Which edition had the most powerful wizard?

[that_one_kobold]

Exactly how it sounds, which wizard is the best and why? (Yes i count ad&d)

Edit: Magic user or any other variation of the wizard class works. (not including sorcerer, just int. based spell casters :smallbiggrin: )

[redwizard007]

Exactly how it sounds, which wizard is the best and why? (Yes i count ad&d)

First time I've ever actually heard the sound from opening a can of worms.

[Quertus]

Whichever one(s) I've played my signature mage, Quertus, in, of course.

Well, thanks to bounded accuracy, the 5e mage can be killed by orcs, so he's out. 2e had, imo, the best tricks, but, only acting at 1/10th the speed of later edition mages (citation needed) tends to hurt.

So, 3e?

Edit: that's limiting the answer to wizards within editions of D&D. But as D&D mages can likely make simulacra of mages from other systems, I'd say they probably still win.

[LibraryOgre]

3.x, without a doubt. Normalizing for round length, they have the most spells per day, numerous options to easily expand their daily spellcasting (wands, scrolls, potions). Easy to make custom magic items. No maximum number of spells per level, spells themselves easy to learn, quick recovery (8hours sleep + 1 study to refill from empty; for AD&D it would be days of work), and a saving throw system that favors spellcasters.

[Lord Raziere]

Exactly how it sounds, which wizard is the best and why? (Yes i count ad&d)

Anders: (immediately) DnD 3.5
Varric: (almost simultaneously) 3.5
Fenris: 3.5
Merrill: 3.5
Aveline: 3.5
Carver: 3.5
Isabela: 3.5
Sebastian: Even I know that.
Hawke: No question.

[CharonsHelper]

Anders: (immediately) DnD 3.5
Varric: (almost simultaneously) 3.5
Fenris: 3.5
Merrill: 3.5
Aveline: 3.5
Carver: 3.5
Isabela: 3.5
Sebastian: Even I know that.
Hawke: No question.

That's stupid. 3.0 was even worse! (They did nerf a few of the worst offending spells when moving to 3.5.)

[LibraryOgre]

That's stupid. 3.0 was even worse! (They did nerf a few of the worst offending spells when moving to 3.5.)

Any examples?

[Eldan]

Any examples?

Haste used to give bonus actions.

[Tinkerer]

Should I assume that you are referring to end game mages? Hmm... this might not be as simple as one believes. 3.0/3.5 springs to the top of the mind however there were some rather interesting points in so far as 2nd edition end game that I need to look up. It is after all far easier for a 2nd edition end game mage to become a god, although there is the question of if that added oomph is enough to compensate. And then if you aren't talking end game mages I wonder about a level 1 competition...

Edit: Would you count becoming a god as a form of multi-classing?

[ko_sct]

Hum.... it's hard to say.

On one hand they nerfed a few powerfull spells in 3.5.

But on the other hand some of their 'nerf' ended up making those spell more powerfull. Like grease used to be a simple reflex saves and wish actually had more limitations in 3.0 compared to 3.5.

In the end, i think i'd say 3.5 wizards are the most powerfull, simply because there's a lot more material in 3.5 than in 3.0

[gkathellar]

Haste used to give bonus actions.

Yeah, but 3.0 had a shorter run, and thus fewer spells (and feats, and items, and PrCs, and shapechange forms). 3.5 wizards would eventually acquire their own bonus action spells (Celerity), and far more (Persistent Spell, Craft Contingent Spell, Dark Chaos Shuffle, etc.).

But yeah, 3.0 is a close second.

[Lord Torath]

I don't know... A 30/30 mage/psionicist in 2E could have 9d6+58d4+22 hp + constitution bonuses (442 hp max), a base AC of -6 (26 in 3E), is immune to any weapons less than +5, has a flat 80% magic resistance, a base move of 600 yards per minute (sprint up to 5 times that) and has a 200' radius aura of Protection from Evil, Dispel Darkness, Ray of Enfeeblement on evil creatures, and the effects of a Globe of Invulnerability. Plus can cast 10th level psionic enchantments.

[Tinkerer]

I don't know... A 30/30 mage/psionicist in 2E could have 9d6+58d4+22 hp + constitution bonuses (442 hp max), a base AC of -6 (26 in 3E), is immune to any weapons less than +5, has a flat 80% magic resistance, a base move of 600 yards per minute (sprint up to 5 times that) and has a 200' radius aura of Protection from Evil, Dispel Darkness, Ray of Enfeeblement on evil creatures, and the effects of a Globe of Invulnerability. Plus can cast 10th level psionic enchantments.

That does however break the "Int based spellcaster" requirement however. Although the 2nd edition super high Int making one immune to illusions should be counted among their powers. But 2nd ed Wish is far inferior. Also for people who were talking about round duration I thought that some books in 2nd listed a 6 second round and some listed a 1 minute round. I could be mistaken.

[Potatomade]

If including non-core, then 2.5 (2E with Players Options). Specifically any wizard using Spells & Magic's Spell Points. No spell slots, so you could technically get only 9th level spells if you wanted. Bonus points if it's a Wild Mage channeler: basically all the benefits of 5e sorcerers crossed with any edition's wizards. Also, the Players Options books let you min-max spellcasters using a completely broken Character Points system. Man, I hate those books.

EDIT: Those Options books (and Dragon Kings) also include 2E's version of epic magic, the True Dweomers.

[Frozen_Feet]

D&D 3.x., for the simple reason that Epic level play is technically supported and stretches the game way beyond other versions, save perhaps for Immortals of BECMI. Yeah, they're helped along by massive content bloat, but 3.x. Wizard is way out there even if you only use SRD material.

[Lord Torath]

If including non-core, then 2.5 (2E with Players Options). Specifically any wizard using Spells & Magic's Spell Points. No spell slots, so you could technically get only 9th level spells if you wanted. Bonus points if it's a Wild Mage channeler: basically all the benefits of 5e sorcerers crossed with any edition's wizards. Also, the Players Options books let you min-max spellcasters using a completely broken Character Points system. Man, I hate those books.

EDIT: Those Options books (and Dragon Kings) also include 2E's version of epic magic, the True Dweomers.Nah, Dragon Kings only had Psionic Enchantments. They were still 10th level spells (and 8th and 9th for Clerics and Druids), but not the same as the True Dweomers.

I've never looked too hard at the Players' Option books. Okay, PO: Combat and Tactics I went through (and actually used a bit of), but I've heard enough about the other two PO books to know I'm not interested.

