PDA

View Full Version : Why do fighters suck/wizards rule?



Prophaniti
2007-12-03, 12:15 PM
Now this thread is not a direct discussion of the fighter class, but of melee classes in general and the seeming concensus that they're not worth playing (from a power-gaming pov) and I'm wondering why so many people so vocally think that.

First off, there's a fundamental problem I have with the view that magic-users and other classes SHOULD be balanced in the first place. We're talking about someone who can fundamentally alter reality with sheer willpower and mental discipline vs someone who hits people with sharp metal. Any instance where the two are even comparable is most likely caused by some arbitrary increase to the metal-wavers abilities(ToB), decrease to the magic-users(SR/anti-magic zone), or special circumstances where magic is not very useful. Also as I've seen mentioned in some of the 'Wizard vs X' threads, the pc classes were never intened to be balanced AGAINST each other, but rather meant to complement each other, so everyone has a role in the group. That said, I've always enjoyed playing melee classes, and not just to avoid how convoluted spellcasting can become. We often have melee characters that outshine the casters of the party, espesially when our group's resident powergamer is running them. He likes to run casters too, but mostly as buffers.

Anecdotally, the party was ambushed once and his melee character hit in the first round for an insane amount of damage. I asked him to explain and he began listing the buffs he had on from his casting follower. I had to reign him in and explain that he really did have to take the full casting time for all those buffs, rather than automatically applying them at the start of an encounter. He was a good sport about it, though, just figured it was a wash-over, like encumberance and food usually are in our campaigns.

I personally find different ways to keep the wizard from ruling the kill scores. I tend to be very strict on application of spells, whether a given spell will work under special circumstances, and I try to put the party in more situations where spellcasting is impractical or not immediately useful. Negotiations, a fight in a city or building where magic is outlawed or monitered, things of that nature.

Another thing I like (and am implementing in my own campaign setting) is the idea that magic is very hard to do. You can't start as a 1st level caster (ex d20 modern) you have to work you're way up to it. Being a wizard involves nearly all of your free time and funds and takes a lot of hard work to be good at. It is NOT something you can do as a summer job. My dad's rule, somewhat inverse of mine, is that you cannot BECOME a wizard without years of training. If you don't start as one, you cannot multi-class as one without dropping out of the campaign for a while.

Anyway, my bottom line is this: A good DM can easily run a campaign where the wizard is a useful and valued member of the party without being an unstoppable, unequaled and immense Power who dominates every situation and combat. Fighters and other melee oriented classes CAN perform and shine (without ToB, though I do like the book) and can be interesting to play. Basically I'm saying I've never had the trouble everyone says goes on with wizards and clerics overshadowing the party and I'm trying to understand why so many people complain about it.

AstralFire
2007-12-03, 12:28 PM
First off, there's a fundamental problem I have with the view that magic-users and other classes SHOULD be balanced in the first place. We're talking about someone who can fundamentally alter reality with sheer willpower and mental discipline vs someone who hits people with sharp metal. Any instance where the two are even comparable is most likely caused by some arbitrary increase to the metal-wavers abilities(ToB),

Only two of the disciplines are really supernatural. If you've looked through Tome of Battle, calling those 'arbitrary' and not the simple fact that a naked Paladin 20 can last a few rounds in lava is crazy.


decrease to the magic-users(SR/anti-magic zone), or special circumstances where magic is not very useful. Also as I've seen mentioned in some of the 'Wizard vs X' threads, the pc classes were never intened to be balanced AGAINST each other, but rather meant to complement each other, so everyone has a role in the group.

When a full caster of any type played well can take hits better than the melee, deal more damage, and have better saves, then the PC classes aren't complementing each other and giving everyone a role, you just have stooge bodyguards for the things you're too lazy to put effort into. You seem to think that when people complain of balance, they're thinking of class versus class, purely. They're not. Nevermind that PC classes regularly show up as enemies, though.


