily single-handedly "owning" every encounter. He is, however, making his companions able to handle them much more efficiently than "normal." That glitterdust might not kill the enemies on its own. He may not even have the buffs that the party spends 3 rounds putting on themselves (getting those from the cleric or druid, perhaps). But he bought them the time and - potentially - nigh-helpless enemies to make the win much, much easier.

See, this is the argument I like to have. Where IS the cutoff point for T1? There doesn't seem to be one at all. It's just "Wizards are T1, Druids are T1." If a sorcerer gains larger access to spells known, does he break the T1 barrier? Does a Sorcerer who planeshifts into a plane with massive time acceleration to craft pages of spell knowledge using magic jars to maintain his xp level then sells them at cost once he is done using it... doing so in seeming seconds... suddenly become T1 because he can craft a PoSK in a few rounds of Prime Material time? I would argue Yes. Similarly, a sorcerer with unfettered access to a psychic reformation also becomes T1. Same with other classes such as Oracle/Favored Soul. Many classes CAN become T1 without too much effort... and the number of classes that can actually do so is staggering.

[Calthropstu]

That made me lol.
But it is true that not all wzzrds are the Uber divine every encounter bro
Fore they happen Batman lockdown machine the playground builds them to be. Because the prep work is way more than what most players or dm's care to manage.
But that your wizard didn't have an "oh sh*t" spell prepped says something as well.
I had another PC in the party, a psion, who was the same. Poor resource management, no BFC, sure a good save or die and blaster, but not much else. Typical glass cannon.

But that's the difference in player play style, not how that class is in every game.

To be fair, it was a very nice defense build. 4th lvl with something like 30 AC. But it had no real attack power. So we had 2 combatants practically in a whiffle ball contest.

[Menzath]

Many classes CAN become T1 without too much effort... and the number of classes that can actually do so is staggering.

True they can, but they don't start with the natural versatility in their class to make them T1, that and the tier system IS flawed.

[Menzath]

To be fair, it was a very nice defense build. 4th lvl with something like 30 AC. But it had no real attack power. So we had 2 combatants practically in a whiffle ball contest.

Oh I know, monks are like everything else in 3.5, enough op and they can do anything.
I had fun reading that tippy thread about making a monk that could solo all the encounters in the elder evils book.

Monk with a whiffle bat... It must be built.

[Segev]

I think this is an interesting concept to try and quantify.
Now are ACF's allowed, or will it be core only?
Cause a quick Google brought me "the easy bake wizard" that learns 5spells/lvl, which would easily make it into the T1 bracket (granted that does use dragon magizine stuff.)I think focusing on ACFs and the like is a mistake, given that the question isn't "can you do it without spending gp," but rather "how many spells does he need to know to be T1?"

Now, a valid question is whether it's core-only spells, or spells from other books are allowed. Does that change the number of spells he must know to be T1?

Perhaps the simplest first-pass effort would be to create the "minimalist T1 Core Spellbook:" A spellbook owned by a T1 wizard that has the barest minimum number of spells, taken from Core only, to qualify him as T1.

We have "recommended" lists all over the place, but I'm not sure any of them take a "how few spells can we get away with?" approach.

Once we have that minimalist T1 spellbook, we can see how it compares to a "free spells only wizard" (at which point ACFs do become potentially important) and to the Sorcerer.


Over the "Designers expectations" I don't care. But I would expect that an overly optimized but non cheesetastic (like ANYONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE AN 18 INT AND A RACE WITH AN INT BONUS SHOULD BE DRUG OUT INTO THE STREET AND SHOT type over optimization, but not like OF COURSE I CAN GET REGENERATION AND IMMUNITY TO NON LETHAL, AND IF YOU SAY THAT'S CHEESEY YOU ARE BEING MEAN TO ME level) Wizard who isn't built specifically for SGT conditions and would actually see play to hit about 65% on the a SGT like test run by me. I would say that a lower level Wizard who is being built as the same Wizard all along will probably underperform early at around 55%, because it will probably be built using tactics that would probably benefit from the inclusion of another person to do the brunt hitting, though it can go along way with a Scythe at the really low levels.Beheld, I sympathize with your position, because in practice I've seen wizards be far less overwhelming than in white room discussions, but this paragraph is incoherent and incomprehensible to me.

Part of it is that you're interrupting yourself with the parentheticals to the point that I can't keep track of what you're saying in any one sentence. I'm often guilty of this, myself, but I tell this to you because I can't, even upon multiple readings, parse what you're trying to say.

Another part is that you still haven't defined "RNG" and "SGT" as you're using them in this thread. The terms as I know them don't make sense the way you're using them. I will refrain from giving the definitions I know for now, as I'm more interested in understanding what you mean than trying to give any sort of correction.


I understand that you are mad because I won't let you argue in bad faith about Druids and pull out cheese I didn't mention in a thread about Wizards because I was focusing on Wizards not Druids to prove that I'm wrong about Wizards, but I think there are probably enough people willing to argue in good faith that your complete unwillingness to talk about Wizards is not going to kill the thread if you just go make a Druid thread.That...isn't what eggynack's said.

Both of you seem to expect the other to argue in bad faith, though, which means that you can't really have a discussion. If you want this thread to be about wizards and NOT about CR, I suggest you come right out and say to eggynack that CR isn't the focus of the thread. If you do want to discuss CR in some capacity, spell out very clearly what you're trying to say about it.

But eggynack's right; if you won't give specifics, and will dismiss any build that is meant to showcase a counterpoint to your claim as "overpowered" or "cheesy," you're engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy. "I'm right because anything you show me that proves otherwise is invalid as an example for being too cheesy. Because anything that proves otherwise MUST be cheesy."

As the one making the initial assertion, it is your responsibility to provide falsifiability conditions. "My claim is true, because if it weren't, you could disprove it this way." If people can't disprove it that way, then your claim holds true.


Actually, it's more like a grad student walking up to other grad students who think they are better than everyone else saying "Hey, jackasses... stfu."It really isn't. A grad student walking up to other grad students would be able to address the mountains of prior discussion, demonstrate on equal footing his counter-claim, and either demonstrate that he's met the falsifiability conditions of the other grad students' hypotheses OR present falsifiability conditions for his own hypothesis which the other grad students' work do not meet (but which they can attempt to achieve to prove his counter-hypothesis wrong).

The reason this is being likened more to an undergrad walking into the faculty lounge and telling all the Ph.D.s that they're wrong because they just love their theories too much is because that undergrad would be bringing 1st-year models that don't take into account the deeper analysis and graduate-level modeling and understanding that has been read, analyzed, debated, discussed, and mathematically tested for years that already demonstrates the flaws in the first-year undergraduate's ill-conceived counterproof. Worse, it's a counterproof that is substantially no different from others which these professors had long-ago examined and discarded as wrong via rigorous work.


The wizard touters are simply WRONG. I've killed enough wizards to know: wizards are NOT "all that." I watched the wizard in my current campaign get creamed by a half ogre. If it hadn't been for the uber defense monk, it would have been a tpk. In fact, the martial characters in my games tend to do a LOT more than anyone else in combat.

Seriously, most tables the wizard really doesn't reach the ridiculousness that you people seem to tout. In fact, I've honestly never seen it. Ever. Nor do they in the stories. So the wizard fans can shove their TO up their collective TO asses. I'll stick with my Sorcerer/Oracle/Summoner/etc and enjoy ripping wizards to pieces.In practical play, this absolutely can happen; it depends heavily on the style of gameplay the DM faces the party with, the skill (or luck) of the players at character building, and (especially) the skill of the wizard player at using his class to its utmost.


Stop acting like you're better than people. You're not.Nobody is. The "undergrad to faculty" comparison isn't about being "better" than the undergrad-analog; it's an acknowledgement of the quality of argument being presented. If anybody's taking it personally, it's not the Playground "faculty-analog" group.

Present an argument that actually addresses the points previously made, and falsify the position you're attacking or present falsification conditions for your own hypothesis so that people can meaningfully critique it, and you get taken much more seriously.


I am actually starting to sympathize with Drako. I can see why he went all rage on you guys.Drako wasn't jumped on because he attacked the "sacred wizard," but because he had one specific build using questionable selections in the RAW and which is, as far as those who've analyzed it carefully can tell, not actually rules-legal which he insists proves that wizards are forever worse than sorcerers in all ways. Most people here don't "love" wizards and "want" them to be the best. It simply is what analysis has shown to be the case. Drako wasn't interested in discussing things; he wanted to browbeat people into "accepting" that his sorcerer was not just superior individually to wizards, but that it proves that wizards are inferior to sorcerers.

Again, nobody would have cared, except that his claims weren't actually backed up. If he'd demonstrated what he claimed, the Playground would have been far more likely to say, "Wow, that's cool. We have a T1 sorcerer and learned something new about this decade-old system!"

But that's not what he did. He consistently failed to respond to requests for clarification of his build, and smirked and posted pictures half-naked men instead of actually responding to any criticisms of his build. He was more interested in saying "admit it!" than in proving "it."


Edit:
See, this is the argument I like to have. Where IS the cutoff point for T1? There doesn't seem to be one at all. It's just "Wizards are T1, Druids are T1." If a sorcerer gains larger access to spells known, does he break the T1 barrier? Does a Sorcerer who planeshifts into a plane with massive time acceleration to craft pages of spell knowledge using magic jars to maintain his xp level then sells them at cost once he is done using it... doing so in seeming seconds... suddenly become T1 because he can craft a PoSK in a few rounds of Prime Material time? I would argue Yes. Similarly, a sorcerer with unfettered access to a psychic reformation also becomes T1. Same with other classes such as Oracle/Favored Soul. Many classes CAN become T1 without too much effort... and the number of classes that can actually do so is staggering.

The cutoff point for T1 is whether you can break the game in one specific area with one or a limited number of tricks (T2), or if you can break the game in any way you choose in any area you like (T1). Well, technically, "break the game" isn't a requirement; the requirement is that you be able to overpower a situation.

A sorcerer, in his bailiwick, is going to be able to solve any problem with his spells. A wizard doesn't have a bailiwick, because he can swap it out tomorrow if he's got the wrong one today (and, if he has foreknowledge, can swap it out when he knows he needs to).


A druid and a cleric are T1, period, because they have full access to all spells for their class, no questions asked. They need, at most, a day's notice to swap out for ANY spell on their class list. (Well, within level limits.)


As for a wizard, that's why I raised that point, yes. How many spells does he REALLY need to be T1? If that number is smaller than the number he gets for free, then a wizard is automatically T1. If it is larger, then he isn't T1 unless he hits that minimum.

A sorcerer with expanded spells known to the number that a wizard needs to be T1 would also be T1. He would be T1 just by replicating the minimalist T1 wizard's spells known. He'd be better than that wizard, too, since he could cast any of his spells on any day. So it becomes a secondary question of whether the sorcerer can be T1 with fewer spells known than the minimalist wizard. Probably, but only if it comes from dropping the "I know what I'm going to need" spells that let the minimalist wizard prepare the RIGHT allotment for a given day.

[Flickerdart]

CR-equivalent encounters aren't a challenge to any remotely decent character, unless you use many of them per day, and then it's just boring attrition gameplay. This is playing the game as intended - the very definition of a CR-appropriate encounter is one that the PCs can beat without anyone dying, but must expend a portion of daily resources.

I aim for CR+2 when I build encounters, they are challenging without being overpowered, and PCs from fighters to psions (don't think I've ever had anyone play a wizard) deal with them just fine.

[Calthropstu]

I think focusing on ACFs and the like is a mistake, given that the question isn't "can you do it without spending gp," but rather "how many spells does he need to know to be T1?"

Now, a valid question is whether it's core-only spells, or spells from other books are allowed. Does that change the number of spells he must know to be T1?

Perhaps the simplest first-pass effort would be to create the "minimalist T1 Core Spellbook:" A spellbook owned by a T1 wizard that has the barest minimum number of spells, taken from Core only, to qualify him as T1.

We have "recommended" lists all over the place, but I'm not sure any of them take a "how few spells can we get away with?" approach.

Once we have that minimalist T1 spellbook, we can see how it compares to a "free spells only wizard" (at which point ACFs do become potentially important) and to the Sorcerer.

Beheld, I sympathize with your position, because in practice I've seen wizards be far less overwhelming than in white room discussions, but this paragraph is incoherent and incomprehensible to me.

Part of it is that you're interrupting yourself with the parentheticals to the point that I can't keep track of what you're saying in any one sentence. I'm often guilty of this, myself, but I tell this to you because I can't, even upon multiple readings, parse what you're trying to say.

Another part is that you still haven't defined "RNG" and "SGT" as you're using them in this thread. The terms as I know them don't make sense the way you're using them. I will refrain from giving the definitions I know for now, as I'm more interested in understanding what you mean than trying to give any sort of correction.

That...isn't what Psyren's said. Believe me, I know he can be frustrating and abrasive at times, but honestly, he's being pretty polite here. I don't just mean "for him," I mean he's genuinely being reasonable.

Both of you seem to expect the other to argue in bad faith, though, which means that you can't really have a discussion. If you want this thread to be about wizards and NOT about CR, I suggest you come right out and say to Psyren that CR isn't the focus of the thread. If you do want to discuss CR in some capacity, spell out very clearly what you're trying to say about it.

But Psyren's right; if you won't give specifics, and will dismiss any build that is meant to showcase a counterpoint to your claim as "overpowered" or "cheesy," you're engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy. "I'm right because anything you show me that proves otherwise is invalid as an example for being too cheesy. Because anything that proves otherwise MUST be cheesy."

As the one making the initial assertion, it is your responsibility to provide falsifiability conditions. "My claim is true, because if it weren't, you could disprove it this way." If people can't disprove it that way, then your claim holds true.

It really isn't. A grad student walking up to other grad students would be able to address the mountains of prior discussion, demonstrate on equal footing his counter-claim, and either demonstrate that he's met the falsifiability conditions of the other grad students' hypotheses OR present falsifiability conditions for his own hypothesis which the other grad students' work do not meet (but which they can attempt to achieve to prove his counter-hypothesis wrong).

The reason this is being likened more to an undergrad walking into the faculty lounge and telling all the Ph.D.s that they're wrong because they just love their theories too much is because that undergrad would be bringing 1st-year models that don't take into account the deeper analysis and graduate-level modeling and understanding that has been read, analyzed, debated, discussed, and mathematically tested for years that already demonstrates the flaws in the first-year undergraduate's ill-conceived counterproof. Worse, it's a counterproof that is substantially no different from others which these professors had long-ago examined and discarded as wrong via rigorous work.

In practical play, this absolutely can happen; it depends heavily on the style of gameplay the DM faces the party with, the skill (or luck) of the players at character building, and (especially) the skill of the wizard player at using his class to its utmost.

Nobody is. The "undergrad to faculty" comparison isn't about being "better" than the undergrad-analog; it's an acknowledgement of the quality of argument being presented. If anybody's taking it personally, it's not the Playground "faculty-analog" group.

Present an argument that actually addresses the points previously made, and falsify the position you're attacking or present falsification conditions for your own hypothesis so that people can meaningfully critique it, and you get taken much more seriously.

Drako wasn't jumped on because he attacked the "sacred wizard," but because he had one specific build using questionable selections in the RAW and which is, as far as those who've analyzed it carefully can tell, not actually rules-legal which he insists proves that wizards are forever worse than sorcerers in all ways. Most people here don't "love" wizards and "want" them to be the best. It simply is what analysis has shown to be the case. Drako wasn't interested in discussing things; he wanted to browbeat people into "accepting" that his sorcerer was not just superior individually to wizards, but that it proves that wizards are inferior to sorcerers.

Again, nobody would have cared, except that his claims weren't actually backed up. If he'd demonstrated what he claimed, the Playground would have been far more likely to say, "Wow, that's cool. We have a T1 sorcerer and learned something new about this decade-old system!"

But that's not what he did. He consistently failed to respond to requests for clarification of his build, and smirked and posted pictures half-naked men instead of actually responding to any criticisms of his build. He was more interested in saying "admit it!" than in proving "it."

Oh, I agree. Drako's an idiot. I just agree with his sentiment, not his tactics. And what of my claims of a t1 sorcerer using Psychic Reformation to reselect his spells? Or crafting pages of spell knowledge in essentially null time using planeshift, using it as needed, then selling it afterwards? That easily breaks the T1 line, but it goes unacknowledged. I saw someone mention *renting* a page of spell knowledge. If a cabal of sorcerers got together with it, I could easily see the entire cabal going past the t1 line. Renting it out at 50GP/spell level/week would definitely be a thing, costing less than the price to use a scroll... and getting the money back spent to create it fairly quickly.

[Menzath]

Perhaps the simplest first-pass effort would be to create the "minimalist T1 Core Spellbook:" A spellbook owned by a T1 wizard that has the barest minimum number of spells, taken from Core only, to qualify him as T1.

At a quick glance giving it a once over, I think it's automatically a fail. If no spells are gained besides entirely free spells, it almost puts the wizard in a worse position than a sorcerer.

But if wbl is allowed (even just a small portion) then it changes drastically. Even if we only use wbl to learn 2 more spells per spell level that would be about enough options to be high T2-low T1.

Now I haven't seen enough people mention this, but the tier system IS flawed, it's more of a rule of thumb than exact and precise guage of a class.

[eggynack]

Oh, I agree. Drako's an idiot. I just agree with his sentiment, not his tactics. And what of my claims of a t1 sorcerer using Psychic Reformation to reselect his spells? Or crafting pages of spell knowledge in essentially null time using planeshift, using it as needed, then selling it afterwards? That easily breaks the T1 line, but it goes unacknowledged. I saw someone mention *renting* a page of spell knowledge. If a cabal of sorcerers got together with it, I could easily see the entire cabal going past the t1 line. Renting it out at 50GP/spell level/week would definitely be a thing, costing less than the price to use a scroll... and getting the money back spent to create it fairly quickly.
Drako's sentiment doesn't really reflect an opposition to anything that really exists. Cause he's right, 20th level wizards are not better than 20th level sorcerers. As I pointed out, jeez, almost two years ago, they're basically the same. Such is 9th level spells. It's a perspective that generalizes pretty well to the stuff you're talking about too. Yes, as you ratchet up optimization levels, the tier lines tend to blur, just as they do when you reduce optimization levels sufficiently. A sufficiently poorly optimized character can do nothing, and a sufficiently well optimized character can do anything, regardless of class. The claims of wizard supremacy generally apply to that big beefy middle section. That region of time after you start actually preparing spells, and a decent variety of them at that, but before the really obscure and wonky stuff starts coming into play. Where the edges of that region are is up for debate, but I think it's a pretty wide area.

[Beheld]

So, I think, I speak for a number of people, when I say, I have no idea what RNG and SGT mean, in relation to this thread.

RNG: stands for "Random Number Generator" the best most accurate usage for it would be to describe things like attack rolls against AC, skill checks, and saving throws. "Off the RNG" is when one person, relative to the other, basically doesn't care what the RNG is, they win. So for example, if you have a DC 256 save or die spell, you don't actually care what they roll, because it's either a 20 and they live, or it's not and they die. With AB, same thing, you roll a 1d20, and if you roll any non-one you hit against AC 57 with your Cleric Archer, ect. So when I say "off the RNG" I mean that there's sort of expected numbers for these things, and while people can be better or worse at them, if you have a silly method of getting arbitrary bonuses to DC for incomparable resources (like casting off Taint) then people don't really care, because no one actually wants to play a game with a Undead Tainted Caster or whatever.

Now, a slightly less accurate thing that I am referring to in this thread with it is I'm also lumping "Break the RNG" into things that are kind of RNG and kind of not, like hitpoints and damage rolls. I mean, technically there are random numbers, but what counts as "off the RNG" is harder, but basically, if you think about it in the same way as above, you care what the damage roll is in an abstract sense, because you want to kill the enemy sooner, but if you were attacking for 2d8+[exactly enemies HP] then you don't care about the roll. So when I describe one hit kills by damage, either by Arcane Thesis metamagic stacking or by ubercharging, I'm technically cheating the definition a bit.

SGT: stands for "Same Game Test" which describes a specific test or type of test that evaluates whether PC classes are "playing the same game." The test itself is some variation of/the specific list of, a bunch of EL X encounters. And a single PC class is supposed to wake up in the morning, prepare the same way he generally prepares for when he doesn't know what today is going to bring, then do whatever he would normally do. Each encounter is a "separate day" happening to a separate (exact copy of the same) character, so if you die on encounter, that's a failure, but if win, you don't get to Animate Dead the Fire Giant Skeleton for the rest of the encounters.

By the technical rules of CR each PC should probably score about 50%, but then again, each PC should probably have the elite array, and be core only, so that's probably not going to happen. The idea is that if you significantly underperform, like a Monk, you are probably not playing the same game as the other PCs who score 50% or greater, like Wizards and Clerics and Druids.

There's a whole bunch of other stuff about why this is the best (or one of the best) ways to judge PC power or why it's good for people to fail or succeed against different encounters rather than just be kind of okay but fail against all of them and other theory that could be got into. But that's a starting point of a definition.


On topic: wizards have a very large number of options, whether TO or PO, and in 3.5 options are power.

1) I think Options to TO are worthless. If you let someone TO, then they TO, because everyone has at least one TO always waiting.

2) Options to do things not level appropriate are not power. Wizards get to do things level appropriate, and they get to make the best use of downtime spells and once per day buffs, and the Frank Cheat, and stuff, so they do have good options. But my contention is specifically that those options amount to "pretty much at CR (maybe technically a bit above)" for the most part.