[Potatomade]

Spells & Magic was less obnoxious than Skills & Powers, but it still let you get away with absolutely stupid things, like having a single-classed wizard running around with a d8 hit die, priest THAC0, plate armor, and greatsword specialization. All of that independent of your wizard specialization or kit.

EDIT: Sorry, I keep forgetting stuff. That single-classed wizard? He could also cast priest spells, thanks to Priestly Wizard. Any priest spell at all (you buy them by the sphere).

[Tinkerer]

Hmm, for 2nd ed should we count the fact that they use more random treasure tables in their favour? Because I had a 2nd Ed Wild Mage who rolled Odin's freaking Rune on a random treasure table. Odin's Rune is the god Odin's personal wand. Among it's abilities is bestowing a complete immunity to magic, the ability to kill any mortal who touches it (fortunately that character counted as an immortal at that point), and the ability to command several thousand HD worth of creatures in the immediate area as an unlimited ability. Theoretically 3rd ed can do similar but I found it much more common to get items which are completely out of the characters depth in 2nd.

[that_one_kobold]

Edit: Would you count becoming a god as a form of multi-classing?

If it's not a class then i guess not.

[Jay R]

It depends on the level. A game might have very weak low-level wizards and all-powerful high level wizards, and the earliest games did.

A 17th level wizard from original D&D could cast a Wish spell every day, with no loss of experience points or any other penalty, and no limits on what it could do beyond what the DM chooses to impose.

If you know your DM well enough to stay out of trouble, nothing else comes close.

[Dezea]

I'd say that "Raw Power-Wise", a 3.x wizard would be the king of them all.

Now, If I really wanted to be the most powerful character in a setting, I would clearly chose to be an AD&D wizard. My 3.x counterpart could probably anihilate me in a duel, but I would be dominating pretty much everything in my setting even more - And that say something - than a 3.x wizard would do. (Mainly due to a lot the other classes being mostly here for decorum at higher level, sadly.)

Edit : I'm mostly speaking high-level, at low level AD&D was pretty much a pain in the ass for wizard, 2 spells per day and having to randomly roll your spells at level up and so on...

[LibraryOgre]

Hmm, for 2nd ed should we count the fact that they use more random treasure tables in their favour? Because I had a 2nd Ed Wild Mage who rolled Odin's freaking Rune on a random treasure table. Odin's Rune is the god Odin's personal wand. Among it's abilities is bestowing a complete immunity to magic, the ability to kill any mortal who touches it (fortunately that character counted as an immortal at that point), and the ability to command several thousand HD worth of creatures in the immediate area as an unlimited ability. Theoretically 3rd ed can do similar but I found it much more common to get items which are completely out of the characters depth in 2nd.

What treasure table were you using? 'Cause that's an artifact, and they generally don't show up on the standard treasure tables.

[Tinkerer]

It depends on the level. A game might have very weak low-level wizards and all-powerful high level wizards, and the earliest games did.

A 17th level wizard from original D&D could cast a Wish spell every day, with no loss of experience points or any other penalty, and no limits on what it could do beyond what the DM chooses to impose.

If you know your DM well enough to stay out of trouble, nothing else comes close.

Although several of the other editions have work arounds which compensate for the penalty (using a summoned creature etc...). Additionally the GM was actively encouraged to use the Wish spell to screw around with and kill or disable the character in original D&D (I know you said if you know your DM well enough but this takes the power out of your hands and places it in the DMs).

Okay so I think that it's generally agreed that for levels over 4 we can really throw 4th and 5th edition out the window, correct? And while there are... what like a dozen versions of 1st I think it's agreed that BECMI has the highest power level unless I'm missing something. So what we are left with is BECMI, 2nd, 3.0, and 3.5. I'm really inclined to think that 3.5 beats out 3.0 as despite 3.0 having some more potent versions of spells 3.5 has more variety available to work with. 2nd edition has Players Option which, as was stated, allows you to build a mage class from scratch giving them things like priest spheres, enhanced HP, resistances and immunities, enhanced spell level etc... HOWEVER it is still a point build system which means that you can't give them everything, but you can give them an awful lot by gaming that build system. BECMI... sorry but I'm not familiar with high level play there. I don't think it has anything which places it above 3.5 and 2nd but I could be mistaken.

I may be biased here from my 2nd ed epic wild mage but I am tempted to put forward that as the most powerful mage. I have a few things to back that up.

1. You can make yourself immune to wild surges from quite a low level due to spells the wild mage gets.
2. Wildfire allows you to cast ANY wizard spell (regardless if you know it or not) of level 8 or below as a standard action with no downside. It also explicitly allows you to break the rules regarding magic item creation and allows you to cast spells which only specialists can cast.
3. Nahal's Reckless Dweomer allows you to have a % chance equal to your level +2 of being able to cast any spell that you know and it's only a 1st level spell slot. This would normally have the downside of a surge if you fail however see above for being immune to wild surges (plus unlike Wildfire it combos with the ability to cast priest spells). I tend to fill 90% of my slots between level 1 and 4 with this spell.
4. Items in 2nd edition tend to be written without as much concern regarding game balance. It is rather common to see items which would never have been allowed in the 3rd edition books.
5. Unlike other specialty mages absolutely no one except a wild mage can cast wild magic spells.
6. Assuming you are only going with printed sources I think there are more 10th-12th spells in 2nd edition.
7. The aforementioned build-a-mage which allows a wide variety of options

So essentially you are trading a 5% chance of failure on every spell cast for access to almost every spell in the game and being able to cast them at will. This would be why my mage has a bunch of the important stuff like Time Stop etc... in her items. There is also a lovely spell which allows you to put spells on pause which I can't quite remember the name of right now but it's definitely come in handy acting like a poor man's Persist Spell.

[Tinkerer]

What treasure table were you using? 'Cause that's an artifact, and they generally don't show up on the standard treasure tables.

That would be upon killing the BBEG where we leveled up to 20 he allowed us to roll a few times on the table in the Encyclopedia Magica. Aka the EVERYTHING table. Maybe a bad example.

EDIT: But I did still find more out of depth items in both the more and less powerful directions in 2nd.