That said, I've always enjoyed playing melee classes, and not just to avoid how convoluted spellcasting can become. We often have melee characters that outshine the casters of the party, espesially when our group's resident powergamer is running them. He likes to run casters too, but mostly as buffers.

I wouldn't be surprised if your powergamer plays casters like that and meleers so effectively in part because he's aware of what he could do if he tried to optimize a spellcaster. It's pretty common among powergamers who have any sense of party balance.

However, I guarantee you that anyone without gaming experience and rulesmastering who picks up a non-ToB melee character will not be able to contribute to a high level party without lots of DM Fiat or help from actual powergamers. A spellcaster can. That is, when you get right down to it, what is fundamentally most wrong with melee.

That along with the fact that melee is pretty much either a meatshield (Fighter) or a Skillmonkey-flawed-damage-bot. The same Wizard or Cleric or Druid can do both roles. At once.


I personally find different ways to keep the wizard from ruling the kill scores. I tend to be very strict on application of spells, whether a given spell will work under special circumstances, and I try to put the party in more situations where spellcasting is impractical or not immediately useful. Negotiations, a fight in a city or building where magic is outlawed or monitered, things of that nature.

While that's commendable, it's not easy to consistently do, and you can very easily reach a point where you're having to make arbitrary outlawing decisions, especially if any of your casters have any of the number of feats that let them cast undetectably. Not to mention the large number of spells that innately are hard to notice.


Another thing I like (and am implementing in my own campaign setting) is the idea that magic is very hard to do. You can't start as a 1st level caster (ex d20 modern) you have to work you're way up to it. Being a wizard involves nearly all of your free time and funds and takes a lot of hard work to be good at. It is NOT something you can do as a summer job. My dad's rule, somewhat inverse of mine, is that you cannot BECOME a wizard without years of training. If you don't start as one, you cannot multi-class as one without dropping out of the campaign for a while.

...Um, okay, how does that change anything? Most Wizard multiclasses prefer starting out as Wizard anyway, and they definitely will now. Not like Wizards *need* to multiclass. All that does is hurt the Fighter who wants to dabble a little, particularly since the bad-dangerous Wizard levels are once they hit 4th or 5th level spells.


Basically I'm saying I've never had the trouble everyone says goes on with wizards and clerics overshadowing the party and I'm trying to understand why so many people complain about it.

It's a problem that kicks in instantly if you have varying levels of game skill in your group and the skilled persons aren't trying to rein themselves in. It's also a matter of level. You won't notice it too much without someone actively trying for it before level 10, barring dumb things like the level 1 druid's animal companion being almost as good as a level 1 fighter on its own.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-03, 12:35 PM
Many of these debates fall into the Oberoni fallacy: just because a DM can fix things with house ruling, doesn't mean the thing is not broken. That, and many message board people use the rules-as-written as a baseline for discussions, because it's one of the few valid comparisons we have.

A corollary of this is that quite frequently, people who play with the (good) kind of DM who fixes things, don't realize that they are broken. So there's a clash between people who argue from the special case of their personal experience, and those who argue from the general case of the rules-as-written.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-03, 12:43 PM
I sense a great disturbance in the force...as if a million arguments and counterarguments were suddenly pointlessly brought up.

Any new "monk doesn't suck" threads up yet?

AstralFire
2007-12-03, 12:47 PM
I sense a great disturbance in the force...as if a million arguments and counterarguments were suddenly pointlessly brought up.

Any new "monk doesn't suck" threads up yet?

Forgive me for responding. I'm waiting for my thread to get someone to care about it.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-03, 12:49 PM
No, please continue. It's concerned, wise people like you who provide us with material to debate with. I thank you.


And that wasn't sarcasm. It's always good when we get new class debate threads.

Solo
2007-12-03, 12:57 PM
Forgive me for responding. I'm waiting for my thread to get someone to care about it.

Wait longer.

Maerok
2007-12-03, 12:58 PM
Because wizards have magic. :smallbiggrin: It's rather simple. The ability to rain death from above or below in a few rounds notice is typically followed by a victory of some sort. The ability to stop time and summon otherworldly creatures helps too. I'm curious to see if using only ToB and ToM, for fighters and casters, would balance things out.