[Segev]

Oh, I agree. Drako's an idiot. I just agree with his sentiment, not his tactics.Fair enough. Though I think his sentiment is also misplaced, because it really isn't that this forum "loves" the wizard. It's that it really is like some unknown walking in off the street into the faculty lounge of the physics building and say, "You know what? Relativity is nonsense. Let me use experiments Newton did to prove it to you."

Don't get me wrong: scientists are extremely territorial, and can be quite hostile even to new but true ideas. They get wedded to their theories. But science - and believe it or not, scientific principles apply to this discussion - is also not about "disproving" something by saying "you all love your theory too much" loudly enough.

Einstein had to have extremely rigorous math to back up his revolutionary claims when he introduced Relativity to the scientific community. Demonstrating that wizards are not as good as people claim will take similarly rigorous and robust proof. "It's not how it works at my table" is about as convincing as "I never saw my watch run slowly when I rode a train."


And what of my claims of a t1 sorcerer using Psychic Reformation to reselect his spells? Or crafting pages of spell knowledge in essentially null time using planeshift, using it as needed, then selling it afterwards? That easily breaks the T1 line, but it goes unacknowledged. I saw someone mention *renting* a page of spell knowledge. If a cabal of sorcerers got together with it, I could easily see the entire cabal going past the t1 line. Renting it out at 50GP/spell level/week would definitely be a thing, costing less than the price to use a scroll... and getting the money back spent to create it fairly quickly.
Sure. A sorcerer who manages to get enough spells known WOULD be T1. These are interesting ideas of how to do it, but they do tend to rest even higher up in the "if the DM permits it" realm than a wizard getting to go to a spell-swap meet and get every spell he wants from fellow spellcasters for the cost of a Blessed Book.

Does anything prevent a party of sorcerers from just passing around a page of spell knowledge so that all of them effectively have every spell on such pages shared by the party?

Edit:
At a quick glance giving it a once over, I think it's automatically a fail. If no spells are gained besides entirely free spells, it almost puts the wizard in a worse position than a sorcerer.

But if wbl is allowed (even just a small portion) then it changes drastically. Even if we only use wbl to learn 2 more spells per spell level that would be about enough options to be high T2-low T1.So your line drawn would be ~4 spells/character level would be enough to be low T1 as a wizard? That'd be approximately 8 spells of each spell level.


(Again, the idea I'm pushing here isn't about WBL, but about just a flat-out question of how many spells the wizard needs to really be T1.)

[Menzath]

Edit:So your line drawn would be ~4 spells/character level would be enough to be low T1 as a wizard? That'd be approximately 8 spells of each spell level.


(Again, the idea I'm pushing here isn't about WBL, but about just a flat-out question of how many spells the wizard needs to really be T1.)


I just tried to break it down into a # of options that doesn't involve hit something.
70+ would be tier 1 in my point of view.
But that's at max level. And doesn't take into account options that are open to every (n)PC.
So it would most likely scale to a lower number the lower level you go, with level one not having much of a difference between tier 4 and lower, the same for tier 3+

Edit- this also didn't take Into account feats or skills, which I guess to compare to other classes it should.

[Calthropstu]

At a quick glance giving it a once over, I think it's automatically a fail. If no spells are gained besides entirely free spells, it almost puts the wizard in a worse position than a sorcerer.

But if wbl is allowed (even just a small portion) then it changes drastically. Even if we only use wbl to learn 2 more spells per spell level that would be about enough options to be high T2-low T1.

Now I haven't seen enough people mention this, but the tier system IS flawed, it's more of a rule of thumb than exact and precise guage of a class.

Which is exactly what I am arguing. As Segev mentioned, The higher TO you get, the more class lines disappear. The problem with lumping the tiers is the GM always has the ability to say "LOL NOPE" to just about anything... and each GM has a different idea of when that should be done.

Imagine the batman wizard having a wolf pull his spell book out of his pack while he sleeps and eat it. What tier is he then? A lot of people overlook that debilitating weakness. You have a powerful class, yes... but it has a glaring weakness THAT EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT.

Like literally, every rube on the street knows that wizards use spells from a spell book. Take away the spell book, the wizard is powerless. So it's not like it's a "dirty tactic" at all.

Edit: though I have yet to meet a player that wasn't upset about it.

[Beheld]

It really isn't. A grad student walking up to other grad students would be able to address the mountains of prior discussion,

There is no such mountain. Even in this thread, the person who claims I am but an undergraduate to his great facultyness literally responded for a request for said evidence with "It exists elsewhere on all the other D&D forums I can think to name, please read every word of all of them before you state an opinion ever again, because even though I can't link to single demonstration of this point, it totally exists. Somewhere."


Present an argument that actually addresses the points previously made, and falsify the position you're attacking or present falsification conditions for your own hypothesis so that people can meaningfully critique it, and you get taken much more seriously.

Well I mean, I actually did, but unfortunately, because it requires people to actually read and then build a character according to something not 100% made, we are in the stage where people trying to circumvent ban lists by trying to find the one part of dumb TO cheese that isn't listed on the ban list (Oh dang, crusader isn't banned, so this Cleric takes a brief dip for 1d2 crusadering) stage.

I literally wrote out a positive representation of what such a character would look like, but unfortunately, at least one person is too busy complaining that I didn't negatively state everything in the entire universe that wouldn't disprove my point, so therefore he doesn't know which of the many many many things he has that doesn't disprove my point he can try to slip in under the ban list, since there isn't an explicit ban list.

[Menzath]

THAT EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT.

Exactly, who best knows of this glaring weakness, then the person who has to deal with it?
And with a class that makes you have an incredibly high int, the character is often smarter than the player, the PC would think "hey I should have a ton of ways to protect my spell book" while the player is like "my spell book whut?"
Just another time when PC and player knowledge don't match up.
But they did introduce many spells and alternate materials to help protect said spell book(s), in the many many supplements.

Maybe that should be a guide "Pimp my spell book".

[eggynack]

I literally wrote out a positive representation of what such a character would look like, but unfortunately, at least one person is too busy complaining that I didn't negatively state everything in the entire universe that wouldn't disprove my point, so therefore he doesn't know which of the many many many things he has that doesn't disprove my point he can try to slip in under the ban list, since there isn't an explicit ban list.
You don't have an explicit anything. All you have is a weird regeneration based straw man. Anything that exceeds the power level you think classes should have can just be called too powerful, until nothing is left except for things that match the opinion you started with.

[Gullintanni]

On a personal note, every Tier 1 character I've ever built has, at some point, resolved some situation that was well above CR. A few examples from around the table:

Character 1: Cleric of Hextor, level 3 Domination domain, 18 WIS, Greater Spell Focus (Enchantment), 2nd level spell DC: 18 (10base+2spell level+4wis+2feats)

Party approaches docked warship. Twelve sentries, primarily Warriors, three Fighters, one Expert, none above level 3. Cleric casts Enthrall. Twelve failed saves later (Because at 3rd level, Warriors, Experts and Fighters all have a +1 Will save), and my party literally walks onto the warship with a handful of hirelings, and sails out to sea.

Character 2: Cleric of Erythnul, level 20, Madness Domain, 34 WIS, 9th level spell save DC: 36 (10base+9spell level+12wis+5Madness Domain)

Party has been banished to Baator, and is set upon by four Pit Fiends. With a Fort Save of +19, each pit fiend has only a 3 in 20 chance to resist my Cleric's Wail of the Banshee. All four are dead on the first round.

Character 3: Illusionist, level 6, interrogated by Captain of the Guard, and attending soldiers. Major Image + Concealed Casting - the Captain and all are responding to the "jail break", complete with the sounds of pitched battle and escaped convicts running through hallways. Invisibility sphere let us walk out of the garrison unmolested.

Three encounters, all higher ECL than the party, obviated by one or two spells. Admittedly the second character was highly optimized for high DCs, and not every encounter went that well, but my Tier 1 characters always had something ready that allowed them to contribute and often overwhelm opposition.

[Anlashok]

Surprised no one's mentioned Oberoni yet. Half the OP's arguments boil down to "Yes this is broken but you shouldn't do it at a real table so it doesn't count."


Seems to kind of defeat the point of your own thread if you open acknowledging that Wizards can do exactly what you say they can't do, but then insist that it doesn't count if they do that. At that point you're not arguing that Wizards aren't as obscene as the boards think they are, you're arguing that Wizards aren't as obscene as the boards think they are while using your homebrew.

[eggynack]

Surprised no one's mentioned Oberoni yet. Half the OP's arguments boil down to "Yes this is broken but you shouldn't do it at a real table so it doesn't count."
That's kinda what I've been angling towards, except with the added issue that the fallacy is being applied in an apparently undefined way, where it can pop out at any moment in response to any maneuver. If it were just, "This one thing over here is broken, but you shouldn't do it so it doesn't count," that'd be one thing, but it's actually, "Any number of completely unlisted and likely unconsidered things are broken, but you shouldn't use anything on that undefined list, so none of that stuff counts. Make some builds, everybody."

[JustIgnoreMe]

There is no such mountain. Even in this thread, the person who claims I am but an undergraduate to his great facultyness literally responded for a request for said evidence with "It exists elsewhere on all the other D&D forums I can think to name, please read every word of all of them before you state an opinion ever again, because even though I can't link to single demonstration of this point, it totally exists. Somewhere."
I literally never claimed you were "but an undergraduate" to my "great facultyness". I have never claimed to be any kind of expert in D&D 3.5. I stand, like most do, on the shoulders of giants. The fact that I cannot immediately link to the relevant threads (which will number in the hundreds) at a moment's notice is as irrelevant as the fact that I cannot link to the particular page in Plato's Republic where he bans flute music. But I know he said it, and I know it's in there somewhere.

[sleepyphoenixx]

No the least you could do is have an elite array or a roll with no 16 or higher, and then have no int race, and then have spent your two feats on literally anything else at level 3. I wouldn't call that the average, but that is in fact, the least. You could also have only rolled a 17 as your high stat, and have spent your feats elsewhere, and still be below that. (How many people actually take Spell Focus at level 1?)
So what are you spending your feat on?
What does your race do for you if it doesn't give you an Int bonus or a bonus feat?
And why, if you're not optimizing for spell DCs, are you relying on BFC to get through the low levels? As opposed to buffing your melee until you can make up for the deficit, for example?

If you're starting at level 1 i assume you have a plan to survive low levels and build accordingly. Yes, you can build to fail (or "for rp reasons"), but that is no basis for balance discussion.


But even then, that's not you targeting the good save, that's you targeting the only save, because you are a level 3 Wizard, so you prepared Glitterdust in all your slots because it's the best spell (Web is also the best spell, but it's only the best spell if you can actually make it stick, so if you don't know, you prepare Glitterdust.)
So you're telling me what spells i have prepared now? That's a little condescending isn't it?
As for Web, presumably you have at least some idea what environment you're going to be in over the day. At least in most cases.

And if you don't know i'd expect that you leave at least a quarter of your slots free until you do know. Because preparing 4 of the same thing does absolutely nothing for you, and getting 15 minutes after the first or second encounter of the day to prepare your open slots is far more efficient. That's pretty much what that option is for ffs.


So which spells are you preparing to target the Allip's fortitude or reflex save at level 3?
If i knew i was facing an Allip at level 3 i'd prepare Magic Weapon, Snake's Swiftness and Enlarge Person and buff my melee. It only has 26hp, which should be well within the capabilities of most parties to kill in 1 round with that.
Not to mention it's not really worth BFCing a single Allip since you can just kite it, and its main danger is the Hypnotism aura.

But yes, wizards have no good anti-incorporeal-undead BFC at level 3. You win. Clearly wizards aren't OP at all if they can't easily defeat what is probably the most under-CR'd CR3 creature alone.


Except you missed the entire point of what I said which was that for 60% of the encounters even if you had a 95% chance of them failing the save, you still wouldn't have completely negated the encounter, and that's before even doing the math on the remaining 40% to see which ones are "completely negated" by coming at you with 50% of their HP and 100% of their offense in three rounds.
You're still assuming i use only the same 1 spell per spell level on everything i encounter, because apparently i'm playing a sorcerer now. And apparently i don't have a party, was too dumb to trade my familiar for an animal companion, get the Wild Cohort feat or hire myself some meatshields/buy some guard dogs from my starting wealth.
Because we're talking about real games here, and wizards play solo & stupid all the time in those.

And if a single spell turns the encounter into a CDG-fest or a beatdown with no significant danger to your party i consider the encounter negated.
Blinded or nauseated enemies or otherwise locked down enemies are dispatched pretty easily even by a non-optimized party, and a party that's buffed enough to not be in danger is also trivializing the encounter.

And what your forgetting is that the entire point of this thread is that people say that all the time and then never have any evidence whatsoever. And you are one of those people.
What, you mean evidence like the list of DC boosters i posted? That even a cursory bit of math reveals that yes, you can totally pump your DCs that high if you focus on them?
Or are we still stuck on only having a single spell per level that i fill all my slots with, that some enemies are immune to?

"That's not evidence because you could totally not take these things." is not actually a lack of evidence.


Yeah, I wrote one. Get off your high horse. Honestly, you probably do prepare Glitterdust 4 times, because you are going to have 4 encounters, and chances are very good that in every one of those, casting Glitterdust is the best thing you could do.
Are you telling me that in an actual game you never have any idea what you're facing? Because i find that doubtful unless your DM likes campaigns where you're randomly teleported from challenge to challenge.
You also don't need your highest spell level to deal with every encounter. Even at ECL 3 many encounters are easily dealt with by casting Grease, Sleep, Enlarge Person, Wall of Smoke or any number of other 1st level spells. Or maybe your buffs are still running because the second encounter is in the next room and you don't need to cast anything at all.

And if you prepare Glitterdust 4 times why aren't you playing a sorcerer? Because i honestly don't see the point playing a wizard if you don't actually bother taking advantage of the wizards strengths.



Wall of Thorn is a spell you get at level 9! 1/2 of encounters can teleport and everything that can't is flying and you can't cast it in the air. Do you want my CR 9 analysis of Wall of Thorns to come after Solid Fog and EBT at level 7?
You're big on demanding evidence, right?
Because i'd like to see evidence of that claim, seeing how i've been pretty damn successful with the spell in a number of games, at that level and beyond. And i doubt i'm the only one.


I think you will find that is not the case.
Having played several summoners of both divine and arcane flavor i've found that this is indeed the case, thank you very much.
There are very few situations that can't be solved by summoning something to do it for you if you've build to be good at summoning.

[Segev]

Which is exactly what I am arguing. As Segev mentioned, The higher TO you get, the more class lines disappear. The problem with lumping the tiers is the GM always has the ability to say "LOL NOPE" to just about anything... and each GM has a different idea of when that should be done.Indeed. It's the "What will the GM allow?" question that really starts throwing monkey-wrenches even in PO discussions, because it's just so variable.


Imagine the batman wizard having a wolf pull his spell book out of his pack while he sleeps and eat it. What tier is he then? A lot of people overlook that debilitating weakness. You have a powerful class, yes... but it has a glaring weakness THAT EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT.That might work up through level 3, but one good rope trick and the spellbook's safe. Admittedly, that won't last all night until level 8, so you might still manage something, but this is a bit questionable.


Like literally, every rube on the street knows that wizards use spells from a spell book. Take away the spell book, the wizard is powerless. So it's not like it's a "dirty tactic" at all.

Edit: though I have yet to meet a player that wasn't upset about it.All true. Part of it is that it really is hitting the wizard in his class features. It's like arranging a paladin's fall. Another part is that enough games seem to have an unwritten rule against doing that that players get complacent. Not characters, players. And for good reason: if in 9 out of 10 games, you find that all the effort you put into protecting your spellbook was wasted because no effort was ever made to attack it, you have better places to spend your gp than on further defenses and redundancies. So you wind up with this paradox where you feel like an idiot if you waste the gp on it "knowing" that the DM isn't going to really come after it, or your DM gets shocked and appalled that you'd dare be offended that he chose to finally go after it. "Shouldn't you have defended it?" he might ask.

It's similar to playing in a bunch of games where you invested in some fluff skills and feats that really did cost you compared to other PCs, but they never came up. Then, in later games where you stopped bothering, the DM starts asking you to roll on your fluff skills and berates you for not having them when you totally should.

All of which is to say that a DM should share the expectation with the player as to the level of threat the spellbook might be under. Is the spellbook fair game? If so, the wizard's player knows to take some effort to protect it. If it isn't fair game, the wizard's player might still take a little effort, but he won't put the paranoid levels into the defense of it.

That said, I don't expect the DM in my current PF game to purposefully target my spellbook, but I still arcane lock it and plan to eventually make it an Animated Object so that it will be able to return to my character on its own if it gets lost or stolen.


There is no such mountain. Even in this thread, the person who claims I am but an undergraduate to his great facultyness literally responded for a request for said evidence with "It exists elsewhere on all the other D&D forums I can think to name, please read every word of all of them before you state an opinion ever again, because even though I can't link to single demonstration of this point, it totally exists. Somewhere.""The literature on this subject is well-known and can be found all over this campus." It isn't that you need to read every word. And, having looked back over your posts elsewhere, I'm pretty sure you ARE more well-read on the subject than your opening post makes you seem. But you haven't really cited and refuted any of it. So your argument remains at the "undergraduate" level.



Well I mean, I actually did, but unfortunately, because it requires people to actually read and then build a character according to something not 100% made, we are in the stage where people trying to circumvent ban lists by trying to find the one part of dumb TO cheese that isn't listed on the ban list (Oh dang, crusader isn't banned, so this Cleric takes a brief dip for 1d2 crusadering) stage.The trouble is that you've not given a definite line that is "too much." We are all fairly mature people with a solid grasp on the mechanics of 3.5; we recognize that the d2 Crusader is stepping into TO territory. But with the only red line being "don't be cheesy," it does create an unfalsifiable position for your argument.

This is no small part why I've brought up "spells in spellbook" count as a possible measuring stick. IF we can judge at what point a wizard becomes T1 by how many (and which) spells he has in his spellbook, we can really measure your claim vs. the theoretical reaches a wizard could achieve.


I literally wrote out a positive representation of what such a character would look like, but unfortunately, at least one person is too busy complaining that I didn't negatively state everything in the entire universe that wouldn't disprove my point, so therefore he doesn't know which of the many many many things he has that doesn't disprove my point he can try to slip in under the ban list, since there isn't an explicit ban list.I have read your posts, but I don't see such a "positive representation." Can you link it, or repost/quote it for me, please?

[Gullintanni]

But yes, wizards have no good anti-incorporeal-undead BFC at level 3. You win. Clearly wizards aren't OP at all if they can't easily defeat what is probably the most under-CR'd CR3 creature alone.



Damn Tier 1 Monsters ;)

For the record, Command Undead still works here. Allips have a +4 Will save, so if your Save DC for Level 2 Spells is 16 to 18, you're still winning 60-70% of the time.

[eggynack]

That might work up through level 3, but one good rope trick and the spellbook's safe. Admittedly, that won't last all night until level 8, so you might still manage something, but this is a bit questionable.
Lasts all night at level four if you have a lesser metamagic rod of extend spell. Pretty excellent item to purchase, that.

[ryu]

Damn Tier 1 Monsters ;)

Even then a wizard on his lonesome isn't actually in real danger. Literally just blind the thing and walk away. It's slow and can't really get close enough to attack if you do that. Then go find a monster that isn't on the infamous list of hilariously under CRed things.

If you really wanted to just kill someone at this level I'd say That DAMN Crab, but that was errated to a higher more reasonable CR.

Also yes command undead would work. I was assuming a less specialized list.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Damn Tier 1 Monsters ;)
Eh, i like throwing them at my players. Keeps them from getting complacent. Damn optimizers. :smalltongue:

That said they are pretty much the low-level outlier monster. Not quite That Damn Crab, but still. Everything else is dispatched pretty easily.
And they're still easily doable by a CR3 party with a competent caster (and near-impossible without), which is pretty telling imo.

[Segev]

And they're still easily doable by a CR3 party with a competent caster (and near-impossible without), which is pretty telling imo.

Is there a comparable CR 3 monster which is easily doable by a CR 3 party with a competent meleeist (and near-impossible without)?

What about a competent rogue (but near-impossible without)?

[Gullintanni]

Even then a wizard on his lonesome isn't actually in real danger. Literally just blind the thing and walk away. It's slow and can't really get close enough to attack if you do that. Then go find a monster that isn't on the infamous list of hilariously under CRed things.

If you really wanted to just kill someone at this level I'd say That DAMN Crab, but that was errated to a higher more reasonable CR.

Also yes command undead would work. I was assuming a less specialized list.

I will beg borrow and steal to always keep one preparation of Command Undead ready. Allips and Shadows are TPK machines, and SkeleZombies make great disposable minions. Plus the spell obviates an entire category of monsters that a lot of character archetypes have trouble fighting. Most Clerics either abandon turning early on, which means Command Undead is an asset, or specialize in Turning, in which case, it's unnecessary. Rogues at low level can't target undead with precision damage. So in the absence of Clerical intervention and or another party that can exploit (incorporeal) undead weaknesses, having an ace up your sleeve can be valuable.

Ice Slick//Grease is your best hope. People often forget this:




Being Attacked while Balancing
You are considered flat-footed while balancing, since you can’t move to avoid a blow, and thus you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). If you have 5 or more ranks in Balance, you aren’t considered flat-footed while balancing. If you take damage while balancing, you must make another Balance check against the same DC to remain standing.



...The one time Archery will ever be OP? :P
Also, Alchemists fire all but guarantees that you'll damage the thing. It'll fall down eventually.

[ryu]

I will beg borrow and steal to always keep one preparation of Command Undead ready. Allips and Shadows are TPK machines, and SkeleZombies make great disposable minions. Plus the spell obviates an entire category of monsters that a lot of character archetypes have trouble fighting. Most Clerics either abandon turning early on, which means Command Undead is an asset, or specialize in Turning, in which case, it's unnecessary. Rogues at low level can't target undead with precision damage. So in the absence of Clerical intervention and or another party that can exploit (incorporeal) undead weaknesses, having an ace up your sleeve can be valuable.