[Lord Torath]

And while there are... what like a dozen versions of 1st I think it's agreed that BECMI has the highest power level unless I'm missing something.BECMI (or BX or Holmes Basic or Rules Cyclopedia) is not a version of 1st Edition AD&D. 2E is much closer to 1E than BECMI is to 1E. BECMI had much simpler classes, race as class for demi-humans, and generally much simpler mechanics. Initiative was much simpler, and there were no weapon speeds or casting times. Humans could advance to level 36, but I don't know that a 36th BECMI fighter was relatively more powerful than a 20th 1E/2E fighter.

[Cosi]

3e (specifically, 3.5) Wizard, not close. SLA wish means infinite stats and all spells at will from 11th level.


On one hand they nerfed a few powerfull spells in 3.5.

But on the other hand some of their 'nerf' ended up making those spell more powerfull. Like grease used to be a simple reflex saves and wish actually had more limitations in 3.0 compared to 3.5.

In the end, i think i'd say 3.5 wizards are the most powerfull, simply because there's a lot more material in 3.5 than in 3.0

There is zero chance that a 3.0 Wizard is more powerful than a 3.5 one. 3.0 didn't let you do things like SLA wish for arbitrary items for free (because it had a 15k GP cap), and didn't let you get Su abilities from shapechange. You got an extra action from haste, but who cares because in 3e you get an extra action from being a Chronotrynyn.


It depends on the level. A game might have very weak low-level wizards and all-powerful high level wizards, and the earliest games did.

A 17th level wizard from original D&D could cast a Wish spell every day, with no loss of experience points or any other penalty, and no limits on what it could do beyond what the DM chooses to impose.

If you know your DM well enough to stay out of trouble, nothing else comes close.

With shapechange to turn into a Zodar, a 3.5 Wizard can get an XP free wish every round, and in addition to sill having the "appeal to your DM" clause, it now has protected clauses.

[Tinkerer]

3e (specifically, 3.5) Wizard, not close. SLA wish means infinite stats and all spells at will from 11th level.



There is zero chance that a 3.0 Wizard is more powerful than a 3.5 one. 3.0 didn't let you do things like SLA wish for arbitrary items for free (because it had a 15k GP cap), and didn't let you get Su abilities from shapechange. You got an extra action from haste, but who cares because in 3e you get an extra action from being a Chronotrynyn.



With shapechange to turn into a Zodar, a 3.5 Wizard can get an XP free wish every round, and in addition to sill having the "appeal to your DM" clause, it now has protected clauses.

Regrettably not. You can shapechange into a Zodar and gain one wish per year. Player X is still Player X just now they are a Zodar as well. Otherwise you would be able to use the druids "A Thousand Faces" to gain infinite uses of any x per day item. Additionally there is a hard cap on how much you can wish for stats.

Now summoned wishes on the other hand you can do at will but a 2nd edition mage can do them as well.

[Cosi]

Regrettably not. You can shapechange into a Zodar and gain one wish per year. Player X is still Player X just now they are a Zodar as well. Otherwise you would be able to use the druids "A Thousand Faces" to gain infinite uses of any x per day item.

I don't think your Thousand Faces ability follows. Your per day items are not, given my understanding of the rules for form changing magic, something that you get for changing into your form. In any case, you only need one to get a Ring of Infinite Wishes -- which is a protected wish under 3.5 rules.


Additionally there is a hard cap on how much you can wish for stats.

There is a hard cap on how large of an inherent bonus you can get from wish. There's no cap on how big of a Belt of Magnificence you can get. I guess there's a soft cap based on XP costs, but you don't pay that, so who cares?

[ATHATH]

If it's not a class then i guess not.
Ah, in that case, a 3.5 Wizard with "like a bajillion" templates is probably the most powerful Wizard in the game... Unless Pun-Pun is on the table, in which case he'd be the most powerful.

[Tinkerer]

I don't think your Thousand Faces ability follows. Your per day items are not, given my understanding of the rules for form changing magic, something that you get for changing into your form. In any case, you only need one to get a Ring of Infinite Wishes -- which is a protected wish under 3.5 rules.

True, I only brought that up in response to you saying that you could Shapechange into a Zodar to gain one wish per round (assuming that you were using the free action to Shapechange into another Zodar to get around the 1/year restriction).


There is a hard cap on how large of an inherent bonus you can get from wish. There's no cap on how big of a Belt of Magnificence you can get. I guess there's a soft cap based on XP costs, but you don't pay that, so who cares?

Yeah, although I guess if we go by wish cheesing logic then any 3.X edition character becomes equally powerful at 5th/6th level (the first level that you can easily get infinite wishes to the best of my knowledge). I think the question was regarding characters who wouldn't be insta-banned.

[Quertus]

2nd edition has Players Option which, as was stated, allows you to build a mage class from scratch giving them things like priest spheres, enhanced HP, resistances and immunities, enhanced spell level etc... HOWEVER it is still a point build system which means that you can't give them everything, but you can give them an awful lot by gaming that build system.

This is the Playground - you expect to be able to say, "a wizard can do any of this, but not all of this, and certainly not all at once", and have people hear anything besides, "a wizard can do all of this"? We'll get back to gaming the system in a minute.


I may be biased here from my 2nd ed epic wild mage

Squee! Tell me more!


2. Wildfire allows you to cast ANY wizard spell (regardless if you know it or not) of level 8 or below as a standard action with no downside. It also explicitly allows you to break the rules regarding magic item creation and allows you to cast spells which only specialists can cast.

I don't remember 2e Wild Mages - quite possibly my favorite class of all time, btw - being able to ignore important prerequisites, (like, say, being a specialist) when casting spells. Is there clear, unambiguous RAW on this, or are we into RAI territory here?


3. Nahal's Reckless Dweomer allows you to have a % chance equal to your level +2 of being able to cast any spell that you know and it's only a 1st level spell slot. This would normally have the downside of a surge if you fail however see above for being immune to wild surges (plus unlike Wildfire it combos with the ability to cast priest spells). I tend to fill 90% of my slots between level 1 and 4 with this spell.

IIRC, there were about 10 entries on that d% table that I'd call a success (cannot be countered, works for at least one turn, half effect, works but shrieks like a shrieker, etc). Let alone using, "Next phase spoken by caster becomes true" to create the spell.


7. The aforementioned build-a-mage which allows a wide variety of options

For gaming the system... Here's one thought:

Be a Wild Mage as your base. Take Priestly Mage, get access to Moment. Get or make a Ring of Spell Holding. Find a way (Ring of Spell Storing, perhaps?) to get your familiar to cast Nahal's Reckless Dwoemer for Moment. Repeat until they get "x3 effect". Use Ring of Spell Holding to make the Moment spell permanent. Wait for your familiar to say "now" before taking actions.