Ditto
2007-12-03, 01:14 PM
I never like when people start with "Fighters hit stuff, wizards snap the rules of reality with their minds" line for the be-all 'duh' part of the answer. Obviously the wizard gets to that level as you move toward epic, but the reality is that the wizard has a number of *extremely specific* ways to bend the rules in short bursts. Most people also ignore that wizards decrease in usefulness rapidly as you approach the proper number of random encounters per day - wizards as put forth generally blow their end-all spells in about 1.5 battles. The same issue comes up in the 'Why psionics is/isn't balanced' argument, since psionics is balanced against a day's worth.

Just a minor gripe. :smallwink:

Da Beast
2007-12-03, 01:16 PM
I personally find different ways to keep the wizard from ruling the kill scores. I tend to be very strict on application of spells, whether a given spell will work under special circumstances, and I try to put the party in more situations where spellcasting is impractical or not immediately useful. Negotiations, a fight in a city or building where magic is outlawed or monitered, things of that nature.

First of all, your kind of answering your own question here. If the DM has to go to great lengths to set up situations were the wizard isn't allowed to use spells, his only real ability, just to make the noncasters feel useful then there's something wrong with the way the game is designed. Second of all, the more splat books you add in the harder creating situations were spell casting is impractical becomes. Almost every new book adds at least a few neat little tricks for each party role, but spell casters (clerics druids and wizards at least) can pick a new set of neat little tricks every day and have a lot more neat little tricks to choose from. With enough books and some prep time there are almost no situations that the big three casters can't handle. Sure the DM can step in and outlaw material but then we're not talking RAW anymore and it goes right back to the Oberoni fallacy.

Arakune
2007-12-03, 01:17 PM
I just think there is no problem for .... say... 30~35 level wizard to own anything below it's CR and 3~7 CR up, but a 10th lvl? 15lvl? Hell, even a 1st lvl wizard in times of despair can 'kill' that fully armed/armored (yet 1st, or 2nd ~3rd level if you're reasonably lucky) fighter with one spell! That's unbalancing.

And let's not enter in the CodZilla/DruidZilla section. (There is a druid that don't take the natural spell feat?)

AstralFire
2007-12-03, 01:17 PM
I never like when people start with "Fighters hit stuff, wizards snap the rules of reality with their minds" line for the be-all 'duh' part of the answer. Obviously the wizard gets to that level as you move toward epic, but the reality is that the wizard has a number of *extremely specific* ways to bend the rules in short bursts. Most people also ignore that wizards decrease in usefulness rapidly as you approach the proper number of random encounters per day - wizards as put forth generally blow their end-all spells in about 1.5 battles. The same issue comes up in the 'Why psionics is/isn't balanced' argument, since psionics is balanced against a day's worth.

Just a minor gripe. :smallwink:

While this is true, as a psionics supporter I also have to admit that unless you're doing an old-fashioned dungeon crawl, it's frequently very hard to do the standard 4 encounters a day and not feel like the DM is just throwing things at you to throw them at you. There are instances where it works, but there are so many where it doesn't, either. Part of the reason I like ToB's per-encounter focus with a limited amount of per-day stuff.

hamstard4ever
2007-12-03, 01:22 PM
First off, there's a fundamental problem I have with the view that magic-users and other classes SHOULD be balanced in the first place.

Yet you go on to say that in spite of this you take extraordinary effort as a DM to attempt to balance magic-users and other classes. If you assert that not only does no balance problem exist, but that there SHOULD be a power disparity between wizards and fighters, then all those situations you invent to rein in the wizards' power are just so much wasted effort.