Ice Slick//Grease is your best hope. People often forget this:



...The one time Archery will ever be OP? :P
Also, Alchemists fire all but guarantees that you'll damage the thing. It'll fall down eventually.

I would rather keep a wand of the spell around unless I'm actively having a minion prep day. All of the upside, none of the lose of one of your highest slots if you don't hit undead of any sort.

[Gullintanni]

I would rather keep a wand of the spell around unless I'm actively having a minion prep day. All of the upside, none of the lose of one of your highest slots if you don't hit undead of any sort.

Keep in mind, then, that Wand save DCs are always the minimum for their spell level. A Wand of Command Undead only has a DC of 13. That's only a 45% chance to check an Allip, vs 60 at DC 16, or 70 at DC 18.

[ryu]

Keep in mind, then, that Wand save DCs are always the minimum for their spell level. A Wand of Command Undead only has a DC of 13. That's only a 45% chance to check an Allip, vs 60 at DC 16, or 70 at DC 18.

I mean... You can kite it and a wand is fifty shots?

[Flickerdart]

I mean... You can kite it and a wand is fifty shots?

Look at Mr. Rich Guy over here.

[ryu]

Look at Mr. Rich Guy over here.

I'm not expecting to take ALL 50. This is like, statistically probably, three shots on average to five tops.

[Shackel]

"The literature on this subject is well-known and can be found all over this campus." It isn't that you need to read every word. And, having looked back over your posts elsewhere, I'm pretty sure you ARE more well-read on the subject than your opening post makes you seem. But you haven't really cited and refuted any of it. So your argument remains at the "undergraduate" level.


If you ask me this is where most of the problems of this argument are coming from. Not only does it have a condescending attitude that is reminiscent of a grad student challenging the faculty or the classic archetype of the first year philosophy student who suddenly understands the world and how everything(including his textbooks) are wrong, but it's also demanding proof when it is making the big claim: that common knowledge is wrong.

Which is not only a fallacy of its own right that also strengthens the student simile but is even more agitating because not everyone knows every bit of information that makes the wizards so powerful. In fact, I dare say it's not like a grad student challenging a room full of professors.

It's a grad student declaring relativity is completely wrong to fellow grad students and demanding they perform the tests and rewrite the texts to prove him wrong.

[Segev]

I'm not expecting to take ALL 50. This is like, statistically probably, three shots on average to five tops.

At 90 gp/shot, that's still 270 to 450 gp. Will a CR 3 encounter even drop that much loot?

[Gullintanni]

I'm not expecting to take ALL 50. This is like, statistically probably, three shots on average to five tops.

Every round you spend trying to kite it, assuming terrain permits, is a round you also have to save against its DC16 hypnosis aura. Time is not on your side :smalltongue:

It also gets to double move. All it has to do to be a threat to you is get close, whereas you're stuck moving then spending an action on your wand.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I would rather keep a wand of the spell around unless I'm actively having a minion prep day. All of the upside, none of the lose of one of your highest slots if you don't hit undead of any sort.

Just have your melee guys carry around some Ghostblight (CAdv) and get a Weapon Capsule Retainer (CAdv) for their main weapon. That's usually enough to deal with incorporeal enemies at low levels, since they all have crappy hp.
It's hardly a wasted expense since it does serve your whole career with things like Quicksilver, Trollbane, poisons and the like to deal with monster abilities that are annoying but not worth buying an enchantment or separate weapon for.

Then once you can afford it get a Shirt of Wraith Stalking (MIC) and never worry about undead again.


Every round you spend trying to kite it, assuming terrain permits, is a round you also have to save against its DC16 hypnosis aura. Time is not on your side :smalltongue:

It also gets to double move. All it has to do to be a threat to you is get close, whereas you're stuck moving then spending an action on your wand.
Succeeding once makes you immune for 24 hours to the Babble.
It is the most dangerous feature, since an unlucky row of saves basically means you're standing there like a group of idiots waiting to be drained, but there's not much you can do about that at level 3 besides trying to stay out of range and kill it quickly or eat one touch attack and let that snap you out of it (but that'll mean you'll run around with Wis drain for a loooong time barring DM intervention).

[ryu]

Every round you spend trying to kite it, assuming terrain permits, is a round you also have to save against its DC16 hypnosis aura. Time is not on your side :smalltongue:

It also gets to double move. All it has to do to be a threat to you is get close, whereas you're stuck moving then spending an action on your wand.

Try once and then be immune for 24 hours. Nice try.

[Gullintanni]

Try once and then be immune for 24 hours. Nice try.

Well...look at that. Missed a line of dialogue :smalltongue:

[icefractal]

Others have already brought up more stuff the wizard does. I'll add Divinations in general and debuff stacking (negative levels and ability damage, amongst others) to the bunch.Speaking of overrated ...

Divinations are hugely overrated, especially regarding their use by the Wizard. People like to say things like "Well of course they prepare for this exact circumstance, because divinations", or "They'll have exactly the Crafted Contingent Spells they need, because divinations", with no more than a vague hand-wave toward how those divinations are actually being used.

Sometimes people try to act like it would be the genius-level Wizard doing the divining instead of the human player, and so its irrelevant and unnecessary to say what divinations are occuring. Protip: That's not how the game works. At all. Seriously, would anyone expect this to be taken seriously?

DM: The demons are approaching.
Player: I cast a spell.
DM: What spell?
Player: The one that will win this fight.
DM: Ok, which one is that?
Player: Oh, I have no idea. But my character has Int 30, so he'd know.


So if anyone has an actual divination strategy - as in, specific spells and questions, for either:
A) Being prepared for surprise hazards in general.
B) Preparing for a specific situation with, say, 1-2 days notice in advance.

Then I urge you to post it, it would be a great resource for anyone playing a Wizard. Otherwise, I'm going to continuing treating "Use the divinations, Luke" as so much hot air.

[bean illus]

So, I think, I speak for a number of people, when I say, I have no idea what RNG and SGT mean, in relation to this thread.

On topic: wizards have a very large number of options, whether TO or PO, and in 3.5 options are power. A wizard can easily become overpowered without even touching WBL, feats, or cheese. This is why they're considered very powerful, their optimisation ceiling is so incredibly high.

I didn't see anyone answer this in between the fights (they may have, but the fighting makes me dizzy so i might have missed it).

RNG means random number generator (dice). When they say 'break rng' they mean the dice can't possibly generate a 'hit'.

SGT means Same Game Test. They are asking if you would like to run your 'wizard' against the same monsters (solo?) and then run the ?whatever? against the same monsters (therefore theoretically showing which class is stronger.

[animewatcha]

What I am getting from all this.

Topic Creator: "Wizard should only cast Magic Missile. That's it."

Wizard: "Hold my beer."

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=7802.0

[sleepyphoenixx]

So if anyone has an actual divination strategy - as in, specific spells and questions, for either:
A) Being prepared for surprise hazards in general.
B) Preparing for a specific situation with, say, 1-2 days notice in advance.

Then I urge you to post it, it would be a great resource for anyone playing a Wizard. Otherwise, I'm going to continuing treating "Use the divinations, Luke" as so much hot air.

You could start with scouting. Not only does it save you spell slots, it also tells you what questions to ask for the spells you do cast.
Rogues aside, familiars (especially Improved Familiars that can go incorporeal like the Coure Eladrin) are fantastic scouts, usually have good hide checks and in general are very well suited to this. Telepathic Bond or something similar is useful for this.
If you're worried about danger you can use Astral Projection (Planar Bind a Nightmare).

There's also spells like Arcane Eye/Eye of Stone, (Greater) Prying Eyes, Chain of Eyes, Share Husk and the like that let you scout out locations with a magical sensor or riding along with another creature (either a disposable minion or even an enemy mook).
Detect spells (especially Detect Magic and Detect Evil/Undead) and Arcane Sight are great to avoid more immediate hazards. Most really dangerous traps are magical.

More effort and more varying in usefulness are the "interogation" spells. Detect Thoughts, Mind Probe, Brain Spider, Inquisition, Speak with Dead and so on.
How useful they are depends on who you can use it on and what questions you ask. Find out passwords, find out traps or enemy forces, find out enemy plans, it's all possible if you can catch the right guy.

Two castings of Circle Dance and a map let you triangulate the location of any creature you've met firsthand that's not warded. Usefulness should be evident.

Spells like Divination, Commune and Contact other plane are only useful if you know what questions to ask. Sure, you can go "will i face undead tomorrow?", "will i need to travel far tomorrow" and so on to get a better idea what spells to prepare, but you can take care of most of that with scouting.
You can basically ask a bunch of yes/no questions. How useful that is depends on your creativity and how willing your DM is to play along.

Then there's actual [Scrying] spells. Scrying, Greater Scrying, Scry Location, Spymaster's Coin, Clairvoyance/Clairaudience, Remote Viewing and so on. To use those effectively you generally need to have some idea what you're looking for, either a person or a location.
They're mostly useful to spy on people/places, not to scout, but useful none the less. Try to target mooks or non-casters with those - they target will, and scrying sensors require Int 12 to even have a chance of spotting them.

How useful these are depends a lot on your patience, how much you've learned via other methods (want to scry at the right place/time after all) and if your enemy has high-level wizards (they're most easily blocked). They're also useful to acquire your target for scry & die tactics - a place you have studied via scrying counts as "studied carefully".

You can also get a lot of information with enchantment spells. Charm Person/Monster turns anyone into an informant, Suggestion or Hypnotism can be used to make your enemies disable security measures or unlock doors for you. Hypnotism even comes with build-in memory wipe.
A favorite of mine is using Dream Casting (it has unlimited range) to charm one of the BBEGs officers (or other important/knowledgeable person) and then use communication spells like Whispering Sand or Forest Voice to just ask your new friend about the information you want to know. Without ever leaving your house.

[Segev]

So if anyone has an actual divination strategy - as in, specific spells and questions, for either:
A) Being prepared for surprise hazards in general.
B) Preparing for a specific situation with, say, 1-2 days notice in advance.

Then I urge you to post it, it would be a great resource for anyone playing a Wizard. Otherwise, I'm going to continuing treating "Use the divinations, Luke" as so much hot air.

I generally agree with you, divinations are overrated because they're a) assuming a very permissive/helpful DM and b) assuming a lot of prep time. That said, there are reasonable uses of them.

Now, to your specific request, I probably will screw up my paraphrase of this, but I HAVE seen something posted that illustrates how to use, say, commune or contact other plane to get somewhat specific information.

The crux of it is that you need to set up carefully-layered binary questions, much as if you were playing "Guess Who?" in order to make it so that you're narrowing down KINDS of threats you will face.

A narrower case I recall specifically seeing involved essentially asking, "Is anybody planning to kill me?" and, on a 'yes,' start asking "Guess Who?" style questions to narrow down who and how and what their plan is. Then prepare spells to either scry-and-die them preemptively or to be prepared for their specific plan.

The broader case involves knowing what you're going to get into. A good legend lore can reveal a lot of what you need to know about the specific mission or target. Contact other plane can then be used to binary-search-tree for optimal energy resistances, energy damage types, and any specific immunities that would render certain spells useless vs. specific vulnerabilities to suggest particularly effective spells.

[Afgncaap5]

It occurs to me that this thread's kinda like a guy going into Wrigley Field and declaring that The Cubs aren't that great. Except wizards have a more easily defended track record.

Is there a polar opposite to "Preaching To The Choir"? This feels like that. "Preaching Against The Choir?"

Having said that, one thing in the original post that I think is worth addressing is the sort of built-up culture of wizard defense, both here and on a lot of other similar boards. Most posters don't do this, but when a discussion of player options or spellcasting issues comes up it's sorta hard to avoid someone showing up and saying "Pfff. Just make a demiplane with convenient time/make an army of ice assassins of aleaxes/be a factotum instead/dance the Chaos Shuffle/cast Gate" or something like that. This sort of culture can feel like it dismisses some of the initial concerns about whatever the person with questions is asking (not to mention assumes that the person with questions is playing a game where such things are reasonably possible), and it also speaks to what people in other games might call a "stale metagame."

Now, to be fair, the metagame of D&D 3.5 *is* stale. We haven't received new material in a long time, Pathfinder and 3rd party publishers notwithstanding, and even when we were getting new stuff the 1st tier casters had a *lot* going for them. Designing an encounter that a wizard can't beat is possible, but designing an encounter that a wizard can't beat alone but can beat if the rest of the party contributes a commensurate amount of work is much harder, and I think that's at the root of a lot of these kinds of discussions.

[Beheld]

It would almost be worth being banned to shut up the 14 variations of "Get a load of this loser who doesn't understand Wizard optimization, he should go read handbooks."

Spoiler alert, I do, better than you, the point I keep making, is that casting spells at the levels you get them as a Wizard does not break CR, it has never broken CR, it's just what you are supposed to do to keep up. And no amount of "someone once wrote a list of spells" counts as evidence for the claim that casting spells at appropriate levels crushes CR, to do that, you have to look at what actual appropriate EL encounters are and what happens when you cast the spells.


I have read your posts, but I don't see such a "positive representation." Can you link it, or repost/quote it for me, please?

It was literally my first post, although, the vast majority of it was context so that people acting in good faith could have an idea what I meant, but the single most relevant line is you know, this one:


But if you just make a Wizard, and you prepare some spells in your spell slots, and then you cast those spells you prepared at some encounters, you know, like the things probably like 90% of people who play D&D do most of the time, you end up with a situation in which the Wizards do not actually destroy appropriate CR and instead are pretty much right about even, along with Clerics.

[Goladar]

It would almost be worth being banned to shut up the 14 variations of "Get a load of this loser who doesn't understand Wizard optimization, he should go read handbooks."

Spoiler alert, I do, better than you, the point I keep making, is that casting spells at the levels you get them as a Wizard does not break CR, it has never broken CR, it's just what you are supposed to do to keep up. And no amount of "someone once wrote a list of spells" counts as evidence for the claim that casting spells at appropriate levels crushes CR, to do that, you have to look at what actual appropriate EL encounters are and what happens when you cast the spells.



It was literally my first post, although, the vast majority of it was context so that people acting in good faith could have an idea what I meant, but the single most relevant line is you know, this one:

So you're referring a blaster wizard with no optimization?

If you are, i think it's reasonable to say that a wizard like that isn't overpowered. But you are making assumptions about what spells people prepare. It might help if you put together a list of spells you think the average player prepares.

[Beheld]

So you're referring a blaster wizard with no optimization?

If you are, i think it's reasonable to say that a wizard like that isn't overpowered. But you are making assumptions about what spells people prepare. It might help if you put together a list of spells you think the average player prepares.

Yeah, it's pretty clear I'm going to have to put together the Wizards myself and then get a bunch of people whining about how I made ****ty wizards because they know of a +1 in Champions of Ruin that I didn't add, so the whole test is worthless.

It was what I was kind of hoping to avoid by getting literally anyone else to present a Wizard build at any point, but oh well.

[ryu]

Yeah, it's pretty clear I'm going to have to put together the Wizards myself and then get a bunch of people whining about how I made ****ty wizards because they know of a +1 in Champions of Ruin that I didn't add, so the whole test is worthless.

It was what I was kind of hoping to avoid by getting literally anyone else to present a Wizard build at any point, but oh well.

And have literally all of them get you to whine that their wizards were too powerful or cheesy despite making no use of the things you banned and still doing the things you said they couldn't? Right.

[eggynack]

It was literally my first post, although, the vast majority of it was context so that people acting in good faith could have an idea what I meant, but the single most relevant line is you know, this one:
Right, so a positive representation of what you're looking for is, "Casts spells, usually in the moment," which is ridiculously broad. And then you put forth a set of specific restrictions that don't cover anywhere close to what you actually intend. And then I offer to participate in your strange challenge, once I have a reasonable idea of what benchmarks you expect to hit, and you yell at me about how I'm acting in bad faith and throw straw man arguments at me about regeneration based immunity. And you're the one discussing things in good faith here. Sure.

[Goladar]

Yeah, it's pretty clear I'm going to have to put together the Wizards myself and then get a bunch of people whining about how I made ****ty wizards because they know of a +1 in Champions of Ruin that I didn't add, so the whole test is worthless.

It was what I was kind of hoping to avoid by getting literally anyone else to present a Wizard build at any point, but oh well.

Was i correct that you were referring to a blaster wizard? Or maybe something like Mialee, from Enemies and Allies?

[Beheld]

Right, so a positive representation of what you're looking for is, "Casts spells, usually in the moment," which is ridiculously broad. And then you put forth a set of specific restrictions that don't cover anywhere close to what you actually intend. And then I offer to participate in your strange challenge, once I have a reasonable idea of what benchmarks you expect to hit, and you yell at me about how I'm acting in bad faith and throw straw man arguments at me about regeneration based immunity. And you're the one discussing things in good faith here. Sure.

I offer to demonstrate a Druid that I refuse to say even a single thing about before hand to prove that Wizards can break CR.


....

That, WHY? Why are you surprised that I didn't take up your offer to run a Druid at CR 10 enemies? Why is this a thing that surprises you?

[Beheld]

Was i correct that you were referring to a blaster wizard? Or maybe something like Mialee, from Enemies and Allies?

No. You were not.

[ryu]

I offer to demonstrate a Druid that I refuse to say even a single thing about before hand to prove that Wizards can break CR.


....

That, WHY? Why are you surprised that I didn't take up your offer to run a Druid at CR 10 enemies? Why is this a thing that surprises you?

Maybe because you're OP explicitly welcomes all comers to demonstrate CR with multiple classes? Right at the end of the first paragraph?

[Beheld]

Maybe because you're OP explicitly welcomes all comers to demonstrate CR with multiple classes? Right at the end of the first paragraph?

When you figure out what the first paragraph actually says, let me know. I'll be waiting here, until the heat death of the universe.

[ryu]

When you figure out what the first paragraph actually says, let me know. I'll be waiting here, until the heat death of the universe.

Oh I know what it says. I just don't think you do considering it's pretty clearly not what you intended from peoples reactions to it.

[Beheld]

Oh I know what it says. I just don't think you do considering it's pretty clearly not what you intended from peoples reactions to it.

Heat Death of the Universe Here I Come!

[eggynack]

I offer to demonstrate a Druid that I refuse to say even a single thing about before hand to prove that Wizards can break CR.
Why would I start building before knowing what benchmarks you want it to hit? Building an optimized druid takes time. Saying, "I think that class can perform at approximately this level against encounters," is trivial. And your contention in the opening post is in no way limited to wizards. You keep saying it is, but you are utterly mistaken. If you only wanted to make only the incredibly specific claim that wizards aren't as good against equal CR opponents than is often claimed, maybe you shouldn't have had all these broad claims which actually brought up druids specifically, and should have instead just said, "Wizards are weaker against CR than is sometimes said, to this specific extent, at least under these given assumptions."


That, WHY? Why are you surprised that I didn't take up your offer to run a Druid at CR 10 enemies? Why is this a thing that surprises you?
Why wouldn't it? You seemed to want to evaluate the power level various CR's have relative to casterly types, with druids as an explicit element of that ("Apply as you like to Druid/Cleric/Artificer/Archivist too,"). You even specified that druids are slightly stronger, indicating that druids should be a reasonable model for wizardly analysis. I just went with druid stuff cause I can put something together for that easier and better. And then you started hurling weird straw men and insults and such, for some reason.

[Goladar]

No. You were not.

Ok, I'm willing to put together a build. What are the parameters for PC creation? Obviously no infinite loops or breaking WBL. Anything else you want to exclude? How many appropriate CR creatures do i have to beat(more than 65% of the time is what i think you said)? Is this solo or with a party?

[Beheld]

why would i start building before knowing what benchmarks you want it to hit? Building an optimized druid takes time. Saying, "i think that class can perform at approximately this level against encounters," is trivial. And your contention in the opening post is in no way limited to wizards. You keep saying it is, but you are utterly mistaken. If you only wanted to make only the incredibly specific claim that wizards aren't as good against equal cr opponents than is often claimed, maybe you shouldn't have had all these broad claims which actually brought up druids specifically, and should have instead just said, "wizards are weaker against cr than is sometimes said, to this specific extent, at least under these given assumptions."

why wouldn't it? You seemed to want to evaluate the power level various cr's have relative to casterly types, with druids as an explicit element of that ("apply as you like to druid/cleric/artificer/archivist too,"). You even specified that druids are slightly stronger, indicating that druids should be a reasonable model for wizardly analysis. I just went with druid stuff cause i can put something together for that easier and better. And then you started hurling weird straw men and insults and such, for some reason.

hello darkness of the heat death of the universe my old friend.

[ryu]

hello darkness of the heat death of the universe my old friend.

By all means keep criticizing people's reading utility despite having it clearly and repeatedly pointed out to you precisely what's causing this reaction you didn't want.

[remetagross]

Ok, I'm willing to put together a build. What are the parameters for PC creation? Obviously no infinite loops or breaking WBL. Anything else you want to exclude? How many appropriate CR creatures do i have to beat(more than 65% of the time is what i think you said)? Is this solo or with a party?

I will be closely watching that! :)

[Beheld]

Ok, I'm willing to put together a build. What are the parameters for PC creation? Obviously no infinite loops or breaking WBL. Anything else you want to exclude? How many appropriate CR creatures do i have to beat(more than 65% of the time is what i think you said)? Is this solo or with a party?

I mean, whatever, I used to assume people were capable of being reasonable about these things.

28 PB so everyone can have their precious 18 that no one has ever not had in the history of D&D. Just like, be an LA zero race with X levels of casting as a Wizard, where X is your current level. Don't take Persist spell. Don't minionmancy.