Get a permanent +60% to all tasks. For example,

+60 effective level to succeed casting Nahal's Reckless Dwoemer.

+60% to guessing "Rumplestiltskin" whole cloth. But, better yet,

Get a bag. Fill it with 1000 blank tiles (like Scrabble tiles). Write a letter, A-Z, on 26, and "done" on one. Ask a question, then draw from the bag, one letter at a time.

Then try again with the same question.

Figure out all command words, the answers to all the universe's mysteries, or what to get your SO for their birthday.


3e (specifically, 3.5) Wizard, not close. SLA wish means infinite stats and all spells at will from 11th level.

There is zero chance that a 3.0 Wizard is more powerful than a 3.5 one. 3.0 didn't let you do things like SLA wish for arbitrary items for free (because it had a 15k GP cap), and didn't let you get Su abilities from shapechange. You got an extra action from haste, but who cares because in 3e you get an extra action from being a Chronotrynyn.

To quibble, didn't 3.0 have Assume Supernatural Ability, or was that 3.5? Also, can you make your whole party Chronotrynyns? Starting at what level?

Meanwhile, the 2e mage could cast Simulacrum for free, giving them NI Simulacra for NI wishes per round, if they so desire. And 2e wishes did have protected clauses, too.

Where 2e runs into issues, from an absolute rather than relative perspective, are finite save bonuses, and non-scaling save DCs, partially made up for with the sheer number of "no save, just works" options, and the lack of stacking rules.

[Tinkerer]

Squee! Tell me more!
Hers is a tale for another day.


I don't remember 2e Wild Mages - quite possibly my favorite class of all time, btw - being able to ignore important prerequisites, (like, say, being a specialist) when casting spells. Is there clear, unambiguous RAW on this, or are we into RAI territory here?
"Wildfire allows the caster to create the effect of any wizard spell of 8th level or lower. He need only have general knowledge of the spell and its effects; the spell does not need to be in his own spellbooks." I checked assorted books and specialist spells count as wizard spells as long as they are arcane. So long as it counts as a Wizard spell this spell can do it (although that does mean that 9th level and above spells from specialty schools will forever be out of her reach). On the downside that means she at least needs to have heard of the spell in order to use it. But it is far easier to hear about spells than to learn them.


IIRC, there were about 10 entries on that d% table that I'd call a success (cannot be countered, works for at least one turn, half effect, works but shrieks like a shrieker, etc). Let alone using, "Next phase spoken by caster becomes true" to create the spell.

True however bear in mind your +X% for that table. That eliminates the "Next phase spoken" result and some of the others. Although counting it there turns out to be 9 results which would still allow the spell to be cast.


For gaming the system... Here's one thought:

Be a Wild Mage as your base. Take Priestly Mage, get access to Moment. Get or make a Ring of Spell Holding. Find a way (Ring of Spell Storing, perhaps?) to get your familiar to cast Nahal's Reckless Dwoemer for Moment. Repeat until they get "x3 effect". Use Ring of Spell Holding to make the Moment spell permanent. Wait for your familiar to say "now" before taking actions.

Get a permanent +60% to all tasks. For example,

+60 effective level to succeed casting Nahal's Reckless Dwoemer.

+60% to guessing "Rumplestiltskin" whole cloth. But, better yet,

Get a bag. Fill it with 1000 blank tiles (like Scrabble tiles). Write a letter, A-Z, on 26, and "done" on one. Ask a question, then draw from the bag, one letter at a time.

Then try again with the same question.

Figure out all command words, the answers to all the universe's mysteries, or what to get your SO for their birthday.

I... don't have my books on me right now so I don't know how those rings work. That would be some mighty fine raclette though.

[wumpus]

BECMI (or BX or Holmes Basic or Rules Cyclopedia) is not a version of 1st Edition AD&D. 2E is much closer to 1E than BECMI is to 1E. BECMI had much simpler classes, race as class for demi-humans, and generally much simpler mechanics. Initiative was much simpler, and there were no weapon speeds or casting times. Humans could advance to level 36, but I don't know that a 36th BECMI fighter was relatively more powerful than a 20th 1E/2E fighter.

While I only had BX, the whole reason BECMI is on the table is the last letter, Immortals. "Obtaining a divine rank" (or whatever they called ascending to godhood in BECMI) simply should be considered more powerful than even an epic mortal wizard in 3.x (gods simply get more DM cheese).

I'd suspect that a level 35 magic user simply doesn't cut it, unless ascended. There simply weren't enough unchecked rules in those days (although I think that was during Lorraine Williams's rein and testing wasn't allowed on company time) to get the loops needed for extreme 3.x cheese.

I suppose that formally epic was never converted from 3.0 to 3.5, so 3.0 likely wins by default. Unless 3.5 and Pathfinder can claim epic as part of their rules, I don't think that you claim to be ahead of 3.0

AD&D is more or less off the table. Two possible ways AD&D magic users can compete with wizards are by having two classes: a wizard can advance to roughly 9th level in fighter and wind up with 1/4 of the hp of Odin or Zeus. The long term damage is essentially the equal to the loss of a level, but the party will be grumpy about carrying their former fighter for that whole level. Cleric is also an option, but it isn't clear what your divine patron will think of that. I never saw two classes in real play (although I did suggest bringing my bard as a first level character), but they were critical in optimal play in Baldur's Gate.

The other means is likely limited to 1e (Baldur's Gate is my only 2e experience, so I don't even know if it was in the 2e books, probably not). Psionics favor high intelligence (and also high wisdom and charisma) and an *extremely* lucky die roll lets you enter the world of psionics. Note that a single bad die roll in certain critical parts can gimp your character psionically, and mean that you are absolutely dead meat against power creatures from the lower planes and pretty much any part of the "Against the Giants" sequence once you descend into the earth against the drow. But enough fudged rolls (and wizards really aren't going to make it to high level without ignoring a few rolls) means a whole list of powers easily a class unto itself that doesn't cost any xp (and many of the advancement tables make no sense at all).

So my take:
1-20: Pathfinder or 3.5
20-godhood: 3.0
godhood: BECMI (because godhood)

[Tinkerer]

While I only had BX, the whole reason BECMI is on the table is the last letter, Immortals. "Obtaining a divine rank" (or whatever they called ascending to godhood in BECMI) simply should be considered more powerful than even an epic mortal wizard in 3.x (gods simply get more DM cheese).