Essentially, you have arrived at the same point as most of the "fighters suck/wizards rule" crowd: through your house rules and campaign construction you tacitly acknowledge that there is a disparity and attempt to correct it to the net benefit of your players. Part of the reason this issue draws so much noise, rather than simply getting quietly corrected on a group by group basis, is that some players think that this is a systemic problem which should be better addressed by the system instead of being left up to guesswork by the DM. To a large degree they're pushing for the same thing you are: making it so magic is very hard to do, because by the rules of 3rd edition D&D, magic is laughably easy to learn and advance. What people truly object to is not simply the idea that reality-bending archmages with 9th level spells can outperform a guy who's "really good" with a sword, it's that it's just as easy to learn reality-bending 9th level spells as it is to become "really good" with a sword. They, like you, often address this issue by houseruling limitations to slow down wizard progression, either by limiting the availability of spellcaster levels or simply weakening the progression of spellcasting classes.

two_fishes
2007-12-03, 01:30 PM
First off, there's a fundamental problem I have with the view that magic-users and other classes SHOULD be balanced in the first place. We're talking about someone who can fundamentally alter reality with sheer willpower and mental discipline vs someone who hits people with sharp metal. Any instance where the two are even comparable is most likely caused by some arbitrary increase to the metal-wavers abilities(ToB), decrease to the magic-users(SR/anti-magic zone), or special circumstances where magic is not very useful.

They should be balanced because D&D is a game, and the game should be structured to allow all player an even playing ground to participate.

D&D is partly a strategy game; the players work together to overcome the challenges presented by the DM. The rules should allow every player to contribute, not simply turn them into support mechanisms for a single player.

It is also a story-telling game, and the rules are also mechanisms for apportioning narrative authority. A rules system that allows one player to command a disproportionate amount of voice is a poorly written system.

All the stuff about "someone who can fundamentally alter reality with sheer willpower and mental discipline" is just fun colour. Building a game system that gives each player the same authority to contribute to the game should come first.

Prophaniti
2007-12-03, 01:32 PM
Don't think I was trying to dig at ToB, I actually like it. I just mean that it is fairly arbitrary, them being able to do things that only a wizard could really duplicate and claiming it's not magic.

I mentioned my Dad's rule merely as an example of different way's of approaching spellcasting, he is aware that it's not likely to come up very often.

Why do I always hear the idea that a wizard can out fight a fighter, out skill-monkey the rogue, and blast enemies into oblivion ALL AT THE SAME TIME? I have no disagreement that a wizard who wants to can outperform in any of these areas, but having run wizards and sorcerers RAW, even with expanded spell lists from Complete Arcane and Spell Compendium, I could never do it all at once. You are limited to a certain number of spells PER DAY, which means if you use so many buffing yourself to be a melee presence, your capacity for disarming/bypassing traps and your ability to zap enemies is significantly diminished.

Another mitigating factor to the supposed unstoppable power of wizards is a DM who enforces RAW on prepared spells. What, you didn't prepare the spell you need here? Deal with it. Need to ID a plot-significant item and didn't prepare it because he used all his slots on buff spells? Too bad, rest and re-do you're spells. The DM rolls a random encounter (on RAW tables) while the wizard was resting? I guess he better cower in the corner, comforted by his delusions of granduer. Please don't list how to get around each of these situations, these are examples. There's a way out of any and every situation if you know what's coming in advance.

I'm not saying casters are not very powerful and don't often rule the battlefield. They do, and they should IMO. They are not, however, the Alpha and Omega of the D&D world (not even by RAW) and can't replace the rest of the party at once unless the DM allows them to.

Sorry if some of you see these arguments as repititious and boring, to me they're new and exciting. Pull back the jaded curtain from your eyes and see through the eyes of someone who hasn't had all these discussions too many times:smallbiggrin:

AtomicKitKat
2007-12-03, 01:34 PM
When magic classes can fight as well as or better than the fighter, but all the fighter can do is fight, yeah, there's your problem.

Dausuul
2007-12-03, 01:34 PM
Now this thread is not a direct discussion of the fighter class, but of melee classes in general and the seeming concensus that they're not worth playing (from a power-gaming pov) and I'm wondering why so many people so vocally think that.