Make the same character at levels 5/6/10 at least, since those are the ones I already have encounters picked at.

65% is about what you "should" hit as an optimized character solo, but 55% is perfectly reasonable at level 5 when your spells don't kill people and you don't have anyone else along to kill people for you.

[Goladar]

I will be closely watching that! :)

Now I'mm nervous.

[Beheld]

By all means keep criticizing people's reading utility despite having it clearly and repeatedly pointed out to you precisely what's causing this reaction you didn't want.

When eggy fails at reading, and then won't back down, and then you believe the misreading he made without reading it, and then won't back down, and you are the only two people who can't read the first paragraph (and really both of you have gone back and realized you are wrong now, but are unwilling to admit you made a mistake) that's not "people" pointing it out. It's the same two people who do this constantly.

[JNAProductions]

Why can't Persist be taken? It's good, but without metamagic cheese, it's hardly broken. Hell, again, sans cheese, it's not even usable till 11th level, and that's on CANTRIPS.

In addition, Beheld, I think if anyone here has issues reading, it's probably you.

[Uncle Pine]

Ok, I'm willing to put together a build. What are the parameters for PC creation? Obviously no infinite loops or breaking WBL. Anything else you want to exclude? How many appropriate CR creatures do i have to beat(more than 65% of the time is what i think you said)? Is this solo or with a party?

I asked for the same clarifications twice over the course of the thread, but I've been ignored by OP. Maybe he's not interested in actual data and just wants to argue for arguing's sake? Like his predecessor, Lord Drako?

[JNAProductions]

I asked for the same clarifications twice over the course of the thread, but I've been ignored by OP. Maybe he's not interested in actual data and just wants to argue for arguing's sake? Like his predecessor, Lord Drako?

He doesn't want to argue. He wants to be right.

[eggynack]

hello darkness of the heat death of the universe my old friend.
Is it against the rules to tell someone they've utterly failed to read their own post? I'm going to check. Says, "Tell a poster that they clearly didn't read what you or others wrote upthread." I've gotta assume that "others" is referring to people that aren't you or the poster in question, as opposed to referring to just anyone that isn't you, so that'd be a no, seemingly. You have utterly failed to read your own post. You're saying now that the first paragraph of your post was just about wizards. It wasn't. You explicitly applied your wizard claims to the druid, cleric, artificer, and archivist, or at least allowed the reader to apply the claims at their own discretion (meaning you can't tell me I'm wrong when I do, in fact, apply the claims, even when you disagree with that application).

Also, why did you remove arbitrary capitalization when you quoted me? That's weird. Is there some kinda program you have on whatever you're posting with that arbitrarily removes some capitalization when you copy text? Not sure why such a thing would exist, but it wouldn't be completely out of the question.

[JNAProductions]

Something that comes up off and on, including pretty much whenever balance comes up in this thread is the "forum consensus" that man, if you just pick some Wizards, you can walk into any fight and just totally body monsters of CR = Party level with no challenge if you just pick the right spells. Apply as you like to Druid/Cleric/Artificer/Archivist too.

But the irksome thing about this, is it pollutes every part of every balance conversation, but is never justified anywhere outside of repeated citation to forum consensus. This isn't necessarily new, by any means, but it's annoying.

I will, briefly, talk about balance:

1) Yes, if you break the RNG, you can be OP. But so can anyone. Wizards can stack a bunch of feats with Arcane Thesis to cast super dumb Orb Spells. Good for them. Barbarians can stack super dumb feats to get 1:32 power attack ratios or whatever and break the RNG that way. Yes, Wizards can totally cast off of taint with DC 123 save or dies, no one cares, because that's not a thing people actually play. (Diplomacy is also broken, but available to everyone, and falls under 3 below.)

2) Infinite spells per day or "very large numbers of spells per day" aka Persist all your buffs for free. Yes, if you DMM persist, or take 3 levels of incantatrix, or are a spelldancer, you can walk around with a suite of buffs that are effectively having like 50 times the spells per day, or alternatively, just time shift to a timeless plane to reprepare spells whenever your buffs run out, even if you have to do it every 10 rounds. That's also broken, and if, unlike above RNG breaking, it's at least playable, It is probably the case if a single feat can be removed from the game (and you play with no timeless planes, or encounters on timeless planes where Illithids try to eat your brain) and your entire strategy falls apart, that it isn't the best measure against CR.

3) Minionmancy. Minionmancy is the first broken thing that is actually spells, and it's basically the only broken spells. It's Animate Dead, Planar Bindings (all three), Gate, Dominate, Charm + Diplomacy, Animate Dread Warrior, Command Undead, and Rebuke Undead (on shadows for infinite shadow army). Basically anything that gives you a huge pile of minions for spells yesterday or a week or a month ago instead of today.

Now, those things are actually broken. But if you just make a Wizard, and you prepare some spells in your spell slots, and then you cast those spells you prepared at some encounters, you know, like the things probably like 90% of people who play D&D do most of the time, you end up with a situation in which the Wizards do not actually destroy appropriate CR and instead are pretty much right about even, along with Clerics. Druids are filthy cheaters who are slightly stronger because they also get to be fighters and carry around pocket fighters, and then everyone else underperforms.

Now, I say things like this all the time in balance discussions, and no matter what happens 100% of the time, people tell me I'm wrong, but then refuse to even provide any kind of evidence or demonstration.

So this thread exists to be the demonstration thread, if anyone thinks they have an actual demonstration for Wizards blowing apart CR with their prepared spells, I'm down to hear it. (Also, while I'm here, I will totally take requests for people who think they can demonstrate fighters keeping up if they really want.)

The original OP, for posterity. It hasn't been edited as of this post, but you never know.

[Mister Loorg]

hello darkness of the heat death of the universe my old friend.
I've come to talk to you again.

[ryu]

I've come to talk to you again.

Don't think I've seen you even once before. Are you new? A lurker? Maybe a regular on a different subforum who branched out? Nice to meet you anyway.

[Beheld]

I asked for the same clarifications twice over the course of the thread, but I've been ignored by OP. Maybe he's not interested in actual data and just wants to argue for arguing's sake? Like his predecessor, Lord Drako?

Hey, you know where he got that 65% number from? I do. It's from where I quoted you asking that question and then answered it. Two pages ago.

[remetagross]

65% is about what you "should" hit as an optimized character solo, but 55% is perfectly reasonable at level 5 when your spells don't kill people and you don't have anyone else along to kill people for you.

Ok so this is a solo challenge?

...


https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder649/66229649.jpg

[Mister Loorg]

Don't think I've seen you even once before. Are you new? A lurker? Maybe a regular on a different subforum who branched out? Nice to meet you anyway.
I'm a lurker who's been testing the water with posting. I'm sorry to say that I can't provide much info to the subject at hand, I just wanted to add to the joke. Thanks for the warm welcome, though!

[Azoth]

Don't think I've seen you even once before. Are you new? A lurker? Maybe a regular on a different subforum who branched out? Nice to meet you anyway.

Mister Loorg was quoting the next lyric in "Sound of Silence".

[ryu]

Mister Loorg was quoting the next lyric in "Sound of Silence".

Yeah I know. I was more interested in meeting someone I knew for a fact I didn't remember seeing.

[Beheld]

You explicitly applied your wizard claims to the druid, cleric, artificer, and archivist, or at least allowed the reader to apply the claims at their own discretion (meaning you can't tell me I'm wrong when I do, in fact, apply the claims, even when you disagree with that application).

No I applied your claims and then let you apply your own. See if you read the actual words that are now even on this page they show me saying "this is the forum consensus" which you'll note, is different from my own opinion. So that first paragraph, where I say "others believe x" is not my position. And not to get too technical but it also doesn't mean that I believe the forum consensus is 100% wrong in all ways. Hence why I spent like 4 paragraphs making caveats about where I agreed with forum consensus.


Also, why did you remove arbitrary capitalization when you quoted me? That's weird. Is there some kinda program you have on whatever you're posting with that arbitrarily removes some capitalization when you copy text? Not sure why such a thing would exist, but it wouldn't be completely out of the question.

Apparently the reason you might have such software is if you managed an internet forum and didn't want people to yell in all caps so you set your software to remove all caps when a post is 100% caps. But apparently while the program piggybacks on the 10 character check software by checking outside quotes, it still uncaps inside quotes.

[eggynack]

No I applied your claims and then let you apply your own. See if you read the actual words that are now even on this page they show me saying "this is the forum consensus" which you'll note, is different from my own opinion. So that first paragraph, where I say "others believe x" is not my position. And not to get too technical but it also doesn't mean that I believe the forum consensus is 100% wrong in all ways. Hence why I spent like 4 paragraphs making caveats about where I agreed with forum consensus.
You didn't really indicate that the consensus is correct in this case though. You clarified your position regarding druids a tiny amount, but your specific claim there was that they're slightly better than the classes that underperform compared to CR, so they ain't doing great. To be specific, your claim seems to be that druids are slightly stronger than equal CR encounters. I would contend, and I was contending at the time, that this is an understatement. And, critically, as you yourself point out, the opening paragraph is indeed the forum consensus, albeit through the lens of your own words. If you will read your thread title, you claim that the forum is wrong. Thus, as a general rule, unless stated otherwise, your position is that the claims in that opening paragraph, representing the claims of your opposition, are wrong, up to and including the claim that druids crush equal CR encounters with no challenge.

I mean, jeez, I obviously didn't think the opening paragraph was your personal opinion. The underlying rhetorical construction you were working with is that the opening paragraph sets the scope of the opposing view that you're refuting, and then the following paragraphs support your refutation of that view. Druids were part of said opposing view, so the information afterwards implicitly applies to druids. So, you have a scope setting opening paragraph that includes druids, and an aspect later that includes druids, making specific claims on that topic. Thus, like it or not, going purely by the text you have presented, your argument was, in fact, partially about druids.



Apparently the reason you might have such software is if you managed an internet forum and didn't want people to yell in all caps so you set your software to remove all caps when a post is 100% caps. But apparently while the program piggyback on the 10 character check software by checking outside quotes, it still in cape inside quotes.
Weird.

[Beheld]

You included druid in a long list of caveats of what you weren't talking about. This proves that you were really talking about druids all along. Fine eggy. Make a core only druid at level 5, 6, and 10. Using the elite array. Take average for hp. See you at the heat death of the universe at 60%.

[eggynack]

You included druid in a long list of caveats of what you weren't talking about. This proves that you were really talking about druids all along.
That's not what I said you said. Druid wasn't in a list of caveats indicating things you weren't talking about. It was on a list of forum opinions that your post was refuting, and then it was listed as something you have a particularly defined opinion on, an opinion I was disputing (not regarding power relative to wizards, which I hold is accurate, but regarding power relative to CR).



Fine eggy. Make a core only druid at level 5, 6, and 10. Using the elite array. Take average for hp. See you at the heat death of the universe at 60%.
This is not your stated restriction for non-druids. Are you saying that druids do utterly transcend CR in non-core environments? Are you saying you're correct about how CR operates if and only if things are kept in core? Do you think that being a druid is such an advantage that a core druid is roughly equal in power to a wizard with all sources?

[Beheld]

This is not your stated restriction for non-druids. Are you saying that druids do utterly transcend CR in non-core environments? Are you saying you're mistaken about how CR operates, if and only if things are in core? Do you think that being a druid is such an advantage that a core druid is roughly equal in power to a wizard with all sources?

No but I do think that while other people are arguing in good faith you aren't so my only option is to explicitly ban all cheese ever created and that if I have to over an for a class I never even wanted to run for, so be it.

[JNAProductions]

No but I do think that while other people are arguing in good faith you aren't so my only option is to explicitly ban all cheese ever created and that if I have to over an for a class I never even wanted to run for, so be it.

Okay, what if I built and ran the Druid?

[eggynack]

No but I do think that while other people are arguing in good faith you aren't so my only option is to explicitly ban all cheese ever created and that if I have to over an for a class I never even wanted to run for, so be it.
I don't see what, in anything I posted, is not in good faith. As I pointed out earlier, you are still the one failing to argue in good faith by refusing to properly define, to any meaningful extent, what is being disallowed.

[Beheld]

I don't see what, in anything I posted, is not in good faith. As I pointed out earlier, you are still the one failing to argue in good faith by refusing to properly define, to any meaningful extent, what is being disallowed.

I defined exactly what is allowed. If you can't outperform cr without your favorite cheese just say so.

[JNAProductions]

I defined exactly what is allowed. If you can't outperform cr without your favorite cheese just say so.

Again, Beheld, what if I played the Druid? Do all Druids have to be restricted? Are Fighters also restricted?

[Segev]

It was literally my first post, although, the vast majority of it was context so that people acting in good faith could have an idea what I meant, but the single most relevant line is you know, this one:

But if you just make a Wizard, and you prepare some spells in your spell slots, and then you cast those spells you prepared at some encounters, you know, like the things probably like 90% of people who play D&D do most of the time, you end up with a situation in which the Wizards do not actually destroy appropriate CR and instead are pretty much right about even, along with Clerics.


So straight wizard, no PrCs or ACFs (or PF Archetypes), but specializing or not is up to you, use spells and feats as best you can? Is that an accurate parsing of the positive portrayal you are giving here?


I believe the Batman Wizard operates at this level of optimization fairly straight-forwardly.

Would the Easy-Bake Wizard fit your criteria?

In any event, the primary problems tend to be what the wizard can do with prep and downtime; if the game is one where the wizard has any foreknowledge at all of what he's going to be doing, enough to even start scouting or scrying or divining the right questions to get the answers he needs, the "well-tailored preparation" kicks in. Assuming the player of the wizard wants to do that, and the DM doesn't no-sell it. Both of which are big assumptions, and are admittedly a the core of why wizards get credit for being uber-prepared in white rooms but might come up short in games.

[eggynack]

I defined exactly what is allowed. If you can't outperform cr without your favorite cheese just say so.
You defined what is allowed in a way that doesn't actually support your claim in the opening post. If you can't establish equal CR encounters as a serious threat outside of possibly the most restrictive environment possible, just say so.

[JNAProductions]

Also, I think this can be said-White room theorizing Wizards are (barring some tables like Tippy's) better than actual play Wizards.

That being said! Well-played Wizards, even on the tabletop, kick a LOT of butt.

[Beheld]

So straight wizard, no PrCs or ACFs (or PF Archetypes), but specializing or not is up to you, use spells and feats as best you can? Is that an accurate parsing of the positive portrayal you are giving here?


I believe the Batman Wizard operates at this level of optimization fairly straight-forwardly.

Would the Easy-Bake Wizard fit your criteria?

In any event, the primary problems tend to be what the wizard can do with prep and downtime; if the game is one where the wizard has any foreknowledge at all of what he's going to be doing, enough to even start scouting or scrying or divining the right questions to get the answers he needs, the "well-tailored preparation" kicks in. Assuming the player of the wizard wants to do that, and the DM doesn't no-sell it. Both of which are big assumptions, and are admittedly a the core of why wizards get credit for being uber-prepared in white rooms but might come up short in games.

Actually, what I was shooting for was allowing PrCs, which is why I phrased it as "X levels of casting as a Wizard, where X is your current level" so that any progression in PrCs that advance your wizarding also count.

Seems like it does, didn't actually read everything on the page, but didn't see anything prohibited in my skim.


You defined what is allowed in a way that doesn't actually support your claim in the opening post. If you can't establish equal CR encounters as a serious threat outside of possibly the most restrictive environment possible, just say so.

My claim in the Op had nothing to do with Druids, so literally anything I say now about Druids cannot possibly be in contradiction to it. Look, I get it, you can't possibly do it without your cheese, so without being able to sort through my express ban list and find some cheese I forgot to mention, you can't do it, so a blanket ban prevents you from doing it. I get that eggy, that's why you get the blanket ban, because we both know you aren't arguing in good faith and are just fishing for the not expressly banned TO cheese, which is why Goulder gets trusted and you don't, because he's actually trying to test my actual claim (which in part is easy to see, because he's making a Wizard, the thing I actually made a claim about in the OP, and defined this thread around, and specifically set out the demonstration criteria for).

[Calthropstu]

I literally never claimed you were "but an undergraduate" to my "great facultyness". I have never claimed to be any kind of expert in D&D 3.5. I stand, like most do, on the shoulders of giants. The fact that I cannot immediately link to the relevant threads (which will number in the hundreds) at a moment's notice is as irrelevant as the fact that I cannot link to the particular page in Plato's Republic where he bans flute music. But I know he said it, and I know it's in there somewhere.

It was well implied, hence why I went off on you earlier. You're coming off as holier than thou, and it's a tad bit jerkish.
People are touting T1s as the only way to beat higher CR encounters, while I have watched similar feats done with simple sword wielders. I watched a 14th level PF paladin smite a 24th level lich caster adopted from 3.5 into oblivion in 1 round. Someone mentioned getting past 12 fighters, I have seen similar feats with a bard. Hell, a good diplomacy roll could accomplish the same.
The arguments here are pretty watery to be honest.

There are spells I simply don't cast because they aren't party friendly. Wail of the banshee, for example, has a 40 foot radius spread with close range. Great if you are alone against a group of enemies in a vacuum, but likely to catch party members, random civilians, and other random bystanders. The psion power that does a 40 foot burst centered on the caster... pretty nice if you are by yourself, almost guaranteed to blast party members. So I consider spells like that to be rather niche spells.

edit: On a side note, I notice that balors have a 22 fort save in 3.5, but a 29 in PF. Interesting.

[JNAProductions]

It was well implied, hence why I went off on you earlier. You're coming off as holier than thou, and it's a tad bit jerkish.
People are touting T1s as the only way to beat higher CR encounters, while I have watched similar feats done with simple sword wielders. I watched a 14th level PF paladin smite a 24th level lich caster adopted from 3.5 into oblivion in 1 round. Someone mentioned getting past 12 fighters, I have seen similar feats with a bard. Hell, a good diplomacy roll could accomplish the same.
The arguments here are pretty watery to be honest.

There are spells I simply don't cast because they aren't party friendly. Wail of the banshee, for example, has a 40 foot radius spread with close range. Great if you are alone against a group of enemies in a vacuum, but likely to catch party members, random civilians, and other random bystanders. The psion power that does a 40 foot burst centered on the caster... pretty nice if you are by yourself, almost guaranteed to blast party members. So I consider spells like that to be rather niche spells.

Cal, no offense, but you're not the best at optimizing. It sounds like your players have fun while playing, so you're obviously a good DM, but 24th level Lich has numerous ways of being outright immune to damage/destruction by damage, and would be making use of them.

[Calthropstu]

Cal, no offense, but you're not the best at optimizing. It sounds like your players have fun while playing, so you're obviously a good DM, but 24th level Lich has numerous ways of being outright immune to damage/destruction by damage, and would be making use of them.

I wasn't GMing that, I was playing.
And it was PF... where a lot of "immune to damage" was simply removed. He DID have 15 dr, but... paladin smite in pf ignores that. Also, it was adopted from a module... and modules tend to suck at optimizing which is fair.
And it was in Ravenloft... so no astral projection.

[JNAProductions]

I wasn't GMing that, I was playing.
And it was PF... where a lot of "immune to damage" was simply removed. He DID have 15 dr, but... paladin smite in pf ignores that. Also, it was adopted from a module... and modules tend to suck at optimizing which is fair.
And it was in Ravenloft... so no astral projection.

Ah. Well, side question-do your players have fun when you DM? Because if so, don't let anyone tell you you're doing it wrong. You might be low-OP, but who cares if people have a good time?

And I'm used to 3.P when I play, so stuff like Delay Death/Beastland Ferocity works fine.

[Beheld]

My players carry around a sword that casts Commune 1/day, and there's an ongoing joke about how bad they are at using it, and how they constantly ask questions that cause them to do the exact wrong thing.

It's a great time.

[Calthropstu]

Ah. Well, side question-do your players have fun when you DM? Because if so, don't let anyone tell you you're doing it wrong. You might be low-OP, but who cares if people have a good time?

And I'm used to 3.P when I play, so stuff like Delay Death/Beastland Ferocity works fine.

They seem to. Most of them anyways.

[eggynack]

My claim in the Op had nothing to do with Druids, so literally anything I say now about Druids cannot possibly be in contradiction to it.

It very much had to do with druids. You expressly mention them in the category of things the playground is wrong about. You are currently lying about very visible text.


Look, I get it, you can't possibly do it without your cheese, so without being able to sort through my express ban list and find some cheese I forgot to mention, you can't do it, so a blanket ban prevents you from doing it. I get that eggy, that's why you get the blanket ban, because we both know you aren't arguing in good faith and are just fishing for the not expressly banned TO cheese, which is why Goulder gets trusted and you don't, because he's actually trying to test my actual claim (which in part is easy to see, because he's making a Wizard, the thing I actually made a claim about in the OP, and defined this thread around, and specifically set out the demonstration criteria for).
The fundamental truth here is that druids with these restrictions are significantly weaker than wizards without. With said restrictions in place, making the argument in a druid fashion is somewhat pointless, whether I can do so or not. And, again, you've provided no evidence that I'm arguing in bad faith. You're just saying it repeatedly. For no reason. And if you want your thread to be just about wizards, take out all the stuff about other classes in the OP. You shouldn't make claims you're not willing or able to support.

[Beheld]

It very much had to do with druids. You expressly mention them in the category of things the playground is wrong about. You are currently lying about very visible text.

The fundamental truth here is that druids with these restrictions are significantly weaker than wizards without. With said restrictions in place, making the argument in a druid fashion is somewhat pointless, whether I can do so or not. And, again, you've provided no evidence that I'm arguing in bad faith. You're just saying it repeatedly. For no reason. And if you want your thread to be just about wizards, take out all the stuff about other classes in the OP. You shouldn't make claims you're not willing or able to support.