I'd suspect that a level 35 magic user simply doesn't cut it, unless ascended. There simply weren't enough unchecked rules in those days (although I think that was during Lorraine Williams's rein and testing wasn't allowed on company time) to get the loops needed for extreme 3.x cheese.

I suppose that formally epic was never converted from 3.0 to 3.5, so 3.0 likely wins by default. Unless 3.5 and Pathfinder can claim epic as part of their rules, I don't think that you claim to be ahead of 3.0

AD&D is more or less off the table. Two possible ways AD&D magic users can compete with wizards are by having two classes: a wizard can advance to roughly 9th level in fighter and wind up with 1/4 of the hp of Odin or Zeus. The long term damage is essentially the equal to the loss of a level, but the party will be grumpy about carrying their former fighter for that whole level. Cleric is also an option, but it isn't clear what your divine patron will think of that. I never saw two classes in real play (although I did suggest bringing my bard as a first level character), but they were critical in optimal play in Baldur's Gate.

The other means is likely limited to 1e (Baldur's Gate is my only 2e experience, so I don't even know if it was in the 2e books, probably not). Psionics favor high intelligence (and also high wisdom and charisma) and an *extremely* lucky die roll lets you enter the world of psionics. Note that a single bad die roll in certain critical parts can gimp your character psionically, and mean that you are absolutely dead meat against power creatures from the lower planes and pretty much any part of the "Against the Giants" sequence once you descend into the earth against the drow. But enough fudged rolls (and wizards really aren't going to make it to high level without ignoring a few rolls) means a whole list of powers easily a class unto itself that doesn't cost any xp (and many of the advancement tables make no sense at all).

So my take:
1-20: Pathfinder or 3.5
20-godhood: 3.0
godhood: BECMI (because godhood)

No 3.5 has Epic and so does 2nd. And (almost) every edition has godhood ascension possibilities. Now that I looked into it a little bit I think that BECMI Immortals actually don't qualify for this challenge.

Magic user or any other variation of the wizard class works. (not including sorcerer, just int. based spell casters
Immortals are not an Int. based spell caster.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss 2nd ed due to True Dweomers which change the game a bit. For people who don't know True Dweomers is 10th level create-a-spell type magic which among it's powers include absolutely smashing any 1-9 level spell that it is put up against. So for the infinite wish combo earlier you could simply have a defensive True Dweomer which causes any wish effect to rebound on the caster.

I think the biggest problem for maximum strength is once you enter the >20 level range the books in ALL editions start to say "You know what? GM fiat." So while you can enter godhood in 2nd and 3rd edition it is GM fiat as to whether or not you do. So can we count that as strength? I thought that there was an explicit 2nd edition means of becoming a god which existed as RAW but I can't quite seem to track it down.

[BWR]

While I only had BX, the whole reason BECMI is on the table is the last letter, Immortals. "Obtaining a divine rank" (or whatever they called ascending to godhood in BECMI) simply should be considered more powerful than even an epic mortal wizard in 3.x (gods simply get more DM cheese).


A universal ability for Immortals was "Immunity to mortal magic". Doesn't really matter what you tried, your magic could not affect an Immortal unless you were one or there were special circumstances (like the Night Spider in "Talons of the Night"). They could also almost trivially easily gain 'cast all spells at will'.

[FabulousFizban]

two words: pun pun

[Endarire]

I say 3.x due to aforementioned reasons.

[Deliverance]

No 3.5 has Epic and so does 2nd. And (almost) every edition has godhood ascension possibilities. Now that I looked into it a little bit I think that BECMI Immortals actually don't qualify for this challenge.

Immortals are not an Int. based spell caster.

Immortal is not a class at all, and it is not godhood either, it is a property of a character that transcends mortality.

A fighter immortal might not qualify*, but I don't see why an intelligence based magic user who becomes an immortal would be disqualified. He is a magic user who went the extra mile in pursuit of power via one of the paths to immortality. Why should he be disqualified for gaining intended (but very hard to get) power, while we are more or less accepting silly stuff like infinite wishes and shapechanging shenanigans, that rely on the goodwill of the DM rather than being part of the class features?

* unless he achieved immortality the really hard way, via the path of the polymath, and one of the three additional classes his character had to level from scratch and succeed with, impressing his immortal patron, was a magic user... This one was really more for fluff and NPC stories in the background than practical for PCs in campaigns, but you ended up with an immortal who had high levels in four classes and very high in one of them.

[Tinkerer]

Immortal is not a class at all, and it is not godhood either, it is a property of a character that transcends mortality.

A fighter immortal might not qualify*, but I don't see why an intelligence based magic user who becomes an immortal would be disqualified. He is a magic user who went the extra mile in pursuit of power via one of the paths to immortality. Why should he be disqualified for gaining intended (but very hard to get) power, while we are more or less accepting silly stuff like infinite wishes and shapechanging shenanigans, that rely on the goodwill of the DM rather than being part of the class features?

* unless he achieved immortality the really hard way, via the path of the polymath, and one of the three additional classes his character had to level from scratch and succeed with, impressing his immortal patron, was a magic user... This one was really more for fluff and NPC stories in the background than practical for PCs in campaigns, but you ended up with an immortal who had high levels in four classes and very high in one of them.

"All Immortals belong to a single character class, the Immortal class." When you become an Immortal it overwrites the other classes which you had. You lose all of those powers and gain the Immortal power set. It's all laid out pretty clearly.

[BWR]

Immortal is not a class at all, and it is not godhood either, it is a property of a character that transcends mortality.


Immortality pretty much is godhood. They are powerful, hear prayers, are worshipped by mortal beings and grant spells, and often have organized religion and churches dedicated to them.
Sounds like a god to me.

[Calthropstu]

2nd had some obnoxious spells that were retarded powerful that were dropped in 3.x. One of my favorites was a spell that made you completely immune to all damage. Then you touched your foe and all the damage you would have taken got transferred to him. It was featured in 2 novels, Elminster in Myth Drannor and one of the Drizzt novels.
2nd also had phasing... which made you completely invulnerable. You phased out and couldn't be harmed. If you somehow got immunity to normal weapons you could cast protection from magic weapons and nothing could hurt you. 2E was broken in so many wonderful ways.

[Faily]

* unless he achieved immortality the really hard way, via the path of the polymath, and one of the three additional classes his character had to level from scratch and succeed with, impressing his immortal patron, was a magic user... This one was really more for fluff and NPC stories in the background than practical for PCs in campaigns, but you ended up with an immortal who had high levels in four classes and very high in one of them.