First off, there's a fundamental problem I have with the view that magic-users and other classes SHOULD be balanced in the first place. We're talking about someone who can fundamentally alter reality with sheer willpower and mental discipline vs someone who hits people with sharp metal.

This argument is totally illogical. Magic is one way of doing things; strength and steel are another. There is no reason why magic must be inherently more powerful just because it doesn't involve physical exertion.


Anyway, my bottom line is this: A good DM can easily run a campaign where the wizard is a useful and valued member of the party without being an unstoppable, unequaled and immense Power who dominates every situation and combat. Fighters and other melee oriented classes CAN perform and shine (without ToB, though I do like the book) and can be interesting to play. Basically I'm saying I've never had the trouble everyone says goes on with wizards and clerics overshadowing the party and I'm trying to understand why so many people complain about it.

As others have said--if you go to great lengths to rein in the wizard's power, then of course the wizard doesn't overshadow the fighter. No class imbalance is more powerful than Rule Zero. But if you have to invoke Rule Zero to make the system work, the system is broken... and it takes larger and larger applications of Rule Zero to keep things working once you get past level 9-10.

Jerthanis
2007-12-03, 01:36 PM
I think a lot of the people who never notice real problems in their groups' balance simply play a different bracket of levels. I play levels 2-9ish, and only our longer campaigns get to 9ish, so we never see higher than 5th level spells, which our wizards have had for maybe two sessions before the game is over. In those levels, balance is perfectly fine. Wizards still run out of spells occasionally, Fighter types take out 3/5ths of the foes, Wizards can still make cakewalks out of difficult encounters, but that's more of a teamwork thing at that level than dominating the world. It's when you run high level games at level 12 and beyond that it seems like the caster domination starts to set in heavily.

So yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if most of these threads got started by folks who have never seen a problem in years of gaming in the low to mid level range, and wonder how it could be such a problem for their fellow forumites.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-03, 01:45 PM
wizards as put forth generally blow their end-all spells in about 1.5 battles.
I'm afraid that this (incorrect) statement is a perfect example of my earlier point.



I play levels 2-9ish, ... In those levels, balance is perfectly fine.
As Saph is wont to point out, most campaigns take place at these levels precisely because at these levels balance is good. This is what WOTC refers to at the "sweet spot", and they admit that the game breaks down at lower level (because most PCs can be one-shotted by a lucky monster) and at higher (because of power level disparities, and the prevalence of save-or-dies, et cetera).



Sorry if some of you see these arguments as repititious and boring, to me they're new and exciting. Pull back the jaded curtain from your eyes and see through the eyes of someone who hasn't had all these discussions too many times
Unfortunately, while the RAW may seem to provide the answers as you see them, experience with well-built characters proves those answers to be wrong.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-03, 01:47 PM
Bottom-line: spellcasters are more powerful because they can do things no one else can.

MrNexx
2007-12-03, 01:55 PM
Essentially, the problem is poor design.

D&D was designed so each character would be able to contribute something to a party. However, the designers didn't consider some of the ramifications of their design choices, leading to fighters and other non-magical melee characters being extremely limited combatants when compared to magical powerhouses; Swordguy had some information from an uncle regarding this, that much of the playtesting was done under "this is how we play" conditions, rather than "let's try to break the system" conditions. When you go outside the set parameters of their design (3-4 tough encounters per day, parties playing defined roles and not attempting to overlap roles of other party members except in extremis), it doesn't do poorly. If you do (CoDzilla, Batman, even a well-funded mechanic rogue), then the game breaks.

AstralFire
2007-12-03, 01:56 PM
Don't think I was trying to dig at ToB, I actually like it. I just mean that it is fairly arbitrary, them being able to do things that only a wizard could really duplicate and claiming it's not magic.

I mentioned my Dad's rule merely as an example of different way's of approaching spellcasting, he is aware that it's not likely to come up very often.

Why do I always hear the idea that a wizard can out fight a fighter, out skill-monkey the rogue, and blast enemies into oblivion ALL AT THE SAME TIME?