Learn to read.

[JNAProductions]

Learn to read.

You probably should. You very clearly lumped Druids in with Wizards in your opening post. If you did not intend that, then you wrote poorly.

[eggynack]

Learn to read.
I've already given you an incredibly detailed breakdown of exactly how your post is partially about druids. Your counterpoint of, "Nope," is intensely unconvincing.

[Beheld]

I've already given you an incredibly detailed breakdown of exactly how your post is partially about druids. Your counterpoint of, "Nope," is intensely unconvincing.

You sure successfully lied about the contents of the post several times, I'll give you that.

[eggynack]

You sure successfully lied about the contents of the post several times, I'll give you that.
Where did I lie? Everything I said was present was present.

[Beheld]

Where did I lie? Everything I said was present was present.

You lied about the Druid not being a caveat at the same time you also lied about the first paragraph about forum consensus being somehow something I am contractually obligated to argue against, even when it's literally in a caveat.

But sure, next time I want to make a thread about Wizards, I'll put Wizard in the title, and I'll say things like "So this thread exists to be the demonstration thread, if anyone thinks they have an actual demonstration for Wizards blowing apart CR with their prepared spells, I'm down to hear it."

OH WAIT! THAT'S WHAT I DID. But sure, just keep whining about how you demand that I completely change the content of the thread to be about something completely different because you want it, and then whine when I accommodate you because you demanded specific exact ban list of everything in the universe, and then you got mad when I gave you one because I didn't let you cheese.

[JNAProductions]

Beheld, I've been reading this thread. And I can safely say, Eggynack has been doing what they can to debate in good faith, sticking as best they can to the truth and their interpretation of your words.

You have not.

[eggynack]

You lied about the Druid not being a caveat at the same time you also lied about the first paragraph about forum consensus being somehow something I am contractually obligated to argue against, even when it's literally in a caveat.
Your thread is explicitly about the forum being wrong. It's right in the thread title. The only point of setting something up as part of the forum consensus in that opening paragraph is to establish what you're arguing about. What would be the point otherwise? Why mention it if it's not in the scope of your thread? And, while you do have a caveat about druids, said caveat does not remove druids from contention. It merely establishes higher standards for them. And they're very slightly higher standards at that. My argument, from the very start, was that I think I can exceed those slightly higher standards. That they can do more than a bit better than a class that underperforms against CR. You can set up a somewhat higher standard CR destruction for druids than for wizards, if you want. Such a maneuver would fit the construction of your opening post. But to not apply any CR standard at all, or to limit the class significantly more than you would a wizard, is inconsistent with your post's arguments.


But sure, next time I want to make a thread about Wizards, I'll put Wizard in the title, and I'll say things like "So this thread exists to be the demonstration thread, if anyone thinks they have an actual demonstration for Wizards blowing apart CR with their prepared spells, I'm down to hear it."

OH WAIT! THAT'S WHAT I DID. But sure, just keep whining about how you demand that I completely change the content of the thread to be about something completely different because you want it, and then whine when I accommodate you because you demanded specific exact ban list of everything in the universe, and then you got mad when I gave you one because I didn't let you cheese.
Hey, if that were the only thing you posted, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. That one line version of your post, right there, that has nothing to do with druids. It's only this longer version that explicitly mentions druids that is clearly partially about druids. Hell, the major contention of your title isn't that we're wrong about wizards. It's that we're wrong about CR. Wizard might be your focus, but they're far from the only class going up against similar CR'd monsters. Cause, y'know, every class does that.

[busterswd]

Opening thread in a nutshell:

Wizards aren't that great. All you have to do is:

* prevent their ability to prepare before combat and remove their long term resources from a campaign
* remove a variety of magic spells that make them powerful
* obliviate extraplanar benefits that martial classes aren't able to access
* throw encounters at them that virtually no other class would be able to handle
* because it's too powerful ]

How does that not read as a tacit acknowledgment that wizards are, in fact, that strong?

[Menzath]

So, minionmancy isn't allowed.
But normal class feature pets are? And you allow prcs.
Well it so happens that for Daremetodareyou's thread's on feats I made a wizard that had 4 familiars, that were all 24HD elementals that were undead abberations, and still had 8th lvl spells(I think).
Also the familiars come back for free the next day.
So if that doesn't break an equal level CR encounter with ease, having spells on top of that should.

[Beheld]

And, while you do have a caveat about druids, said caveat does not remove druids from contention. It merely establishes higher standards for them. And they're very slightly higher standards at that. My argument, from the very start, was that I think I can exceed those slightly higher standards. That they can do more than a bit better than a class that underperforms against CR. You can set up a somewhat higher standard CR destruction for druids than for wizards, if you want.

Or, and I know this is going to blow your ****ing mind, I could say, "So this thread exists to be the demonstration thread, if anyone thinks they have an actual demonstration for Wizards blowing apart CR with their prepared spells, I'm down to hear it."

AND THAT WOULD DEFINE THIS THREAD TO BE ABOUT SOMETHING AND IF YOU WANTED TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE YOU COULD TALK ABOUT THAT.

But sure keep whining about how when I did give you exactly what you (in bad faith) claimed you wanted, you had to back out because it didn't allow your favorite cheeses.

[eggynack]

Or, and I know this is going to blow your ****ing mind, I could say, "So this thread exists to be the demonstration thread, if anyone thinks they have an actual demonstration for Wizards blowing apart CR with their prepared spells, I'm down to hear it."

AND THAT WOULD DEFINE THIS THREAD TO BE ABOUT SOMETHING AND IF YOU WANTED TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE YOU COULD TALK ABOUT THAT.

But sure keep whining about how when I did give you exactly what you (in bad faith) claimed you wanted, you had to back out because it didn't allow your favorite cheeses.
You said more than one thing in your post. One of the things you said was about this being a wizard demonstration thread. One of the other things you said was about druids. There was also a second thing about druids. These things don't stop existing just cause you say a thing about wizards. And again, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you say I made these claims or arguments in bad faith. If you wanted to state the percentage of equal CR encounters you think an optimized druid, under the restrictions you've outlined for wizards, could do really well against, I would be all about that. I have said words that match perfectly my intent and motives.

[Rhyltran]

Beheld, look I have no agenda. I actually defended your opening post but this is looking more and more like a Draco thread with each page. The only thing that's missing is "My offense has no defense" and pictures of topless male sorcerers. Sleepypheonixx handled your post and your criteria. You just decided blinded enemies can still come back and re-engage. You moved the goal posts. The moment the enemies retreated the encounter was over. Could they come back non-blinded while the wizard has less spells? Certainly. They could also walk, fly, or whatever right back into an ambush since the party is ready for them or since half the encounters are some kind of magical creature they might decide (much like if a bear gets bear spray in his face) that it's time to run away. It doesn't matter the initial encounter has ended.

I felt that Phoenixx did a great job outlining how wizards can handle and overcome the challenges you laid out until you arbitrarily decided it wasn't good enough.

[AnachroNinja]

I've tried to stay out of this one, in no small part because I can sympathize with you Beheld. The way you feel about wizards in this forum is how I feel about ToB classes on this forum. So I'm always willing to give the benefit of the doubt to an idea like what you presented.

That being said, the way you're going about this is not helpful to anyone, let alone your own argument. Most others seem to be genuinely trying to figure out the parameters of your proposal and you are actively making that difficult. You need to take a step back, calm down, and try to reapproach this objectively.

[Uncle Pine]

So, just to bring the thread somewhat back on its (supposedly?) tracks, here are some guidelines I missed because they were posted right when I was writing my last post:


I mean, whatever, I used to assume people were capable of being reasonable about these things.

28 PB so everyone can have their precious 18 that no one has ever not had in the history of D&D. Just like, be an LA zero race with X levels of casting as a Wizard, where X is your current level. Don't take Persist spell. Don't minionmancy.

Make the same character at levels 5/6/10 at least, since those are the ones I already have encounters picked at.

65% is about what you "should" hit as an optimized character solo, but 55% is perfectly reasonable at level 5 when your spells don't kill people and you don't have anyone else along to kill people for you.

28 point buy, spellcasting level (as a Wizard) equal to your level, no Persist spell, no minionmancy. OP explicitly allowed PrCs, as long as they progress Wizard casting.

The same character is required at 5th, 6th and 10th level.

Bragging rights to whoever beats at least 65% of CR-equivalent encounters.

GO WILD!

My first idea would be to start off as a Wizard 1/Rainbow Servant 4 and see if it works, although I must admit it's partially because: a) Rainbow Servant is a pet peeve of mine, b) it gets free wings at 4th level so you don't need to take Fly as one of your 3rd level spells, c) the spells from Air and Good domain aren't too terrible. I'll try to post something more detailed later.

[Bad Wolf]

Whisper Gnome Illusionist could work. Go into Shadowcraft Mage.

[Calthropstu]

So, just to bring the thread somewhat back on its (supposedly?) tracks, here are some guidelines I missed because they were posted right when I was writing my last post:



28 point buy, spellcasting level (as a Wizard) equal to your level, no Persist spell, no minionmancy. OP explicitly allowed PrCs, as long as they progress Wizard casting.

The same character is required at 5th, 6th and 10th level.

Bragging rights to whoever beats at least 65% of CR-equivalent encounters.

GO WILD!

My first idea would be to start off as a Wizard 1/Rainbow Servant 4 and see if it works, although I must admit it's partially because: a) Rainbow Servant is a pet peeve of mine, b) it gets free wings at 4th level so you don't need to take Fly as one of your 3rd level spells, c) the spells from Air and Good domain aren't too terrible. I'll try to post something more detailed later.

Actually, I kinda like this. Start a thread. Make 100 different CR appropriate encounters for each level (1,5,6,10, 14, 20) base, but do not show what they are. People make submission of characters. Few weeks later, post how they did in a results thread.

In order to count as a *win* they must beat the encounter with with 65% or higher efficiency.

[Schattenbach]

Wizards obviously aren't the strongest T1 class (their only major perk besides their free access to the strongest spell list of all full-casters is slightly more feats than most other T1 classes and being SAD Int-based and their excellent PrCs), that spot has already been conquered by Psions. Archivists are arguably equal or stronger, too, while Clerics perform better than Wizards at lower levels while Druids more or less dominate at lower levels, though both of them (Druids and Clerics) get - compared to Wizards - somewhat weaker on until somewhere within epic levels when Polymorph/Polymorph any Object/Sphapechange starts to lose its value and everyone has enough wealth to patch up most of the versatility-related issues through UMD/Items and +skillbonus items and whatever else there is at epic levels. Sorcerers (and, due to better and actual class features ... Beguilers might be T1 as well under specific circumstances, but their case is slightly different, anyway) with sufficient access to wealth and/or Psychic Reformation are T1 as well and are arguably at least slightly better than Wizards at high/epic levels due to the slightly superior epic spell mechanic and some other minor perks of their spellcasting mechanics (they still lack a bit in terms of feats, though) ...

... doesn't change the matter about that wizards are (as long as one doesn't actually deny them their class features, the use of wealth and/or the access to decent prcs and/or feats) very strong but still prone to major weaknesses ... spell books, require downtime to make the most out of their spell list (as it is the case for most particulty powerful full casters, though as their spells are more general than cleric or druid spells, they suffer less from that), squishy (without investing quite a bit of resources into that), require scrolls or some other means (spell research and/or copying spells ... and enemy wizards have spellbooks one could copy spells from for cheap), etc. and they still require some form of party (or minions) to be played to their full potential (as crowd control isn't all that helpful if there isn't someone who can take advantage of that).

[Beheld]

Sleepypheonixx handled your post and your criteria. You just decided blinded enemies can still come back and re-engage. You moved the goal posts.

Uh what? How is that moving the goal posts? That a creature blinded for three rounds can fly up, then turn around and come back is so obviously the case that I'm literally amazed I have to point this out. I mean, the duration of the spell is literally in the spell description. If there was no difference between the duration of Glitterdust and the duration Blindness, presumably they wouldn't have different lengths of time. My claim was that Wizards don't break CR. How is intelligent creatures with fly speeds acting in response to the spells the Wizard casts moving the goalposts. Casting Glitterdust on an enemy you can't kill while it's blinded is not destroying CR, that's the entire point.


The moment the enemies retreated the encounter was over. Could they come back non-blinded while the wizard has less spells? Certainly. They could also walk, fly, or whatever right back into an ambush since the party is ready for them or since half the encounters are some kind of magical creature they might decide (much like if a bear gets bear spray in his face) that it's time to run away. It doesn't matter the initial encounter has ended.

Uh what... It's 3 rounds! It's not 3 minutes, or 3 hours. It's 3 rounds. If an enemy casts invisiblity and takes more than 3 rounds to attack you do you declare victory because they "ran away" during the the rounds they were buffing up?


I felt that Phoenixx did a great job outlining how wizards can handle and overcome the challenges you laid out until you arbitrarily decided it wasn't good enough.

I "arbitrarily decided" that a condition with a duration of 3 rounds isn't winning encounters? How is that arbitrary. That's not winning encounters! Do you also think that you "win" the encounter if you cast Stinking Cloud, they fail the save, leave the cloud, and don't attack you for 3 rounds because they are nauseous and have no standard action, and then on the fourth round use their standard action to kill you? Is that "well we are 1-1 in encounters, because he didn't attack me for three rounds!"


That being said, the way you're going about this is not helpful to anyone, let alone your own argument. Most others seem to be genuinely trying to figure out the parameters of your proposal and you are actively making that difficult. You need to take a step back, calm down, and try to reapproach this objectively.

I think you will find that if you just ignore the one person who won't shut up about Druids that aren't the subject of this thread, that everything I'm saying is pretty fair.

But that's the point. Eggy's actual goal is to prevent any conversation about Wizards by posting about Druids non stop and sabotaging the thread.

[Schattenbach]

Beheld, wouldn't this druid issue be resolved at least for now if you simply cleared up what this topic is all about (is it about wizards being overrated, is it about wizards being used as measurement for CR being wrong, is it about T1 classes in general being used as measurement for CR being wrong, is it about something else), edit the first post to clear things up so that there isn't any more reason to misunderstand what this topic is all about and then be done with things that are then off-topic? I'm just asking because I'm not exactly sure what this thread is supposed to be about, either.

[Beheld]

Beheld, wouldn't this druid issue be resolved at least for now if you simply cleared up what this topic is all about (is it about wizards being overrated, is it about wizards being used as measurement for CR being wrong, is it about T1 classes in general being used as measurement for CR being wrong, is it about something else), edit the first post to clear things up so that there isn't any more reason to misunderstand what this topic is all about and then be done with things that are then off-topic? I'm just asking because I'm not exactly sure what this thread is supposed to be about, either.

The first post does say what it is about, and I have clarified in response to literally every post eggy makes.

The problem that Eggy doesn't want clarification, he wants to say "I know you said this thread was about Wizards in the First post, but let's talk about Druids, because I know some dumb cheese your forget to mention in your OP!" and no matter how much I say it is about Wizards, he will continue to only ever post about Druids, because his actual goal is to prevent a conversation about Wizards and sabotage the thread. No clarification can ever solve this problem. If I edit the original post, then eggy will post 500 times as much as every poster combined repeatedly asking if that means Druids break CR and I'm wrong about CR for Druids and doesn't that mean I'm therefore also wrong for Wizards. Because that's all he wants to do, is sabotage the thread in whatever way he can come up with.

[remetagross]

Beheld, I have a question about the sample Wizard build allowed: are all sources valid? And how many spells should we consider the Wizard has been able to add to his spellbook in addition to his two spells per level? I suppose we are not supposing that the Wizards knows every single spell on the list.

[Beheld]

Beheld, I have a question about the sample Wizard build allowed: are all sources valid? And how many spells should we consider the Wizard has been able to add to his spellbook in addition to his two spells per level? I suppose we are not supposing that the Wizards knows every single spell on the list.

1) I mean, pay for them out of WBL at 150gp per spell level (or cheaper if you make the inks cheaper) except first level spells which are 125gp per spell level.

2) Notice that one of the stipulations in the OP was "Prepare spells, and then cast those prepared spells." So if your build relies on Uncanny Forethought or Versatile Spellcaster, then it fails to be what I'm measuring.

[Uncle Pine]

Beheld, I have a question about the sample Wizard build allowed: are all sources valid? And how many spells should we consider the Wizard has been able to add to his spellbook in addition to his two spells per level? I suppose we are not supposing that the Wizards knows every single spell on the list.

Additional clarifications: what about WBL? Do we just follow that?

[Beheld]

Additional clarifications: what about WBL? Do we just follow that?

Yeah pretty much.

EDIT: I think I realized I never answered about sources.

Sources: I would like people to act in good faith, this doesn't work much if it's just me forgetting to ban things. But generally, don't use Dragon Mag, I don't even have access to like 90% of that, don't use variant rules, but if it's published in a WotC 3.5 book, that's probably a good source. But like, don't tell me about you worshipped and Elder Evil to get 5 free feats or Chaos Shuffled X to Y either.

[bean illus]

Well it so happens that for Daremetodareyou's thread's on feats I made a wizard that had 4 familiars,


Hey, can you link that for me?

[remetagross]

2) Notice that one of the stipulations in the OP was "Prepare spells, and then cast those prepared spells." So if your build relies on Uncanny Forethought or Versatile Spellcaster, then it fails to be what I'm measuring.

Oh, and no Alacritous Cogitation either? Why so? These feats are useful but not gamebreaking.

[Beheld]

Oh, and no Alacritous Cogitation either? Why so? These feats are useful but not gamebreaking.

I mean honestly, I have no problem with Alacritous Cogitation. It's like Mage of The Arcane Order, the difference between a Character who sometimes does things is different from a character that always does something. If you literally cast spontaneously with every spell slot, then it's really just not the same thing as "preparing spells and then casting the prepared spells" if you leave one slot open and under very limited circumstances try to pull out something, that's different.

This is where I am relying on people to be making characters in good faith to test the actual thing I'm talking about. I don't want to have to specifically ban everything in the game that might be odd you know, I want to be able to trust people to be able to see what is being tested and try to test it.

[Sliver]

Who would have thought that a thread starting with "you are all wrong" and the OP believing that Draco is a good example for things "working great" would progress in such a spectacular way...

[Beheld]

Who would have thought that a thread starting with "you are all wrong" and the OP believing that Draco is a good example for things "working great" would progress in such a spectacular way...

Or you could be minorly honest.

"The response to bad thing X was a good thing."

"WHY ARE YOU PRAISING BAD THING X!?"

[Anthrowhale]

I'd suggest adding the clarifications about what you are looking for to the OP as otherwise casual readers will not find it buried in the conversation stream and you'll need to restate things repeatedly.

[Beheld]

I'd suggest adding the clarifications about what you are looking for to the OP as otherwise casual readers will not find it buried in the conversation stream and you'll need to restate things repeatedly.

It is in the OP, besides being stated multiple times in the OP, it's literally the part of the OP where I say "this thread exists for X."

[Anthrowhale]

It is in the OP, besides being stated multiple times in the OP, it's literally the part of the OP where I say "this thread exists for X."

Looking at the conversation, I see some significant confusion and requests for clarification, which you have provided inline (wizard only, no Dragon, prestige classes ok as long as they advance casting, no variant rules, no significant spontaneous spells, etc...).

Would a Red Wizard with Arcane Disciple dropping caster level 40 arcane Holy Word variants @L10 be allowed?

[Beheld]

Looking at the conversation, I see some significant confusion and requests for clarification, which you have provided inline (wizard only, no Dragon, prestige classes ok as long as they advance casting, no variant rules, no significant spontaneous spells, etc...).

Would a Red Wizard with Arcane Disciple dropping caster level 40 arcane Holy Word variants @L10 be allowed?

That would fall under one of the parts of the OP, specifically the "RNG breaking" part. This is why good faith and attempting to test the actual thing is so important.

Also, the SGT actually prevents you from doing Circle Magic, since the way it is structured prevents you from having a Circle to circle magic with.

[Pleh]

I agree with the OP in what I see to be its essential point:

Most real games don't see tippyverse or even PO wizards destroying campaigns. Most wizard abilities have little flaws and limitations that balance them more than they seem.

It depends on your table. RAW does tend to favor T1 gamechangers.

[Anthrowhale]

That would fall under one of the parts of the OP, specifically the "RNG breaking" part. This is why good faith and attempting to test the actual thing is so important.

Holy word doesn't use random numbers so calling it "RNG breaking" is semantically confusing to me. Related, is Sudden Maximize Reach Shivering Touch RNG breaking? Any use of Sudden Maximize? What is RNG breaking exactly when there are no random numbers involved? Perhaps you want some constraint like "all offensive spells used must have a save and that save must be passable by a CR appropriate enemy at least 50% of the time"?


Also, the SGT actually prevents you from doing Circle Magic, since the way it is structured prevents you from having a Circle to circle magic with.

Your description of SGT here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21819059&postcount=87) (again would be good to put it in the OP if that is the criteria) makes it clear that there is only one PC, but not that there are no class-feature creatures (Familiar, animal companion, simulacrums, etc...). Are none allowed? Only explicit ones allowed? Can you Obtain Familiar?

[Sliver]

Or you could be minorly honest.

"The response to bad thing X was a good thing."

"WHY ARE YOU PRAISING BAD THING X!?"

Hmm, you blaming me for being dishonest when I'm quoting you directly...


Seemed to work great for Draco. Plenty of productive discussion even if none of it came from him. If people disagree, they are welcome to demonstrate that I am wrong. If they don't, then they don't. I guess I just don't see how this could possibly prevent productive discussion that would have otherwise occurred when it's a subject no one is willing to talk about.