Not sure if I would call the Path of the Polymath the hardest of the different paths to Immortality. :smalltongue: (Do you have any idea how much time and effort it takes to go into the Path of the Dynast, and that's not even getting into the "must save your kingdom three times from doom and at least once travel in time to help your descendants"?! I do! :smallbiggrin: )

But all in all, the Immortals of Mystara are Gods. They're just called Immortals instead. They fulfill the same role as Gods in other settings and are revered and worshipped as deities.

[Deliverance]

"All Immortals belong to a single character class, the Immortal class." When you become an Immortal it overwrites the other classes which you had. You lose all of those powers and gain the Immortal power set. It's all laid out pretty clearly.
In that case you are right and I was wrong and my memory failed me. My apologies.

[Tinkerer]

Haha, my memory has failed me so many times on this because I constantly wind up dealing with 1) Editions I haven't used in years. And 2) Super munchiny things which exist on the fringe of allowable stuff, which I normally stay well away from. The Immortals I definitely had to actually look up to refresh on the details.

I suppose it really is to be expected that the two editions with the most additional content are the two that seem to be in the lead. Hmm, time on the Astral Plane moved in sync with the Prime Material in 3rd edition didn't it? Because I recall the Astral Plane moving at about 100000X the speed of Prime in 2nd. If we are comparing strength that may count as a point in 2nds favour. And that is a trick I actually used once (only once, I knew the GM would never allow it a second time). You can disappear for a split second and come back at full strength, not to mention actually making the Batman Wizard a reality since he can rest for 8 hours and re-memorize spells and cast all of his buffs inside of a single combat round.

Part of the problem here is what is intended by powerful? Is it versatility ala the Tier List? Is it which one could take the other in a fight? Is it pure raw world shaping ability? I mean both of them are completely off the end of the power scale, but what metric do you use when you hit this level of power?

[BWR]

suppose it really is to be expected that the two editions with the most additional content are the two that seem to be in the lead. Hmm, time on the Astral Plane moved in sync with the Prime Material in 3rd edition didn't it? Because I recall the Astral Plane moving at about 100000X the speed of Prime in 2nd.r?

Preeetty sure this is wrong. It's certainly not what my Guide to the Astral Plane says, and it goes against all other depictions of Astral travel in the game. Time doesn't pass on the Astral, so you can live arbitrarily old. Problem is all that time catches up with you when you leave the Astral, unless you have specific protection. Same goes for other bodily functions like hunger, thirst and poison.

[Tinkerer]

Preeetty sure this is wrong. It's certainly not what my Guide to the Astral Plane says, and it goes against all other depictions of Astral travel in the game. Time doesn't pass on the Astral, so you can live arbitrarily old. Problem is all that time catches up with you when you leave the Astral, unless you have specific protection. Same goes for other bodily functions like hunger, thirst and poison.

Oops, yep. Apparently we were using 1st edition Astral Plane definitions back then (this was a long time ago) which is quite different than the second edition. And even at that we managed to get it backwards. Time passes at the same rate as on the Prime Material but you only feel the effects of it passing at 1/365000 the speed. However it didn't have the time catching up problem in 1st. Ah well, young players will often misinterpret rules in their favour.

[UrielAwakened]

Which version had the broken Incantatrix that could stack like seven metamagics? Was that the 3.0 or 3.5 version?

Whichever version that was.

[NecroDancer]

The 5e wizard does have an infinite wish combo that's technically allowed RAW. And if the an Abjuration Wizard it can counterspell anything with little to no issue.

[AMFV]

Asking which Wizard is most powerful is like asking what kind of sword is best...

The answer lies in the skill of the user (in this case the player). A player who thinks quickly on their feat can make a wizard in 5E more powerful than one in 3.5 that doesn't have that same gift. So the meta-game here is pretty critical. I would say that 3.5 probably has a lot more loopholes that can be exploited, but it's worth noting that there are many of those than include pretty obvious ways to shut them down by an enemy, so it's not exactly more powerful if the world is likewise more powerful to counter that.

[Eldan]

While that is true to some degree, the system still is what sets the ceiling on the character's power. As a hyperbolic example: if you have three different game systems, one that has no magic at all, one which has moderate magic and one which has no real limits on magic will allow for wizards that are of different levels.

Or in other words: while player skill is a big part, if you have two highly skilled players with (near infinitely) permissive DMs and one of them plays an edition that features wish-loops and Pun-pun and the other doesn't, the first one will have the theoretically more powerful wizard.

[AMFV]

While that is true to some degree, the system still is what sets the ceiling on the character's power. As a hyperbolic example: if you have three different game systems, one that has no magic at all, one which has moderate magic and one which has no real limits on magic will allow for wizards that are of different levels.

Or in other words: while player skill is a big part, if you have two highly skilled players with (near infinitely) permissive DMs and one of them plays an edition that features wish-loops and Pun-pun and the other doesn't, the first one will have the theoretically more powerful wizard.

Right, but Pun Pun pretty much doesn't exist outside of a theoretical exercise... I would say that using things that exist only in theory as any referendum on actual playtime and actual playing power as pretty silly, or at least not very meaningful.

[Kaerou]

Its definitely a toss-up between AD&D and 3rd edition (combined).

Yeah, 3rd ed probably had more splatbooks to work with, but it was developed over a time period of what I call 'internet balance'. While still wildly unbalanced, the designers did seemingly try and cap things here and there.

AD&D came at a time without internet whine balance. AD&D wizards had save or dies from first level up and spells that were wavehand 'you're immune to all damage'. They were, by intent, designed to become demigods at the maximum spell levels. Its been so long that I don't remember, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were save-less die spells in AD&D because balance wasn't a great concern then.

So I'll throw it to 3rd edition, but only due to epic levels. If we're talking about pre-epic only without splatbooks, AD&D. Pre-epic only with splatbooks, a tossup.

[Lord Torath]

D&D B/X - BECMI wizards could cast one spell every 10 seconds.
AD&D (1E/2E) could cast one spell every 60 seconds.
AD&D 2.5 (Players Option): could cast one spell every 6 seconds
D&D 3.X/PF could cast one spell every 6 seconds (I think?)
D&D 4E - not sure (but someone else will know)
D&D 5E - again, Not sure.