Because he can. Sadly, Knock and Summon Monster I typically outperform the Rogue in two areas (unlocking and disarming - SQUEAL, Celestial Badger, SQUEAL), and Charming deals with most issues of diplomacy. The wizard kills stuff and it's not as conditional as Rogue sneak attack. And since he kills this stuff before they can harm him significantly, he negates the need for a fighter. I'm speaking of a Wizard doing these things at their essential roles, rather than actively attempted to be a skillmonkey or a tank.


What, you didn't prepare the spell you need here? Deal with it. Need to ID a plot-significant item and didn't prepare it because he used all his slots on buff spells? Too bad, rest and re-do you're spells.

That's not an issue if you make sure to prepare general use spells and make a few scrolls of the rarities. And there's no real problem for a wizard in staying behind the rest of the party a level constantly just by crafting. He benefits from more XP because he's lower.

tainsouvra
2007-12-03, 01:57 PM
A good DM can easily run a campaign where the wizard is a useful and valued member of the party without being an unstoppable, unequaled and immense Power who dominates every situation and combat. If, and only if, either the typical application of magic is dramatically different from the way the rules were designed. Please don't forget that little caveat, since it's not really so little.

Basically I'm saying I've never had the trouble everyone says goes on with wizards and clerics overshadowing the party and I'm trying to understand why so many people complain about it. The answer is simple. You don't play with Wizards and Clerics the way the books describe. You play with a homebrew that is (hopefully) similar to the Wizard and Cleric.

Taking the tires off a racecar then putting it on a wet road doesn't mean that racecars are slower than walking. Fundamentally weakening spellcasters and putting them in situations where they are inherently less viable doesn't change what spellcasters are, either.

Da Beast
2007-12-03, 01:59 PM
Another mitigating factor to the supposed unstoppable power of wizards is a DM who enforces RAW on prepared spells. What, you didn't prepare the spell you need here? Deal with it. Need to ID a plot-significant item and didn't prepare it because he used all his slots on buff spells? Too bad, rest and re-do you're spells. The DM rolls a random encounter (on RAW tables) while the wizard was resting? I guess he better cower in the corner, comforted by his delusions of granduer.

By RAW a wizard can leave spell slots open and fill them in with a few minutes of study later in the day. Maybe not a useful trick when ambushed but it's great for those situational out of combat spells (a lot of the ones that make skill monkeys worthless fall here) you wouldn't normally prepare. anything that doesn't require a high caster level to remain effective can be turned into a wand or scroll. A prepared wizard can be very hard send cowering to the corner.

tainsouvra
2007-12-03, 02:00 PM
A corollary of this is that quite frequently, people who play with the (good) kind of DM who fixes things, don't realize that they are broken. So there's a clash between people who argue from the special case of their personal experience, and those who argue from the general case of the rules-as-written. I quite agree with this, and am glad to see someone mention it. I like when the basis for contention gets highlighted so well.

Prophaniti
2007-12-03, 02:03 PM
EDIT: ARRG! Did everyone miss the small print at the end of that paragraph? I said DON'T reply with ways out of each given situation, it was intended as an example of how a canny DM can limit the 'I Win' power of mages by RAW without having to fundamentally alter the game. Of course there are answers to each problem, but it's up to the player to think of them ON THE SPOT when they are not prepared for the exact situation they find themselves in.

Ok, a lot of people are tearing apart my example of ways to shift focus off the casters, and I admit something as arbitrary-sounding as 'magic is outlawed' was a bad example. The only time I ever do this is when it is required by the fluff of where they are. There are people and places who really don't like wizards.

Mostly what I mean is to use believable and realistic situations where spellcasting is not the best answer (these are usually not combat situations. It's hard to come up with a better solution that 'Blast the @#$! out of them' in combat, unless you want live prisoners, and my party loves to run blasters).