OP believing that Draco is a good example for things "working great"

I am criticizing your willingness to do bad thing X. Just because you can do it and there being some benefit out of it overall, you could have acted differently and there would be a benefit out of it, without you needing to play the antagonist to the discussion you started.

Which is exactly what you said. I didn't say that you believed that Draco was good, but that you believed that that is an example of things "working great". Which is what you have said. But of course, you are quick to claim that I'm being dishonest in order to shrug off what I'm saying. Shocker. Next you are going to tell me to learn to read. Your offense simply has no defense.

[Beheld]

Holy word doesn't use random numbers so calling it "RNG breaking" is semantically confusing to me. Related, is Sudden Maximize Reach Shivering Touch RNG breaking? Any use of Sudden Maximize? What is RNG breaking exactly when there are no random numbers involved? Perhaps you want some constraint like "all offensive spells used must have a save and that save must be passable by a CR appropriate enemy at least 50% of the time"?

Right, hence good faith figuring out what I'm talking about. Because any description is by it's nature going to accidentally miss some thing that is in spirit exactly like the things being prohibited, but not explicitly being prohibited. If I add in Caster level > Level times 4 to the list of prohibitions, someone will find some other random thing that isn't an RNG but that is pretty much the same thing. And then say "well I'll use this!"

I mean, casting level appropriate spells at level appropriate levels is the thing being tested. Off the top of my head, I also haven't explicitly mentioned Leadership Cohort with Leadership, Cohort with Leadership cheese or Diplomacy skill cheese, or "only cast level appropriate spells" cheese.

But I assume that someone acting in good faith won't say:

"Well if you take Domain Wizard and Elven Generalist and then get Spontaneous Divination and then Versatile Spellcaster, and then you cast 9th level spells at level 6 to beat all the level 6 challenges. And therefore it follows that if a level 5 Wizard prepares stinking cloud and casts it, that he is OP"

And having level inappropriate Caster level is basically the same as having level inappropriate spells or level inappropriate damage by Arcane Thesis stacking.

Sudden Maximize is one of those "no one does this in real games because it's not actually a good thing to do, but it's abnormally powerful in SGTests, so my build does it" and honestly, I'm not even going to try to ban all those things, there are way too many of them, and they really aren't that distortionary, so I'm confident the vast majority of such uses won't make a big deal.


Your description of SGT here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21819059&postcount=87) (again would be good to put it in the OP if that is the criteria) makes it clear that there is only one PC, but not that there are no class-feature creatures (Familiar, animal companion, simulacrums, etc...). Are none allowed? Only explicit ones allowed? Can you Obtain Familiar?

I am not familiar with any method to have your familiar circle magic with you up to Caster level 40, but then again, I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out multiple different ways to break the RNG.

EDIT: I see you randomly threw in simulacrums for some reason. Yeah, Simulacrums and presumably Ice Assassins would probably fall under that whole heading I made about Minion Mancy.

[Rhyltran]

Uh what? How is that moving the goal posts? That a creature blinded for three rounds can fly up, then turn around and come back is so obviously the case that I'm literally amazed I have to point this out. I mean, the duration of the spell is literally in the spell description. If there was no difference between the duration of Glitterdust and the duration Blindness, presumably they wouldn't have different lengths of time. My claim was that Wizards don't break CR. How is intelligent creatures with fly speeds acting in response to the spells the Wizard casts moving the goalposts. Casting Glitterdust on an enemy you can't kill while it's blinded is not destroying CR, that's the entire point.

How so? Unless they literally fly just straight up and assuming they don't fly away for three rounds then they're six rounds behind. In a full sprint they're even further away. Not that it matters. You're giving the party three rounds to shoot them with ranged spells and abilities (as they fly away), assume a position to ambush them, or even simply find some means to escape/hide. There's a lot that can happen in three rounds. Heck, depending on what classes are available, the option to take three rounds to buff up is also a possibility and given that these are intelligent/semi intelligent creatures this is if they decide to come back at the people they failed to ambush and blinded them in a single turn as opposed to doing something more intelligent like, I don't know, finding easier prey? You're also ignoring the PLETHORA of creatures who can't easily get away or the fact that some classes have means of following that up with ways to prevent them from escaping. Does it "literally" end the encounter? No, but it can and does make things a lot easier on the rest of the party.

To answer your question on how it's moving the goal posts? Pheonixx show cased certain spells (utilizing NO feats etc) that severely crippled the opposition. Not to mention glitterdust and blind isn't the only thing he utilized. Take a look at the stinking cloud effect where you state "They can stay in the cloud" most beings if they're in something that is nauseating them to the point where they can't attack or move aren't going to remain in the effect. Even if they do a fireball can be dropped on them. Also, that's not the best use of something to that effect anyway. Divide and conquer. If a group of enemies decide to now use the cloud as cover or remain in the cloud and there's a group of enemies outside the cloud congratulations. You just cut the enemy forces down by half.




Uh what... It's 3 rounds! It's not 3 minutes, or 3 hours. It's 3 rounds. If an enemy casts invisiblity and takes more than 3 rounds to attack you do you declare victory because they "ran away" during the the rounds they were buffing up?

Most of the creatures you listed have no means of buffing up. Not to mention most of the time invisibility comes online there's ways to block the creature's access to invisibility or use some means of seeing invisibility. So given that they need to run and plan to buff for 3 rounds? Yeah, I'd consider that a win because they're about to get a rude interruption.




I "arbitrarily decided" that a condition with a duration of 3 rounds isn't winning encounters? How is that arbitrary. That's not winning encounters! Do you also think that you "win" the encounter if you cast Stinking Cloud, they fail the save, leave the cloud, and don't attack you for 3 rounds because they are nauseous and have no standard action, and then on the fourth round use their standard action to kill you? Is that "well we are 1-1 in encounters, because he didn't attack me for three rounds!"

If they leave out the other side you do realize it has a 20 ft radius, right? You do know that's hardly an insurmountable distance to cover while they're unable to attack for three rounds, right? Unless they want to run back through the cloud. Not to mention remember your invisibility example? "He could spend three turns buffing up!" if for some reason the party can't get to them we can use three rounds to buff up. They can't because they're nauseated. If you consider that a huge benefit well.. advantage party?

To answer your question. Yeah, an enemy out of commission for three rounds when round economy is a big thing is a game over.

[Anthrowhale]

And having level inappropriate Caster level is basically the same as having level inappropriate spells or level inappropriate damage by Arcane Thesis stacking.


Ok, that helps define things Caster level <= character level, spell access <= vanilla wizard of character level (i.e. no higher level scrolls/staffs/etc...), and no metamagic cost reduction.



Sudden Maximize is one of those "no one does this in real games because it's not actually a good thing to do, but it's abnormally powerful in SGTests,


It is particularly powerful in a Same Game Test, but it's decent on a build as well especially when you throw away arcane thesis and operate from early levels. Anyways, I think you are allowing Sudden Maximize Shivering Touch (kicking in at level 5 with a touch) and Sudden Maximize Reach Shivering Touch at level 9. Given this, a CR appropriate enemy vulnerable to dex damage loses on a touch or ranged touch, right?

How do you feel about a ring of invisibility? That hits really hard when the opponent has no defense.

What about sources of incorporeality like the savage progressions ghost? That shuts down all mundane attacks and can hit from an early level.

What about the Abrupt Jaunt ACF? That screws with targeting for attacks pretty effectively.

What is the minimum duration of an all-day buff? 8 hours?


EDIT: I see you randomly threw in simulacrums for some reason.

Not random: they are a fine circle magic power source. In fact, I regard them as too delicate for much else if you are paying full cost for them. I think we are supposed to assume that familiars obtained by any means are allowed.

[Segev]

I think the easiest approach would be to simply look at a max-int wizard's spell list and potential spellbook, and see if spell selection alone can get us off the ground. Most "wizards are unstoppable" memes center around their use and preparation of spells, not around build choices. From minimal lists necessary to achieve "dominance" as a wizard, with strategy for preparation and tactics in mind for their use in preparation for and during the test encounters, we can determine if any particular build choices are needed to make a tactic viable where it wouldn't otherwise be, or to get enough spells, or whatnot. Reasonable discussion of gap-closing with magic items is also valid.

[Beheld]

How so? Unless they literally fly just straight up and assuming they don't fly away for three rounds then they're six rounds behind. In a full sprint they're even further away.

1) When blinded creatures move at half speed, so if the were flying in the opposite direction of the PCs, and the PCs stayed still, they would take 3 rounds to go the distance they could move back in 1.5 rounds.

2) Many of them can go straight up, which is why I mentioned it when relevant, most of them go straight up, and then, whereever the PCs are, a monster with twice the speed could be there in 2 rounds easy (and most of the monsters have at least twice the speed, sometimes like 5 times as much.)

3) What is this "behind" thing. Presumably the PCs where going somewhere, is there any reason to believe that all these monsters are chasing up behind the PCs and then running away from the direction the PCs want to go? I would expect the most common encounter direction is when PCs going in a direction run into monsters going in the opposite or orthogonal direction, in which case a tactical move away from PCs will not put them "behind" the PCs at all.

4) I really don't think the most common course of actions when facing a much faster enemy is to hit them with a 3 round blind then sprint away, they could try it, but I think it would probably not be very effective.


Not that it matters. You're giving the party three rounds to shoot them with ranged spells and abilities (as they fly away), assume a position to ambush them, or even simply find some means to escape/hide. There's a lot that can happen in three rounds.

Yes, the party has three rounds to do things like buff or shoot arrows, or cast spells, I agree. They can do those things as they are able. And it may or may not prove helpful depending on the party composition, the specific enemy, and luck. But my continued point, is that if you look at what happens when they actually do those things, against a huge section of the opposition, perhaps even the majority, that actual effect is an appropriate advantage for the resources spent by CR.


You're also ignoring the PLETHORA of creatures who can't easily get away or the fact that some classes have means of following that up with ways to prevent them from escaping. Does it "literally" end the encounter? No, but it can and does make things a lot easier on the rest of the party.

Yes, it doesn't end the encounter, and it provides some benefit of variable amount. You know, contributing to the encounter as you are supposed to.


To answer your question on how it's moving the goal posts? Pheonixx show cased certain spells (utilizing NO feats etc) that severely crippled the opposition.

No, he showed how he can use a spell to "severly cripple" for only 3 rounds a small number of opponents who failed the save, but only minorly inconvenience a larger number of enemies. How is that moving the goal posts when that was literally my point from the beginning?

Minorly inconveniencing enemies with a highest level spell is not "crushing CR" or "winning easily" and is pretty much "contributing what you are supposed to"


Also, that's not the best use of something to that effect anyway. Divide and conquer. If a group of enemies decide to now use the cloud as cover or remain in the cloud and there's a group of enemies outside the cloud congratulations. You just cut the enemy forces down by half.

Except that I did describe using Stinking Cloud to that effect in my post, but you know, A) that doesn't always work, and B) that's not crushing the encounter. Separateing two CR 3s so they fight you one and then the other with no rounds in between instead of both at the same time is not "winning" the encounter with the spell, it's "contributing about as much as you are supposed to."


Most of the creatures you listed have no means of buffing up. Not to mention most of the time invisibility comes online there's ways to block the creature's access to invisibility or use some means of seeing invisibility. So given that they need to run and plan to buff for 3 rounds? Yeah, I'd consider that a win because they're about to get a rude interruption.

So you consider it a win when an enemy casts invisibilty and then attacks you in 3 rounds? I think we just have completely incompatible definitions of win then.

For example, my Dragons regularly run strafe runs on the PCs. Sometimes they roll a 3 or 4 on their breath recharge, and when they do, they circle around outside of range and come back for another breath 3 or 4 rounds later.

I don't believe PCs are winning an encounter every time they survive a breath weapon.


If they leave out the other side you do realize it has a 20 ft radius, right? You do know that's hardly an insurmountable distance to cover while they're unable to attack for three rounds, right? Unless they want to run back through the cloud. Not to mention remember your invisibility example? "He could spend three turns buffing up!" if for some reason the party can't get to them we can use three rounds to buff up. They can't because they're nauseated. If you consider that a huge benefit well.. advantage party?

Advantage =/= Winning encounter, destroying CR, ect. Yes, casting your highest level spell and the enemy failing the save is not literally worthless, it's just an advantage about what you are expected to get from doing so according to CR.


To answer your question. Yeah, an enemy out of commission for three rounds when round economy is a big thing is a game over.

No, it isn't, it's only a game over if the things you do during those three rounds make it so, and in the stinking cloud and glitterdust examples, they mostly don't.

[Segev]

To be fair, unless the party wants the opposition dead, 3 rounds to simply LEAVE can be enough to end an encounter. It really depends on the goal of the encounter.

Are they trying to loot a room? Then they need more effort to disable the temporarily-hindered guardians, yes. Are they being assaulted by bandits on the road? Putting 3 rounds between them and the bandits can be enough to ruin the ambush and make semi-intelligent bandits rethink their choice of victims. Are they trying to ambush somebody? Three rounds can be enough time to snatch a few things and be off, if that's all they wanted, or can be enough time to grab hostages.

As mentioned before, 3 rounds dealing with half of the enemies (while the other half are disabled) can turn 1 big, harder fight into 2 small, easier fights.

[Knight Magenta]

I think a more straightforward way of phrasing Beheld's restrictions is "a build you would actually play at a gaming table with new people." Let me know if I am wrong. Beheld's claim is that "wizards are not broken in practice."

A higher bar is this: imagine that you are a new player playing in a pre-made adventure path with four other new players. The party is the archetypal fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard. Each player picks options that are cool but there is not particular restrictions on content. How might the wizard accidentally break the game; or at the very least trivialize many encounters.

[Beheld]

I think you are allowing Sudden Maximize Shivering Touch (kicking in at level 5 with a touch) and Sudden Maximize Reach Shivering Touch at level 9. Given this, a CR appropriate enemy vulnerable to dex damage loses on a touch or ranged touch, right?

I don't know, I guess you'll have to face the encounters and see.


How do you feel about a ring of invisibility? That hits really hard when the opponent has no defense.

I'm not sure what the WBL is off the top of my head, so I don't even know if that would be available at all, but if it is, sure. If I'm vaguely remembering correctly that would be almost half your WBL at level 10? Don't see any reason it wouldn't be allowed.


What about sources of incorporeality like the savage progressions ghost? That shuts down all mundane attacks and can hit from an early level.

Well savage progression would, and correct me if I'm wrong, be from a 3.0 book, and therefore not allowed, and prevent you from casting as a level appropriate Wizard, and thus make your character illegal.


What about the Abrupt Jaunt ACF? That screws with targeting for attacks pretty effectively.

Abrupt Jaunt is um. Pretty terrible for these things in the following senses:

1) The actual adjudication of how immediate actions and targetted effects and 10ft teleports work is going to create problems, because there are like 5 different interpretations I know of based on what can or can't be dodged, and if I use any interpretation besides the most powerful, people are going to give me ****. (And I don't think the most powerful is actual Raw either, I'm at about a 2-3 on the power level where 5 is high as what I think is RAW.)

2) It has daily uses, and presumably you would want to use uses in each encounter, so if you had 8, you might use 2 per fight, but in this case, because you know you only have one fight, it means you use one every round for 8 rounds, and by removing the resource management aspect, it kind of outsize powers it.

3) It falls under one of those things that I don't want to ban, but are really silly like "Well yeah, but like if you have Abrupt Jaunt, Wizards OP and destroy CR! And therefore Wizards without Abrupt Jaunt are also OP!" (To be clear, I don't actually think it's that OP, but it's a fair bit more powerful than a familiar in these limited circumstances.) Where some weird random extremely specific thing that was published in 2008 in a book people might not have that might not be allowed, that isn't rules clear is somehow assumed to be mandatory for all Wizards ever played in D&D even and especially before 2008.

Like I'm not saying it's actually banned, I'm just saying, those are the issues I have. And while I could imagine just /3 in uses or something solving the numbers problem, it's like Segev says, it's just one of those things that isn't what people mean or imply when they say Wizards can reck CR, so it's problematic for me, because if I do allow it, everyone will have it and the test suddenly changes form greatly, but if I ban it people do have a decent argument that some wizards can have it so testing should be able to include someone who has it.


What is the minimum duration of an all-day buff? 8 hours?

It won't matter, because you will start with no spells active and the exact same prepared spells in the same enviroment for each test, and then you will be able to, if you so choose, cast spells, and then prepare new spells if you want (but you know, something bad might happen, in those 9+ hours you spend casting, waiting, and then preparing new spells) But if you have 10 hours durations that you want to Frank Cheat you can certainly try that, and probably succeed the vast majority of time.


Not random: they are a fine circle magic power source. In fact, I regard them as too delicate for much else if you are paying full cost for them. I think we are supposed to assume that familiars obtained by any means are allowed.

You began with "class features companions" and then randomly shot in a spell based one, even though the OP has expressly categorized a whole bunch of spells that create minions as outlawed.


I think the easiest approach would be to simply look at a max-int wizard's spell list and potential spellbook, and see if spell selection alone can get us off the ground. Most "wizards are unstoppable" memes center around their use and preparation of spells, not around build choices. From minimal lists necessary to achieve "dominance" as a wizard, with strategy for preparation and tactics in mind for their use in preparation for and during the test encounters, we can determine if any particular build choices are needed to make a tactic viable where it wouldn't otherwise be, or to get enough spells, or whatnot. Reasonable discussion of gap-closing with magic items is also valid.

I think the Wizards need to have for example, and Int score, AC, saves, HP, which in part means they need to have WBL to have the correct numbers for their level.

But yes I am wary of over representation of specific relatively less used ACFs or feats or whatever.


I think a more straightforward way of phrasing Beheld's restrictions is "a build you would actually play at a gaming table with new people." Let me know if I am wrong. Beheld's claim is that "wizards are not broken in practice."

A higher bar is this: imagine that you are a new player playing in a pre-made adventure path with four other new players. The party is the archetypal fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard. Each player picks options that are cool but there is not particular restrictions on content. How might the wizard accidentally break the game; or at the very least trivialize many encounters.

I don't necessarily mean just accidentally either. If preparing the best save or loses after combing the SpC was game breaking, but no one accidentally broke the game by doing that, only truly good optimizers playing well, that would still apply.

But yes, there are tons of things that if you told your DM would get you a nice belly laugh, and then, "no but really, what are you actually playing" that don't belong, but I probably can't name all of them.

[bean illus]

I do a lot of public writing. For business, and as a public speaker. In my opinion; when a large portion of my audience ask for clarification, it's because i wasn't clear enough.

It's hard to know how or why the public doesn't understand my words, but that's irrelevant. The point is that they don't. Invariably, my effect is best served by admitting that a few tweaks will fix it (which is nearly always true).
To lead effectively, a public speaker must understand the 'rules' of engagement. All public speaking classes tell you never put contention in your first paragraph, and try to avoid it at all times. Your goal is to have partners.

The truth is usually somewhere in the middle, the easier i make it for all to see that, the quicker we all win.

(also, try to never use absolutes, which invite the convo to address the listeners intelligence and the fallacy of the absolute, thereby wasting valuable time and energy, losing access to the audience, and reducing the impression of leadership)


I myself think that it's the sheer number of ways to break the RNG that makes wizards OP. If (when) we eventually make a list of what Beheld is calling (somewhat correctly) cheese, we will see he's sorta right. That will not mean the opposing view is completely wrong.

You folks could create the next best system, if the energy was focused correctly, or we could keep doing it this way forever. Hell, if i was an investor or recruiter i would hesitate to hire some of the greatest minds on this forum.

Well, i'm looking forward to seeing the well planned test that are coming. thanks.

[Anthrowhale]

I don't know, I guess you'll have to face the encounters and see.


Playing under a set of heisenrules sounds remarkably unpleasant, so I'll decline.

More generally, I think you cannot adjudicate outcomes since you are coming at this with a foregone conclusion (in the title, no less).

I do think there is an interesting challenge to be done here. Can a wizard without foreknowledge of events and without metamagic reduction or advanced spell or caster level access defeat typical CR appropriate encounters. So, if you want to create a clear set of guidelines and hand it off to someone who is plausibly neutral, that might work well.

[remetagross]

No metamagic reductions either?

[Rhyltran]

1) When blinded creatures move at half speed, so if the were flying in the opposite direction of the PCs, and the PCs stayed still, they would take 3 rounds to go the distance they could move back in 1.5 rounds.

They move at half speed and the rest of the party has three rounds to act. That's a severe advantage and we're assuming the wizard only casts one spell. They can cast more but don't have to. Regardless they're spending less resources than the party as they only cast once.


2) Many of them can go straight up, which is why I mentioned it when relevant, most of them go straight up, and then, whereever the PCs are, a monster with twice the speed could be there in 2 rounds easy (and most of the monsters have at least twice the speed, sometimes like 5 times as much.)

I addressed this. Even if they go straight up the party has three turns in your example to act. There are other classes that might have the ability to take them out of the air or even buff the party up for when they come back which leads to.. wait for it.. a CRUSHING defeat.



3) What is this "behind" thing. Presumably the PCs where going somewhere, is there any reason to believe that all these monsters are chasing up behind the PCs and then running away from the direction the PCs want to go? I would expect the most common encounter direction is when PCs going in a direction run into monsters going in the opposite or orthogonal direction, in which case a tactical move away from PCs will not put them "behind" the PCs at all.

This doesn't matter it doesn't matter which direction the enemies move in. Up, down, left, right, sideways it doesn't really matter. Again, this is also assuming semi intelligent to intelligent creatures don't behave with self preservation in mind. Example, "Gee the moment we engaged we were immediately blinded. Do we really want to re-engage?"


4) I really don't think the most common course of actions when facing a much faster enemy is to hit them with a 3 round blind then sprint away, they could try it, but I think it would probably not be very effective.