Someone with more knowledge than I will have to complete this table, but it's looking like AD&D 1E are most likely to lose in an arena match.

Does any version of Haste allow you to cast more than once in a round? Nothing before 3.0 permits it. (Okay, 2E's Improved Haste doesn't explicitly forbid it, but no other 2E Haste magic allows more than one spell per round, and call out that one spell per round is as fast as magic can happen. And we're ignoring Time Stop here.)

[Eldan]

Right, but Pun Pun pretty much doesn't exist outside of a theoretical exercise... I would say that using things that exist only in theory as any referendum on actual playtime and actual playing power as pretty silly, or at least not very meaningful.

Oh, absolutely. I was naming extremes. But it's a continuum. If one wizard has more powerful optiosn than the other, he's theoretically better.t

[Cosi]

D&D B/X - BECMI wizards could cast one spell every 10 seconds.
AD&D (1E/2E) could cast one spell every 60 seconds.
AD&D 2.5 (Players Option): could cast one spell every 6 seconds
D&D 3.X/PF could cast one spell every 6 seconds (I think?)
D&D 4E - not sure (but someone else will know)
D&D 5E - again, Not sure.

Someone with more knowledge than I will have to complete this table, but it's looking like AD&D 1E are most likely to lose in an arena match.

Does any version of Haste allow you to cast more than once in a round? Nothing before 3.0 permits it. (Okay, 2E's Improved Haste doesn't explicitly forbid it, but no other 2E Haste magic allows more than one spell per round, and call out that one spell per round is as fast as magic can happen. And we're ignoring Time Stop here.)

3e has Quicken Spell, which allows you to cast a second spell, and various form-changing magic allows you to get abilities that give you extra actions.

[LibraryOgre]

D&D B/X - BECMI wizards could cast one spell every 10 seconds.
AD&D (1E/2E) could cast one spell every 60 seconds.
AD&D 2.5 (Players Option): could cast one spell every 6 seconds
D&D 3.X/PF could cast one spell every 6 seconds (I think?)
D&D 4E - not sure (but someone else will know)
D&D 5E - again, Not sure.

Someone with more knowledge than I will have to complete this table, but it's looking like AD&D 1E are most likely to lose in an arena match.

Does any version of Haste allow you to cast more than once in a round? Nothing before 3.0 permits it. (Okay, 2E's Improved Haste doesn't explicitly forbid it, but no other 2E Haste magic allows more than one spell per round, and call out that one spell per round is as fast as magic can happen. And we're ignoring Time Stop here.)

This is why I think you need to normalize for round length (i.e. all "rounds" are the same length).

[AMFV]

Oh, absolutely. I was naming extremes. But it's a continuum. If one wizard has more powerful optiosn than the other, he's theoretically better.t

I guess it depends on if you're discussing theory in terms of the game or the actual in-play experience. I would say though that a wizard in 3.5 is more likely to encounter enemies that are more deadly or more difficult to handle than one in 5E, for example. So in terms of power we also have to look at the relative powerscales in the world.

A level 10 Wizard in 3.5 Eberron, would be able to probably do more significant stuff and have more power relative than a level 25 Wizard would in Forgotten Realms (3.5 in this case), for example. We can't ignore the expected power levels of the setting in a discussion of who has more power.

[Knaight]

Asking which Wizard is most powerful is like asking what kind of sword is best...

The answer lies in the skill of the user (in this case the player). A player who thinks quickly on their feat can make a wizard in 5E more powerful than one in 3.5 that doesn't have that same gift. So the meta-game here is pretty critical. I would say that 3.5 probably has a lot more loopholes that can be exploited, but it's worth noting that there are many of those than include pretty obvious ways to shut them down by an enemy, so it's not exactly more powerful if the world is likewise more powerful to counter that.

The sword analogy is pretty good here. Sure, there are user skill discrepancies such that some people can reasonably expect to defeat other people when wielding a box cutter against an excellently made long sword, even if they're not attacking from an ambush. That doesn't make the box cutter the better weapon.

[AMFV]

The sword analogy is pretty good here. Sure, there are user skill discrepancies such that some people can reasonably expect to defeat other people when wielding a box cutter against an excellently made long sword, even if they're not attacking from an ambush. That doesn't make the box cutter the better weapon.

Yes, but we're not dealing with box cutters (fighters and the like). This is like asking if a Rapier is a better weapon than a Sabre, while the consensus is that it is a slightly better weapon, it's not a better weapon in enough of a meaningful sense that it would override the competencies of the wielder. And it's close enough that the competencies of people involved might easily blur the answer to this question.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd vote for AD&D 1e Wizard who also maxed out (or nearly maxed out) his rolls for psionics. Psionics was an add on in AD&D 1e, which could really toss extra power and capability into the wizard's lap. (It was a bugger to run, though, and had plenty of short comings)

If the wizard rolled a high psionic disciplines score, 96-00, you'd get 4 minor and 2 major disciplines. And again, rolling high on psionic strength, and boosting scores like Charisma using wishes, etc,

An AD&D 1e wizard had, theoretically, no level cap. Even though the book only went up to level 18 (and getting levels was hard in that edition) the Magic User became a wizard (name level) at level 11. You could be a level 46 wizard, if the DM could find enough challenges for you to get there. A 46d6 lightning bolt is nothing to sneeze at. :p (No, I never played such a thing)

At level 18 and above we have the following entry:
3,000,001 - 3,375,000 18 11 +7 Wizard (18th level or Arch-Mage) 375,000 experience points per level for each additional level beyond the 18th. Magic-Users gain 1 h.p. per level after the 18th

Starting at 11th level, Wizards can craft a variety of magical items. Reason to adventure? Get enough money and materials to craft that ring we need.

Anyway, when you add in things like a Staff of Power to a psionics using wizard, there not much the wizard can't do.

My second choice is the immortal, but since I never played the Immortal version of the game, I have no feel for how powerful an immortal was. Probably higher power than AD&D 1e.

[Tinkerer]

Okay. I think that there are a few questions that we need to address.

1) What is the level of these wizards that we are imagining? Because as has been pointed out some wizards cap out earlier than others while some editions are pretty much unlimited (although that may not be enough to help).

2) Do we ban obviously broken (as in not functioning as intended) things?

3) How are we measuring power? Are the wizards fighting each other? Is it their ability to affect the world? If it is a melee then do the wizards have buff time? Are they assumed to have the spells which they always have on functioning?