One example is in my current campaign. They are in some old Barrows, and each chamber of the burial mound is sealed with a very large block of stone. Now, the party wizard could simply cast 'rock to mud' or 'meld into stone' but that would use a lot of their spells, considering there are multiple barrows with multiple rooms. If they use their spells for that they are less likely to be useful when the party encounters something, so for the most part, it has fallen to the party melee'ers to further progress through the barrow. Sometimes they use there spells anyway, and that's fine, I try not to hamper them or penalize them for not doing what I expect, and it's fun to see them improvise. But if they run out at a critical moment, hey, they just need to find a way to deal with it.

As far as splatbooks go, I tend to be very selective in the ones I allow, as is my DM in the party I play in. This is because a lot of them were not very well written or play-tested and there are too many really cheesy spells out there. Generally speaking i allow Core+Spell Compendium, and any additional on a case-by-case.

There was a valid point made, though. We don't tend to adventure past level 15, so that does leave out some of the more 'world-altering' spells. We did play one Epic campaign, however, and it ended because the DM was having trouble finding encounters that challenged us without almost killing us every single time. As has been discussed, Epic D&D is really not playable, I view it as just some fun stuff to look at, like the DC for climbing a perfectly smooth, sheer verticle surface.

hamstard4ever
2007-12-03, 02:03 PM
I'm not saying casters are not very powerful and don't often rule the battlefield. They do, and they should IMO. They are not, however, the Alpha and Omega of the D&D world (not even by RAW) and can't replace the rest of the party at once unless the DM allows them to.

You are making a crucial mistake. Of course a single wizard isn't going to be able to simultaneously fill the roles of three or four party members at once, barring extremely favorable circumstances for the wizard. However, three or four wizards can easily fill a very diverse set of roles and excel at them, handily outperforming a selection of three or four other classes under anything except the most extremely unfavorable circumstances.


Another mitigating factor to the supposed unstoppable power of wizards is a DM who enforces RAW on prepared spells. What, you didn't prepare the spell you need here? Deal with it. Need to ID a plot-significant item and didn't prepare it because he used all his slots on buff spells? Too bad, rest and re-do you're spells. The DM rolls a random encounter (on RAW tables) while the wizard was resting? I guess he better cower in the corner, comforted by his delusions of granduer. Please don't list how to get around each of these situations, these are examples. There's a way out of any and every situation if you know what's coming in advance.

Very well, I won't list how to get around each of these situations; instead I will state how to get around all of them. It's called the Scribe Scroll feat, and wizards get it at level 1. You mentioned that being a wizard "involves nearly all of your free time and funds": of course like most of your assertions this is not actually written in the rules anywhere, and yet this one is generally true in practice without requiring house rules. This is because a smart wizard busies himself between adventures scribing scrolls out the wazoo and attempting to procure scrolls of whatever spells he doesn't have. The wizard tries to get by on his prepared spells for the day as best he can, but has a stockpile of wands and scrolls to fall back on in emergencies.

Your perception on the rules seems to be skewed in general. You speak in a very matter-of-fact manner of implementing a number of house rules and deliberately tailoring your campaign with assumptions that are never actually spelled out in the rules, yet you assume that if wizards are allowed to run loose it must be because of very sloppy DMing and insanely pro-wizard house rules. Honestly, "a DM who enforces RAW on prepared spells"? You've got it precisely backwards: wizards do not get out of hand because of lax DM rulings that let wizards do things they're not allowed to by RAW; they are kept in check by strict and vigorous DMing that goes above and beyond the RAW to make sure the wizards stay under control.

If you've managed to keep wizards in control through vigorous DM effort (and without alienating your players with heavy-handed tactics), congratulations! You are a good DM, and your success rests in part on the fact that you agree implicitly with the premise that wizards rule and fighters suck and go out of your way to address this imbalance.