It's simply one option of the options I listed. Depending on the encounter it could work. Don't forget players have access to teleport, fly, etc depending on the level.








Yes, it doesn't end the encounter, and it provides some benefit of variable amount. You know, contributing to the encounter as you are supposed to.

Yeah, it is called contributing to the encounter but the wizard is contributing more to the encounter than most other classes. What other class has "As a standard action gain three rounds to act." that isn't a tier 1-3 class? We're also talking the early levels which are the levels that the wizard is at their WEAKEST. This is also assuming just spells. We haven't even looked at actual builds yet.




No, he showed how he can use a spell to "severly cripple" for only 3 rounds a small number of opponents who failed the save, but only minorly inconvenience a larger number of enemies. How is that moving the goal posts when that was literally my point from the beginning?

I disagree on your use of minor inconvenience. Severely crippling opposition in a single spell results in a game over. No matter how you try to spin it. I haven't played with a party alive who couldn't win in three rounds. Heck, most encounters rarely last past two with a competent and optimized group. Disabling opposition for three rounds at most tables I'm experienced in is a game over.




Except that I did describe using Stinking Cloud to that effect in my post, but you know, A) that doesn't always work, and B) that's not crushing the encounter. Separateing two CR 3s so they fight you one and then the other with no rounds in between instead of both at the same time is not "winning" the encounter with the spell, it's "contributing about as much as you are supposed to."

No, but it is contributing more than what other classes can pull. Again, dividing up the encounter to fight enemies one at a time when you have four party members is game changing. I also pointed out how you can get around the stinking cloud and that's avoiding things like flying over it and peppering the enemies down below or the multiple other ways you can get at your helpless opponents. This isn't a vacuum. The rest of the party can exist and act.




So you consider it a win when an enemy casts invisibilty and then attacks you in 3 rounds? I think we just have completely incompatible definitions of win then.

Nice, you pick one of my lines and ignore the rest. If you want feel free to ignore the fact that the time invisibility comes online there's a ton of different ways of negating it, revealing the invisible opponents, or simply casting a see invisibility spell. Or the fact that if the enemy takes time to buff up so can the players. If the invisible opponent leaves combat for three rounds and the players can't A) Take advantage of it or B) get around it or C) negate it. They're not really trying.


For example, my Dragons regularly run strafe runs on the PCs. Sometimes they roll a 3 or 4 on their breath recharge, and when they do, they circle around outside of range and come back for another breath 3 or 4 rounds later.

I don't believe PCs are winning an encounter every time they survive a breath weapon.

Several things.

1) Do remember higher CR dragons have poor flight for most types.
2) If the players have no way of flight, catching up with the dragon, or grounding it they're not trying.
3) spells like shivering touch say hi and goodbye respectively to a dragon.

This is why you rarely ever send a single encounter at a dragon. Dragons are great and devastating when played intelligently against a group of players who are rather new to D&D and didn't prepare before hand. They're not that scary to experienced players out of the book.



Advantage =/= Winning encounter, destroying CR, ect. Yes, casting your highest level spell and the enemy failing the save is not literally worthless, it's just an advantage about what you are expected to get from doing so according to CR.

Cool, so out of the box how many classes get the ability to take an entire enemy encounter back by 3+ rounds?



No, it isn't, it's only a game over if the things you do during those three rounds make it so, and in the stinking cloud and glitterdust examples, they mostly don't.

Certainly but if setting the opposition back three rounds isn't going to do much I think without the wizard the party isn't going to fare too well.

[eggynack]

I think you will find that if you just ignore the one person who won't shut up about Druids that aren't the subject of this thread, that everything I'm saying is pretty fair.

But that's the point. Eggy's actual goal is to prevent any conversation about Wizards by posting about Druids non stop and sabotaging the thread.
No, my goal is to argue against the very explicit claim about druids you made in the OP, and, by extension, to argue against your claims about the nature of CR.


The first post does say what it is about, and I have clarified in response to literally every post eggy makes.

The problem that Eggy doesn't want clarification, he wants to say "I know you said this thread was about Wizards in the First post, but let's talk about Druids, because I know some dumb cheese your forget to mention in your OP!" and no matter how much I say it is about Wizards, he will continue to only ever post about Druids, because his actual goal is to prevent a conversation about Wizards and sabotage the thread. No clarification can ever solve this problem. If I edit the original post, then eggy will post 500 times as much as every poster combined repeatedly asking if that means Druids break CR and I'm wrong about CR for Druids and doesn't that mean I'm therefore also wrong for Wizards. Because that's all he wants to do, is sabotage the thread in whatever way he can come up with.
The first post does say what it's about. What you're failing to realize is that one of the things your first post says it's about is druids. You haven't "clarified" anything. You are lying about a thing explicitly present. The explicit goal of your thread, beyond anything relating to wizards, is to prove that equal CR encounters represent an adequate challenge. It's right there in the title. You think we're wrong about CR relating to wizards, but you also think we're wrong about CR. Well, I think you're wrong about CR, least in the case of druids. And, given that druids are in the explicit scope of the thread, it's an especially fair thing to bring up.



This is where I am relying on people to be making characters in good faith to test the actual thing I'm talking about. I don't want to have to specifically ban everything in the game that might be odd you know, I want to be able to trust people to be able to see what is being tested and try to test it.
But that's ridiculous. We're not mind readers. We don't have the capacity to magically determine what will or won't be allowed, especially if you don't even know what will or won't be allowed. You have constructed an impossible challenge, because it relies on our capacity to conform to a set of completely unstated rules.

[GilesTheCleric]

I've made a thread where we can discuss things with some stated goals and assumptions over here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?518681-Minimum-number-of-spells-for-T1-Wizard), if anyone would like to contribute. It's based on the idea (I think Segev?) raised earlier about the minimum number of spells one needs to dominate the game.

[Beheld]

No metamagic reductions either?

I mean, Arcane Thesis Metamagic stacking is specifically named in the OP? What metamagic reductions do you want? That's kind of a broad category. Rods that have been published in books: Sure.

Arcane Thesis Invisible Spell Chaos Shuffled for 800 more feats Dragon Mag Easy Metaed whatever, no.


Regardless they're spending less resources than the party as they only cast once.

...

Yeah, it is called contributing to the encounter but the wizard is contributing more to the encounter than most other classes. What other class has "As a standard action gain three rounds to act." that isn't a tier 1-3 class? We're also talking the early levels which are the levels that the wizard is at their WEAKEST. This is also assuming just spells. We haven't even looked at actual builds yet.

...

No, but it is contributing more than what other classes can pull. Again, dividing up the encounter to fight enemies one at a time when you have four party members is game changing.

...


Cool, so out of the box how many classes get the ability to take an entire enemy encounter back by 3+ rounds?

...


Certainly but if setting the opposition back three rounds isn't going to do much I think without the wizard the party isn't going to fare too well.

I think you are misunderstanding the claim of the thread. I am not arguing that Wizards do not contribute more than many other classes. I am arguing that they contribute relative to CR, the correct amount. If many other classes contribute less, as I have contended that many do, that does not mean that Wizards contribute too much.


I addressed this. Even if they go straight up the party has three turns in your example to act. There are other classes that might have the ability to take them out of the air or even buff the party up for when they come back which leads to.. wait for it.. a CRUSHING defeat.

The party has three rounds to act. What they can do during those three rounds is important. Let's see what it actually is before we declare this a "CRUSHING defeat" since in my experience, it rarely is.


It's simply one option of the options I listed. Depending on the encounter it could work. Don't forget players have access to teleport, fly, etc depending on the level.

If you have access to Teleport, then presumably your Glitterdusts last at least 9 rounds of blind, and you aren't facing CR 3 enemies (Or you are facing so many they don't fit in the area of a Glitterdust).


I disagree on your use of minor inconvenience. Severely crippling opposition in a single spell results in a game over. No matter how you try to spin it. I haven't played with a party alive who couldn't win in three rounds. Heck, most encounters rarely last past two with a competent and optimized group. Disabling opposition for three rounds at most tables I'm experienced in is a game over.

If you have 3 rounds against an opponent who doesn't use area attacks and isn't very tanky relative to their CR, and just stands there? Yeah, definitely. Which is why I specifically analyzed each CR 3 monster, and showed how against most of them you don't have that.


I also pointed out how you can get around the stinking cloud and that's avoiding things like flying over it and peppering the enemies down below or the multiple other ways you can get at your helpless opponents. This isn't a vacuum. The rest of the party can exist and act.

Yes, you can cast Fly as well, and then fly over (some of the time) Although, by the time you've cast fly on 3-4 party members, they aren't nauseated anymore.

You can also move around the cloud (unless of course, you are inside, in which case you can't fly over or move around in a lot of situations). And those take actions, and you have to do them, and we can actually go over what you actually do get or not get out of casting the spell in representative samples.


If you want feel free to ignore the fact that the time invisibility comes online there's a ton of different ways of negating it, revealing the invisible opponents, or simply casting a see invisibility spell. Or the fact that if the enemy takes time to buff up so can the players. If the invisible opponent leaves combat for three rounds and the players can't A) Take advantage of it or B) get around it or C) negate it. They're not really trying.

Sometimes invisibility can be bypassed by some parties. Though you know, more people cast Invisibility at level 3 than See Invisibility or Invisibility Purge. But yes, if an enemy takes 3 rounds to buff up while invisible, and the party takes 3 rounds to buff up during an invisibility spell, I don't call that an encounter win. I call that "the same encounter continues to occur" which is my point.


1) Do remember higher CR dragons have poor flight for most types.

Yes, which is one of the reasons (though as I said, not the only reason) why the take time to circle around to come on another strafing run. Doesn't mean that the encounter ends because they take time to turn around.


2) If the players have no way of flight, catching up with the dragon, or grounding it they're not trying.

Most parties lack a faster than 400ft fly speed, trying or not. Or maybe one person can manage that, and they don't because it would be a use of resources in order to fight a Dragon 1 on 1, when they could just not do that, and wait for the Dragon to come back and fight it as a party.

Methods of grounding Dragons are not 100%, most of them require saving throws, some of them that don't require specific rules interpretations (even if they are ones I personally agree with), and can still be bypassed in other ways.

None of this changes that if a Dragon does a strafe run and circles to come back around, you didn't just win an encounter, you are still in the same encounter.


3) spells like shivering touch say hi and goodbye respectively to a dragon.

Some dragons in some situations are sometimes beaten by shivering touch. This thing where people say "Shivering Touch Beats Dragons" without acknowledging that it's not always that simple to actually touch a dragon, and even if you do, you might not actually accomplish your goal for a number of reasons is the thing that annoys me.

I would prefer if people would analyze what actually happens when you both prepare that spell every day and rely on that as your dragon killing method, and see that perhaps they are not quite so dominating as they presume.


Dragons are great and devastating when played intelligently against a group of players who are rather new to D&D and didn't prepare before hand. They're not that scary to experienced players out of the book.

I've seen many people say that, but then those same people usually advocate strategies that tend to be less effective than they believe, and assume things to be true, that I have never seen any evidence of (like "of course parties have a way to fly with a 400ft fly speed").

[Pleh]

I think a more straightforward way of phrasing Beheld's restrictions is "a build you would actually play at a gaming table with new people." Let me know if I am wrong. Beheld's claim is that "wizards are not broken in practice."

A higher bar is this: imagine that you are a new player playing in a pre-made adventure path with four other new players. The party is the archetypal fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard. Each player picks options that are cool but there is not particular restrictions on content. How might the wizard accidentally break the game; or at the very least trivialize many encounters.

I would add that wizards are meant to trivialize a few encounters, just not all of them. Let him glitterdust the first few goblin/kobold encounters, then when he starts preparing that spell by default without thinking, start using monsters who laugh at blindness.

[Segev]

It won't matter, because you will start with no spells active and the exact same prepared spells in the same enviroment for each test, and then you will be able to, if you so choose, cast spells, and then prepare new spells if you want (but you know, something bad might happen, in those 9+ hours you spend casting, waiting, and then preparing new spells) But if you have 10 hours durations that you want to Frank Cheat you can certainly try that, and probably succeed the vast majority of time.This is almost - but not quite - removing all of a wizard's advantages over a sorcerer. At least, the way it's written, it sounds like you'll have no spells up, and be plonked down in front of an encounter that, in real play, you'd come across during an adventuring day. You have only your generic spell list prepared at the start of this encounter, and if you use magic to reduce it to a 5 minute adventuring day so you can retreat, rest, and come back, "bad stuff" will happen.

Now, maybe that's not what you meant, but that's what this sounds like, and not calling it out as an unfair test for a wizard would be failing to be duly diligent.

A wizard prepares for an adventure with a certain amount of research into what, precisely, its general nature will be. He knows, roughly, the kinds of monsters in the area, and if there are any particular energy types that are more or less effective to use or prep against. He'll have, typically, an idea if protection from evil is the right spell, or if maybe he should have the Chaos or Lawful or Good version instead. If Grimlocks are particularly common in the dungeon, he'll have an idea of that, too, and know to prep for things with blindsight.

He'll also have long-duration buffs, if he can swing them. Mage armor, in particular, is often already up by as early as 5th level. No need to spend extra rounds casting it.

I'm not saying he'll be omniscient, nor that he'll always have a custom-tailored list, but to plonk him down at the start of an encounter with basically his pants down around his ankles and his spells prepped as generically as if he were a sorcerer is hardly a fair test of a wizard's strength. It's like suggesting that the fighter is going to start the encounter with the same gear every time, and have to run back to his home base to get the silver weapons when he realizes his foes are mostly lycanthropes, but something bad might happen while he's doing it. (Not a perfect analogy, since a fighter isn't limited in how many weapons he can have in his golf bag, but you get the idea.)

I mean, if your set-up makes me say, "Man, a sorcerer is just plain better in these tests," you probably want to re-examine the test structure. Not because it's a foregone conclusion that a sorcerer is worse than a wizard, but because it's the specific nature of this test that makes the sorcerer more valuable.

(That said, if I start each encounter at full resources with the same spells prepped, I'll probably have a rope trick and several empty slots I can tailor to the encounter once I know what it is. May not always work, and in fact, in real play I wouldn't expect it to work, but usually 15 min. isn't going to be too bad a delay. Not unless my goal requires that I kill the targets and they take that time to flee.)



I think the Wizards need to have for example, and Int score, AC, saves, HP, which in part means they need to have WBL to have the correct numbers for their level.

But yes I am wary of over representation of specific relatively less used ACFs or feats or whatever.For a full-on test, yes. But as those are things which are not specific to a wizard being great, or the things that ARE specific to the wizard are going to have to be overwhelming the other sources of those numbers, I think starting with the spells is the right place. Especially for a test of "practical" play wizards, and isn't meant to test ACFs and magic item selection skills.


I mean, Arcane Thesis Metamagic stacking is specifically named in the OP? What metamagic reductions do you want? That's kind of a broad category. Rods that have been published in books: Sure.

Arcane Thesis Invisible Spell Chaos Shuffled for 800 more feats Dragon Mag Easy Metaed whatever, no.It's a valid question, since Arcane Thesis might be reasonably on a practical play wizard. Heck, one build that is theoretical but could be fun in real play anyway is the crossbow wizard, who uses launch bolt with Chain Spell, Reach Spell, and Arcane Thesis to get it to low slots for high numbers of bolts flung per casting.

A less theoretical build I do want to play one day is a necromancer who hunts down Slaymates so that he can have their overlapping Pale Auras power chain extended command undead cast from 2nd level spell slots. But as this is a minion build, it wouldn't fit your criteria anyway. Still, it's a serious build I so want to play one day.


Note that I'm not arguing for metamagic reduction as a "needed trick." But you were discussing practical play, and it is sometimes a part of it.

[Beheld]

This is almost - but not quite - removing all of a wizard's advantages over a sorcerer. At least, the way it's written, it sounds like you'll have no spells up, and be plonked down in front of an encounter that, in real play, you'd come across during an adventuring day. You have only your generic spell list prepared at the start of this encounter, and if you use magic to reduce it to a 5 minute adventuring day so you can retreat, rest, and come back, "bad stuff" will happen.

Now, maybe that's not what you meant, but that's what this sounds like, and not calling it out as an unfair test for a wizard would be failing to be duly diligent.

A wizard prepares for an adventure with a certain amount of research into what, precisely, its general nature will be. He knows, roughly, the kinds of monsters in the area, and if there are any particular energy types that are more or less effective to use or prep against. He'll have, typically, an idea if protection from evil is the right spell, or if maybe he should have the Chaos or Lawful or Good version instead. If Grimlocks are particularly common in the dungeon, he'll have an idea of that, too, and know to prep for things with blindsight.

He'll also have long-duration buffs, if he can swing them. Mage armor, in particular, is often already up by as early as 5th level. No need to spend extra rounds casting it.

I'm not saying he'll be omniscient, nor that he'll always have a custom-tailored list, but to plonk him down at the start of an encounter with basically his pants down around his ankles and his spells prepped as generically as if he were a sorcerer is hardly a fair test of a wizard's strength. It's like suggesting that the fighter is going to start the encounter with the same gear every time, and have to run back to his home base to get the silver weapons when he realizes his foes are mostly lycanthropes, but something bad might happen while he's doing it. (Not a perfect analogy, since a fighter isn't limited in how many weapons he can have in his golf bag, but you get the idea.)

I mean, if your set-up makes me say, "Man, a sorcerer is just plain better in these tests," you probably want to re-examine the test structure. Not because it's a foregone conclusion that a sorcerer is worse than a wizard, but because it's the specific nature of this test that makes the sorcerer more valuable.

(That said, if I start each encounter at full resources with the same spells prepped, I'll probably have a rope trick and several empty slots I can tailor to the encounter once I know what it is. May not always work, and in fact, in real play I wouldn't expect it to work, but usually 15 min. isn't going to be too bad a delay. Not unless my goal requires that I kill the targets and they take that time to flee.)

No, if you read what you quoted, I specifically said that if someone wants to Frank Cheat, which is to say "Cast a bunch of buffs. Sit down. Literally wait for 8 hours. Stand up. Prepare spells for one hour. Go adventuring" that they would succeed in doing so "the vast majority of the time."

That doesn't sound like depriving them of their ability to prepare spells. I'm not putting them down in front of an encounter and forcing them to cast Mage Armor during combat time. I'm just saying, they are in a location. They can do whatever they want to say, be safe while preparing spells in that location if they want, but they start with some general set of spells prepared for every encounter, because the alternative is them starting with no prepared spells at all. (Which would really suck when the Zelekaut shows up to murder them.)

Once they start, they can then respond by doing whatever their character can do, including, but not limited to, casting divination spells, or scouting the area. But what they are going to do is, during the course of some walking/adventuring/scouting/divining, come across some kind of encounter (by which I mean the specific list of encounters that already exist and have already been written down, but I'm not going to specifically reiterate here because better if someone doesn't know as they prepare their wizard than if they do).

And they will be able to find out all the information about said encounters that they can find out with their own divinations, scouting, and a fair few (way to many for a real game) random commoners standing right outside a location giving a speel about why someone might investigate such a location, and what the local rumors are about said location.

[Calthropstu]

Why not do it this way:

Allow the buffs, let them buff cast divinations or whatever... run them through the encounter... and then run them through the encounter an hour later. Keep running them through the encounter until they die.

Might be interesting to see how famous PO builds handle that.

Edit: We can call it the grindstone challenge or something.

[Pex]

Wizards win D&D around here because it's always assumed wizards have the exact spells they need prepared while having all applicable feats as necessary and the monster always fails its saving throw because the wizards always get through spell resistance. That's not how it works in actual game play, but that's irrelevant to worshipers of the Tier System.

[Deeds]

Dear God this thread is still a thing.

Roll for initiative > Nerveskitter > Wizard casts glitterdust or other "I win" spell > Monster runs for 3 rounds while blind > other three party members are rolling Knowledge: Twiddle Thumbs > Wizard casts summon monster X because this is a wizard vs baddies only > ??? > profit

After looking back to the original post, seeing several examples of how wizards & friends can settle an encounter with 1 spell, some friendly CAPS LOCK FOR EMPHASIS, and some arguments about the semantics of what we're arguing, I can safely say this thread should have been locked awhile ago.

[Calthropstu]

Wizards win D&D around here because it's always assumed wizards have the exact spells they need prepared while having all applicable feats as necessary and the monster always fails its saving throw because the wizards always get through spell resistance. That's not how it works in actual game play, but that's irrelevant to worshipers of the Tier System.

I have noticed that. I once made something to use for mythic augmented timestop. I would dig out the ground beneath them, cast a perfect prismatic sphere around them, wrap their square in an adamantium box lined on the outside with lead, fill it with lava or acid, place a heavy stone at the top, dimensional lock, and some other protections around the sphere... and the guy I was telling this to tried to go on and say it was easy to defeat, listed like 8 abilities he would need to pull it off. And I asked him "Great... now how many of those do YOUR character have?" (we were in the same game at 14th level) Same kind of thing here. Sure, there are ways to get around just about anything. The odds of your character having it when he needs it are pretty much zero.

[Calthropstu]

Dear God this thread is still a thing.

Roll for initiative > Nerveskitter > Wizard casts glitterdust or other "I win" spell > Monster runs for 3 rounds while blind > other three party members are rolling Knowledge: Twiddle Thumbs > Wizard casts summon monster X because this is a wizard vs baddies only > ??? > profit

After looking back to the original post, seeing several examples of how wizards & friends can settle an encounter with 1 spell, some friendly CAPS LOCK FOR EMPHASIS, and some arguments about the semantics of what we're arguing, I can safely say this thread should have been locked awhile ago.