4) Length of the round. I'm in favour of going with Mark Hall's suggestion of equalizing round time, especially considering in older editions it was explicitly variable (they said the round lasts for as long as the GM needs it to).

5) Equipment. Not all editions have a wealth by level system. Not all editions have equivalent magic items. Do we assume that they are naked? As interesting as a bunch of old wizards shaking their wands at each other might be I think we should at least give them robes.

6) Custom creations. True Dweomers come to mind here as while there is an explicit and detailed creation system for them the GM has to approve the spell as the final step in spell creation. Because they can easily overpower things like the infinite wish machine.

[rferries]

AD&D, specifically Dragonlance and Ravenloft, specifically Raistlin and Vecna, because they were able to become gods.

Oh, you mean from a gameplay perspective? :D Going strictly by non-munchkinism and core books, probably 3.5 - hit points, feats, skill points, saves, AC, bonus spells etc would all be better than a comparable wizard from an earlier edition.

[Beelzebubba]

Yes, but we're not dealing with box cutters (fighters and the like). This is like asking if a Rapier is a better weapon than a Sabre, while the consensus is that it is a slightly better weapon, it's not a better weapon in enough of a meaningful sense that it would override the competencies of the wielder. And it's close enough that the competencies of people involved might easily blur the answer to this question.

Dude this is a theoretical exercise, it's assuming perfect players, at maximum efficiency. Your wishy-washy relativism doesn't belong.

[SpoonR]

I'm going to suggest 2E Sha'ir. At level 20, has access to the entire wizard spell list, and some access to the priest list (depending on how much risk you take). On average, can cast a spell every 15 rounds, with no limit on spell points or spells per day. So in a non-combat situation, disintegrate as much of the mountain as you want.

In combat, stack up as many turn or longer duration buffs & defenses. Not sure what those spells would be, but should be enough to make up for only casting fireball once per 4 rounds.


Oops, yep. Apparently we were using 1st edition Astral Plane definitions back then (this was a long time ago) which is quite different than the second edition. And even at that we managed to get it backwards. Time passes at the same rate as on the Prime Material but you only feel the effects of it passing at 1/365000 the speed. However it didn't have the time catching up problem in 1st. Ah well, young players will often misinterpret rules in their favour.
In the rules I remember, "stuff" was slowed down in Astral. You never get hungry, but you can't heal by resting, and you can't memorize spells without leaving.

[Segev]

3e, but it's close between them and 5e. At least at high level. A 5e illusionist at high level is almost a reality warper with what he can do with illusions like mirage arcane.

[enderlord99]

two words: pun pun

Yes, I suppose it is possible to make Pun-Pun on a Wizard base, but since that's not the "strongest wizard" he's the "strongest character" that just happens to have "wizard" written on the sheet. His powers come from forcing a Sarukh to give him Manipulate Form via Manipulate Form while he is a Kobobld; they do not come from class levels, Wizard or otherwise.

[Calthropstu]

3.pf
Gestalted, epic mythic character.
Can you even imagine an epic mythic spell?

[Quertus]

AD&D, specifically Dragonlance and Ravenloft, specifically Raistlin and Vecna, because they were able to become gods.

Oh, you mean from a gameplay perspective? :D Going strictly by non-munchkinism and core books, probably 3.5 - hit points, feats, skill points, saves, AC, bonus spells etc would all be better than a comparable wizard from an earlier edition.

Nah, non-munchkinism and core books, 3.0 clearly beats 3.5. Better Haste, better Polymorph, no munchkin Wish.

But my experience does agree - characters were much more likely to ascend in earlier editions.


Okay. I think that there are a few questions that we need to address.

1) What is the level of these wizards that we are imagining? Because as has been pointed out some wizards cap out earlier than others while some editions are pretty much unlimited (although that may not be enough to help).

I mean, my 2e build was starting at level 1, and winning at item creation even vs epic competition. Or was that a different thread? Darn senility.


2) Do we ban obviously broken (as in not functioning as intended) things?

While I love Rules as Intended, how does one measure intent here? If it's 2e or earlier, I'd argue that the intent was to sell books, and they succeeded. :smalltongue:

I suspect the Playground will want to ban anything that goes infinite. Beyond (or, perhaps, even with) that, it feels like it defeats the purpose of the exercise to go banning things. "Lord of the Pit is the most powerful card in Magic, if you ban everything more powerful than it" really doesn't mean much.


3) How are we measuring power? Are the wizards fighting each other? Is it their ability to affect the world? If it is a melee then do the wizards have buff time? Are they assumed to have the spells which they always have on functioning?

If your buff spells aren't lasting all day, you either aren't optimizing hard enough, or your edition has failed the test already.

Defining power... If it is to be given a set definition - and I'm not saying it should, mind - but if it is, it should be success at doing what they do: adventuring. Ideally with a party.


4) Length of the round. I'm in favour of going with Mark Hall's suggestion of equalizing round time, especially considering in older editions it was explicitly variable (they said the round lasts for as long as the GM needs it to).

I won't argue. 2e is a contender even with longer rounds, but comparisons are easier this way.


5) Equipment. Not all editions have a wealth by level system. Not all editions have equivalent magic items. Do we assume that they are naked? As interesting as a bunch of old wizards shaking their wands at each other might be I think we should at least give them robes.

Older editions have modules, some of which are well written enough to have expected loot value in addition to expected XP for characters. This sounds like a good basis for expected wealth by level.

That having been said, having an expected wealth by level puts both a floor and a ceiling on 3e and later mages' power. Mages in older editions have no such ceiling, and may well own more artifacts than they can carry.


6) Custom creations. True Dweomers come to mind here as while there is an explicit and detailed creation system for them the GM has to approve the spell as the final step in spell creation. Because they can easily overpower things like the infinite wish machine.

Yeah, 2e True Dwoemers are a decided vote in favor of 2e mages being more powerful than their other edition counterparts. I don't know about them beating the infinite wish machine, though.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

AD&D, Defiler Wizard from Dark Sun. Powerhouse of a wizard with INE of the fastest experience progresión by level.

[Quertus]

AD&D, Defiler Wizard from Dark Sun. Powerhouse of a wizard with INE of the fastest experience progresión by level.

While still advancing at a 50th of the pace of a 3e wizard, instead of a hundredth of the pace, like a normal 2e mage? I don't think "advancement rate" is going to be a selling point of power on older edition mages.

I do agree, that higher Athasian stats and free wild talents are nice. But don't Athasian wizards have a pretty hard level 30 cap?