I disagree. It has not gotten to an insulting level, and people are still making valid arguments. I kind of would like to use this thread to hash out a credible test that would actually gauge characters power level. I am sorely tempted now to make this "grindstone challenge" I mentioned. Could be fun ya know?

[Beheld]

I've personally played a lot of games as or with Wizards (or both), and DMed a lot of games with Wizards. I can count the number of times I've seen people prepare Reached Shivering Touch or Spectral Hand and Shivering Touch without specifically knowing in advance they were fighting a Dragon twice ever.

I've played in or run games when parties were surprised by random/not known in advance dragon encounters hundreds of times. It's just one of those things. You can prepare Shivering Touch and have the Sudden Maximize Feat. But for some reason, even though you always can, very rarely do people actually do it. And when they do, it doesn't usually turn out to be OP that they did.

[eggynack]

I disagree. It has not gotten to an insulting level, and people are still making valid arguments. I kind of would like to use this thread to hash out a credible test that would actually gauge characters power level. I am sorely tempted now to make this "grindstone challenge" I mentioned. Could be fun ya know?
Y'know, what strikes me as interesting in terms of alternate setups a wizard challenge where the basic principle is wizard plus two commoners. Like, there's all this talk of what happens after glitterdust, and what the other party members are doing, so what if you had the power to optimize a pair of commoners in parallel, minus chicken infested but with whatever random commoner based charging or animal handling efforts you can pull off, to serve as those party members? You can't assume any precise thing about parties in general, like that you have a fighter to do your heavy lifting, but it seems fair to assume that whatever's going on is going to be at least as capable as these well optimized commoners.

I like it because it answers a lot of questions I have. Are we to assume that mass buff spells are exactly as useful as they would be as wizard targeted single buffs (though I suppose the familiar could be slightly relevant)? No, they are more useful because they hit these fancy commoners. Are we to assume that there's no source of skill monkeying or beat sticking going on outside of what the wizard brings to the table? No, but any skill monkeying is coming from the optimization of an absolutely awful baseline, such that it approximates a set of classes that don't necessarily do any particular thing. Arguably, we could also use, say, a warrior and an expert, or maybe a warrior and an aristocrat, to reflect the fact that there is likely some base for the action going on, but I kinda like the idea that all you're getting is particularly well optimized warm bodies.

[Deeds]

I've played in or run games when parties were surprised by random/not known in advance dragon encounters hundreds of times. It's just one of those things. You can prepare Shivering Touch and have the Sudden Maximize Feat. But for some reason, even though you always can, very rarely do people actually do it. And when they do, it doesn't usually turn out to be OP that they did.
Touche.

Assuming we're fighting a random encounter
dragon but I didn't fill my fifth level slot with max shivering touch, cast the other level 5 spell: Teleport.

We can spar all day, but if you have to tailor an encounter around 1 party member... Well clearly that party member is a notch above the guy holding a sharp stick.

[Keltest]

I've personally played a lot of games as or with Wizards (or both), and DMed a lot of games with Wizards. I can count the number of times I've seen people prepare Reached Shivering Touch or Spectral Hand and Shivering Touch without specifically knowing in advance they were fighting a Dragon twice ever.

I've played in or run games when parties were surprised by random/not known in advance dragon encounters hundreds of times. It's just one of those things. You can prepare Shivering Touch and have the Sudden Maximize Feat. But for some reason, even though you always can, very rarely do people actually do it. And when they do, it doesn't usually turn out to be OP that they did.

This has generally been my experience as well. I'm generally inclined to agree with whoever it is that has in their signature a quote to the effect of "playing a wizard the way GITP thinks they should be played requires more time and effort than a college bachelor's degree." The "wizard totally op" thing has generally only ever been applicable to TO in my eyes because that's the only circumstance that it can descend into the near-calvinball levels of rule manipulation required to actually pull it off.

[AnachroNinja]

Y'know, what strikes me as interesting in terms of alternate setups a wizard challenge where the basic principle is wizard plus two commoners. Like, there's all this talk of what happens after glitterdust, and what the other party members are doing, so what if you had the power to optimize a pair of commoners in parallel, minus chicken infested but with whatever random commoner based charging or animal handling efforts you can pull off, to serve as those party members? You can't assume any precise thing about parties in general, like that you have a fighter to do your heavy lifting, but it seems fair to assume that whatever's going on is going to be at least as capable as these well optimized commoners.

I like it because it answers a lot of questions I have. Are we to assume that mass buff spells are exactly as useful as they would be as wizard targeted single buffs (though I suppose the familiar could be slightly relevant)? No, they are more useful because they hit these fancy commoners. Are we to assume that there's no source of skill monkeying or beat sticking going on outside of what the wizard brings to the table? No, but any skill monkeying is coming from the optimization of an absolutely awful baseline, such that it approximates a set of classes that don't necessarily do any particular thing. Arguably, we could also use, say, a warrior and an expert, or maybe a warrior and an aristocrat, to reflect the fact that there is likely some base for the action going on, but I kinda like the idea that all you're getting is particularly well optimized warm bodies.

I think commoners and experts would be a poor setup, but 2 warriors and an adept would be good. That's inarguably sub par defense and minor support healing, so no one can really say the party is carrying the wizard, but it corrects for the idiocy of expecting a low level wizard to have to scythe away at every enemy after he disables it. Realistically, at higher levels a wizard is doing just fine by himself but at can all acknowledge that at low levels he can really use someone to clean up sleeping and blind enemies and that really isn't much of a commentary on him not being overpowered in a normal game context.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I have to agree that i almost never see anyone take Reach Spell in actual games. Not that it matters, because Spell-Storing weapons exist. Does nobody use those?
I've found them to be one of the best investments a melee pc can make for his first weapon enhancement, over stuff like Bane or Holy (which is overkill on mooks and too dinky for boss fights).
Once you get your casters around to the point of view that it's not "i have to spend MY spell slots on the rogue?" but "the rogue casts my spells for me, for free. Possibly my spells from yesterday" it's become THE most popular weapon enhancement for us, in addition to Bloodstone.

Shivering Touch is popular in my group for Spell Storing weapons - which pretty much every melee guy in our group picks up as early as it's feasible (in addition to some familiars), because there's very little at +1 equivalent cost that's a better insurance for "surprise bossfight". A Lesser Rod of Maximize Spell isn't that expensive when shared among 4 or more people.

It's also a lot more efficient than casting it during combat. Your casters can fill up the weapons during their morning buff routine while CL boosts (like Beads of Karma) or DC boosts (like Owl's Insight) are active and concentrate on other stuff during important fights.
Every melee guy in the party getting Spell-Storing (and Bloodstone) on his weapons instead of more minor but permanent enhancements has made boss fights a lot easier for us.

You don't need the boost from something like Holy for mooks, and many other situations can be taken care of with Weapon Capsules and Oil Chambers instead of resorting to expensive weapon enhancements.
A difficult fight gets significantly easier with the addition of 2 or more free castings of Maximized Shivering Touch, DC-boosted Poison and the same number of Empowered Maximized Vampiric Touch though.

That's also optimization, but sadly that kind of synergy is almost never taken into account in these discussions.

[Coidzor]

I disagree. It has not gotten to an insulting level

You just agreed with a post that was inherently insulting and provocative.


people are still making valid arguments.

The OP is still going on about not saying something that they actually said in their OP.

[Beheld]

I have to agree that i almost never see anyone take Reach Spell in actual games. Not that it matters, because Spell-Storing weapons exist. Does nobody use those?
I've found them to be one of the best investments a melee pc can make for his first weapon enhancement, over stuff like Bane or Holy (which is overkill on mooks and too dinky for boss fights).
Once you get your casters around to the point of view that it's not "i have to spend MY spell slots on the rogue?" but "the rogue casts my spells for me, for free. Possibly my spells from yesterday" it's become THE most popular weapon enhancement for us, in addition to Bloodstone.

Shivering Touch is popular in my group for Spell Storing weapons - which pretty much every melee guy in our group picks up as early as it's feasible (in addition to some familiars), because there's very little at +1 equivalent cost that's a better insurance for "surprise bossfight". A Lesser Rod of Maximize Spell isn't that expensive when shared among 4 or more people.

It's also a lot more efficient than casting it during combat. Your casters can fill up the weapons during their morning buff routine while CL boosts (like Beads of Karma) or DC boosts (like Owl's Insight) are active and concentrate on other stuff during important fights.
Every melee guy in the party getting Spell-Storing (and Bloodstone) on his weapons instead of more minor but permanent enhancements has made boss fights a lot easier for us.

You don't need the boost from something like Holy for mooks, and many other situations can be taken care of with Weapon Capsules and Oil Chambers instead of resorting to expensive weapon enhancements.
A difficult fight gets significantly easier with the addition of 2 or more free castings of Maximized Shivering Touch, DC-boosted Poison and the same number of Empowered Maximized Vampiric Touch though.

That's also optimization, but sadly that kind of synergy is almost never taken into account in these discussions.

While spells storing isn't a bad thing to have by any stretch, I personally don't think that Spell storing arrows can hold metamagiced 3rd level spells.

Of course, just having two weapons with spell storing and having two people attack a dragon is more than sufficient if your goal is to spell storing shivering touch a dragon to death, rather than specifically needing a maximized one.

[sleepyphoenixx]

While spells storing isn't a bad thing to have by any stretch, I personally don't think that Spell storing arrows can hold metamagiced 3rd level spells.

Of course, just having two weapons with spell storing and having two people attack a dragon is more than sufficient if your goal is to spell storing shivering touch a dragon to death, rather than specifically needing a maximized one.

The rules are fairly clear. A metamagic'd 3rd level spell is a 3rd level spell. Spell Storing stores spells up to 3rd level. You may not agree with that and houserule it for your games, but that doesn't change that it's the rules.
What i don't allow in my games are Spell-Storing arrows. They may not be clearly designated as melee-only, but you do need to trigger them on hit - something i've ruled as not possible for thrown weapons/ammunition. (They're also too cheap for what you can do with them imo). I do allow it on bows/crossbows though. If that's a houserule or not i'll let you decide for yourself, it's been debated to death in the past.

For the second part, i wasn't actually talking about any specific situation.
It's just that i've never seen anyone take Reach Spell in an actual game, and most actual uses are borderline cheese like persisting touch spells at best.
Neither has anyone in any game i've been in ever bought a rod of it, because outside of named situation (Dragon Fight) it almost never comes up.
There's better spells to be casting in most encounters, dragons in our games (being hyperintelligent, century-old monsters) actually take precautions to guard their weaknesses and "dump the touch spells on the fighter/rogue/gish/other melee" is a time-honored tradition in our games by now.

That said, dragons tend to still have relatively high SR for their CR, which is not helped by the fact that they're often used as boss encounters (and so are likely several CR over party ECL).
So - even disregarding that dragons are also spellcasters - your Shivering Touch probably has a better than even chance of not getting past SR, making its value as a one-shot dragon-killing machine rather dubious imo.

[Calthropstu]

You're forgetting rai. It's fairly obvious they mean for a spell storing item to have a spell cast from a 3rd lvl slot. Now if you cast it in such a way that the metamagic doesn't increase the level (meta rods etc) I'd say that's fine. But what you are talking about is silly. We all know raw has some gaps that need to be filled.

[sleepyphoenixx]

You're forgetting rai. It's fairly obvious they mean for a spell storing item to have a spell cast from a 3rd lvl slot. Now if you cast it in such a way that the metamagic doesn't increase the level (meta rods etc) I'd say that's fine. But what you are talking about is silly. We all know raw has some gaps that need to be filled.

"RAI" just means "this is how i/we interpret it at my table" unless you've read the minds of the designers.
You can rule whatever you like, but if we're discussing something over the internet we have to find a consensus, and "this is RAW" is the only one we have.
And in this case there's not even a point in arguing about it, because the RAW about the level of metamagic spells is clear.
We can argue about the balance of it for any particular game if you'd like - because that depends on your groups power level - but that would need its own thread.

That said i think it makes far more sense to either say yes or no, and not your interpretation that depends on the source of the metamagic.

[Calthropstu]

"RAI" just means "this is how i/we interpret it at my table" unless you've read the minds of the designers.
You can rule whatever you like, but if we're discussing something over the internet we have to find a consensus, and "this is RAW" is the only one we have.
And in this case there's not even a point in arguing about it, because the RAW about the level of metamagic spells is clear.
We can argue about the balance of it for any particular game if you'd like - because that depends on your groups power level - but that would need its own thread.

That said i think it makes far more sense to either say yes or no, and not your interpretation that depends on the source of the metamagic.

They also made rule zero for a reason, openly admitting they can make mistakes... and this is quite clearly one of them. Taking a 3rd level spell, applying enough metamagic to throw it into a 9th lvl spell slot should not allow it to still qualify it for spell storing. It is fairly obvious what the intention is. I wonder if it has been clarified in an update somewhere like an faq.

[RegalKain]

So, I've been watching the thread since it started. I have a non-issue with Casters at my table because all of us agreed when it came out, that Vancian was banned except by NPCs and "Boss" encounters, and that players would always swap to Spheres of Power where applicable. (None of us ever use Psionics, so non-issue there.) That said, before it came out I've dealt with problem casters before. Part of the problem is honestly in that, if you have Joe, who's never played video games or done table top ever before in his life, and he makes a Monk as his first character, he's just going to be less optimized and by way of that, less useful then Tom who's been playing it since it's come out, and has probably written entire books worth of characters, character sheets and guides and knows that if you take Feat X from splatbook Y you can punch gods for fun as a Mundane. I think this forum often says. Player>Build>Class when it comes to the level of "Broken ness" something is capable of (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) I understand the points you're trying to get at, even if I feel you could word them in a better, more friendly and more easy to understand way. That said! I'm not here to discuss Wizards or Druids, or Barbarians or classes in general. I am instead here to point out why CR doesn't work properly and how it's nearly useless except as the most vague gauge of something's ability.

For all examples, assume Core (Which for me is DMG, PHB, MM1) using the Elite Array and standard WBL. We'll use two groups. Ye Olde Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric and Ye Olde Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, Paladin.

According to the DMG (Pg 49 if you're interested) it gives you a break down of "CR" as well as how it's modified based on multiple enemies, as well as "favorable conditions" this first example is where we'll explain how and why it's a bit wonky. According to the DMG, if the enemy has guaranteed surprise (PCs are asleep for instance) this would make the fight more difficult. We'll say this raises an encounter by 1 CR. Now our fight is a CR 1 encounter with no enemies currently, so let's add some shall we? According to the table on page 49 for multiple creatures. 4 Creatures that are each 1/2 CR is a CR 2 encounter, we'll use the Orc (Monster Manual 1 Page 203) So we now have 4 Orcs all of whom can and will Coup de Grace your party, why can they do is? Any creature who is sleeping is considered Helpess (Player's Handbook Page 151). So we'll say they make a CdG against each party member, their lowest potential damage is going to be 12 points of damage. Which means the Fort save to live is a bare minimum of 22 (CdG states that if a defender survives the initial damage they make a Fort save DC 10+Damage Dealt or Die) Which means at level 3, most of your party is going to die, or has a fairly low chance to live. This is furthermore considered a STANDARD ENCOUNTER which IIRC you're supposed to face about 4 of these a day.

Do you feel as though a +1 CR is to little for being caught asleep? Ok, change it to +2 and it's now 2 orcs, there's a better then likely chance 2 party members are still dead. Something else to note is that Sleep is loosely defined infact it's best point of definition is the Sleep spell itself where it gives a definition on the Sleep status. (Sleeping creatures are helpless. Slapping or Wounding awakens an affected creature, but normal noise does not. ) this means there's a chance that they CdG the first two characters, the others don't wake up (Depending on your idea of normal noise and how "loud" you rule dying to be which is usually fairly quiet) and they cdG them as well. Basically this is what the DMG and rules state should just be a "challenging" encounter in which you get multiples of a day, but has a fairly likely chance of killing multiple characters. Also don't forget, you were sleeping, that means your sleep was interrupted, which means you don't regain spells per day, unless they have the feat for it, anyone wearing medium or heavy armor is fatigued (More likely they take their armor off to sleep.) there's basically just a long list of things like this. Sure if you have a party of all Elves this changes, but the point remains CR is rather busted, at least how it's explained in the DMG. It requires the DM to use common sense.


I guess the tl;dr of this is, if your party has a God Wizard in it, who is capable and often does "trivialize" encounters, the CR should shift and adjust to take that into account. As I explained and demonstrated, CR is just...it doesn't work, it's a very, very loose guideline. Oh, and the reason I said two parties? To show that both are equally dead against a "CR 3" encounter.

[ryu]

So, I've been watching the thread since it started. I have a non-issue with Casters at my table because all of us agreed when it came out, that Vancian was banned except by NPCs and "Boss" encounters, and that players would always swap to Spheres of Power where applicable. (None of us ever use Psionics, so non-issue there.) That said, before it came out I've dealt with problem casters before. Part of the problem is honestly in that, if you have Joe, who's never played video games or done table top ever before in his life, and he makes a Monk as his first character, he's just going to be less optimized and by way of that, less useful then Tom who's been playing it since it's come out, and has probably written entire books worth of characters, character sheets and guides and knows that if you take Feat X from splatbook Y you can punch gods for fun as a Mundane. I think this forum often says. Player>Build>Class when it comes to the level of "Broken ness" something is capable of (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) I understand the points you're trying to get at, even if I feel you could word them in a better, more friendly and more easy to understand way. That said! I'm not here to discuss Wizards or Druids, or Barbarians or classes in general. I am instead here to point out why CR doesn't work properly and how it's nearly useless except as the most vague gauge of something's ability.

For all examples, assume Core (Which for me is DMG, PHB, MM1) using the Elite Array and standard WBL. We'll use two groups. Ye Olde Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric and Ye Olde Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, Paladin.

According to the DMG (Pg 49 if you're interested) it gives you a break down of "CR" as well as how it's modified based on multiple enemies, as well as "favorable conditions" this first example is where we'll explain how and why it's a bit wonky. According to the DMG, if the enemy has guaranteed surprise (PCs are asleep for instance) this would make the fight more difficult. We'll say this raises an encounter by 1 CR. Now our fight is a CR 1 encounter with no enemies currently, so let's add some shall we? According to the table on page 49 for multiple creatures. 4 Creatures that are each 1/2 CR is a CR 2 encounter, we'll use the Orc (Monster Manual 1 Page 203) So we now have 4 Orcs all of whom can and will Coup de Grace your party, why can they do is? Any creature who is sleeping is considered Helpess (Player's Handbook Page 151). So we'll say they make a CdG against each party member, their lowest potential damage is going to be 12 points of damage. Which means the Fort save to live is a bare minimum of 22 (CdG states that if a defender survives the initial damage they make a Fort save DC 10+Damage Dealt or Die) Which means at level 3, most of your party is going to die, or has a fairly low chance to live. This is furthermore considered a STANDARD ENCOUNTER which IIRC you're supposed to face about 4 of these a day.

Do you feel as though a +1 CR is to little for being caught asleep? Ok, change it to +2 and it's now 2 orcs, there's a better then likely chance 2 party members are still dead. Something else to note is that Sleep is loosely defined infact it's best point of definition is the Sleep spell itself where it gives a definition on the Sleep status. (Sleeping creatures are helpless. Slapping or Wounding awakens an affected creature, but normal noise does not. ) this means there's a chance that they CdG the first two characters, the others don't wake up (Depending on your idea of normal noise and how "loud" you rule dying to be which is usually fairly quiet) and they cdG them as well. Basically this is what the DMG and rules state should just be a "challenging" encounter in which you get multiples of a day, but has a fairly likely chance of killing multiple characters. Also don't forget, you were sleeping, that means your sleep was interrupted, which means you don't regain spells per day, unless they have the feat for it, anyone wearing medium or heavy armor is fatigued (More likely they take their armor off to sleep.) there's basically just a long list of things like this. Sure if you have a party of all Elves this changes, but the point remains CR is rather busted, at least how it's explained in the DMG. It requires the DM to use common sense.


I guess the tl;dr of this is, if your party has a God Wizard in it, who is capable and often does "trivialize" encounters, the CR should shift and adjust to take that into account. As I explained and demonstrated, CR is just...it doesn't work, it's a very, very loose guideline. Oh, and the reason I said two parties? To show that both are equally dead against a "CR 3" encounter.

Sleep in eight hour shifts. This goes double if you're in the wild. Two hour guard shifts. A party of five has ten hour nights with people requiring the full unbroken eight hours getting the first or last guard shift. It's almost like there's a set of basic rules a group of people expecting to regularly get into fights to the death should follow not to die a quick and inglorious death. I mean really in a world with actually legitimately real roving random encounters as a thing that exists do you feel comfortable being asleep without SOMEONE keeping watch? I thought not.

[RegalKain]

Sleep in eight hour shifts. This goes double if you're in the wild. Two hour guard shifts. A party of five has ten hour nights with people requiring the full unbroken eight hours getting the first or last guard shift. It's almost like there's a set of basic rules a group of people expecting to regularly get into fights to the death should follow not to die a quick and inglorious death. I mean really in a world with actually legitimately real roving random encounters as a thing that exists do you feel comfortable being asleep without SOMEONE keeping watch? I thought not.

I completely agree, don't get me wrong. I understand what you're saying and I personally try to find ways for my characters to avoid needing to sleep altogether. That said, the point to prove was that that was considered a standard Cr 3 encounter as per the DMG RAW (That is you are 100% guaranteed to be caught by surprise.) sure there are ways around it, but there are ways around almost ALL CR and fighting. My point was more to the OP of "CR doesn't work as intended" lol

[AnachroNinja]

Except it says *caught by surprise*, which means they get a surprise round, not *stumble upon you sleeping with your hands tied behind your back and coup de grace you*. Those are two very different things.