AstralFire
2007-12-03, 02:07 PM
One example is in my current campaign. They are in some old Barrows, and each chamber of the burial mound is sealed with a very large block of stone. Now, the party wizard could simply cast 'rock to mud' or 'meld into stone' but that would use a lot of their spells, considering there are multiple barrows with multiple rooms. If they use their spells for that they are less likely to be useful when the party encounters something, so for the most part, it has fallen to the party melee'ers to further progress through the barrow. Sometimes they use there spells anyway, and that's fine, I try not to hamper them or penalize them for not doing what I expect, and it's fun to see them improvise. But if they run out at a critical moment, hey, they just need to find a way to deal with it.


When a full caster of any type played well can take hits better than the melee, deal more damage, and have better saves, then the PC classes aren't complementing each other and giving everyone a role, you just have stooge bodyguards for the things you're too lazy to put effort into.

This message must have at least 10 non-quoted characters.

Roderick_BR
2007-12-03, 02:08 PM
(..)We're talking about someone who can fundamentally alter reality with sheer willpower and mental discipline vs someone who hits people with sharp metal. (...)

That's the primordial problem. In D&D, magic is TOO EASY to do.
An high level fighter (level 10+) is a veteran warrior, that fought thousands of battles, and, compared to younger fighters, is a force to be feared, as his abilities far surpasses normal mortal men.
A low to mid level sneezes and blows that experient fighter through the roof. At higher levels, he got so much power to his level, that DMs have problems to deal with one other than using antimagic zones and assassins with huge initiative counts.
Seriously, throw a demi god against a wizard, and the wizard can beat him if this demi god is not a caster.

A quote I like from Record of Lodos War (where the meelers are not wuxia, even if it's anime) is from one wizard that claims to dislike heavy physical exertion, and is very vulnerable in physical combat. That doesn't happen with wizards in D&D.

I think that one thing that unbalanced casters in 3.x is the ease to refresh spells, and their speed. A wizard rests for 8 hours, study for 1 and a half (all inside some magic hide-out), and he has all his 40+ spells re-memorized.
Then the wizard runs, jumps, tumbles, move through monsters, dodges attacks, roll on the ground, hops, stands up, and cast a quickened anything. In the first round of combat.

sikyon
2007-12-03, 02:08 PM
Why do I always hear the idea that a wizard can out fight a fighter, out skill-monkey the rogue, and blast enemies into oblivion ALL AT THE SAME TIME? I have no disagreement that a wizard who wants to can outperform in any of these areas, but having run wizards and sorcerers RAW, even with expanded spell lists from Complete Arcane and Spell Compendium, I could never do it all at once. You are limited to a certain number of spells PER DAY, which means if you use so many buffing yourself to be a melee presence, your capacity for disarming/bypassing traps and your ability to zap enemies is significantly diminished.

Another mitigating factor to the supposed unstoppable power of wizards is a DM who enforces RAW on prepared spells. What, you didn't prepare the spell you need here? Deal with it. Need to ID a plot-significant item and didn't prepare it because he used all his slots on buff spells? Too bad, rest and re-do you're spells. The DM rolls a random encounter (on RAW tables) while the wizard was resting? I guess he better cower in the corner, comforted by his delusions of granduer. Please don't list how to get around each of these situations, these are examples. There's a way out of any and every situation if you know what's coming in advance.

Anwser: Items. Items, items, items (such as scrolls). Gives you much wider selection and can be stored for those very important but inopportune times.

Some people think that spending money on items is a waste, and play that way. In fact, the opposite is true. You are spending money to make money. By spending gold or exp on items, you can recoup your costs by advancing in level more quickly. You might not have your WBL, but you'll be a higher level anyways so you'll have a net positive gain.

Furthermore, the 1.5 encounter blowout is flawed. Wizards tend to blow out their spells in 1.5 encounters if, for example, they are level 15 and they face a CR 15 challenge. A CR 15 challenge is not appropriate for 1 character, it is appropriate for a party of 4 characters. 4 wizard party will anhiallate a standard day's worth of monsters.

And you know about being attacked while you're sleeping? All good wizards don't rest on the ground. All good wizards use rope trick or magnificent mansion. With a few other prepatory buffs that no wizard is usually without, they cannot be disturbed while sleeping.

No, this is not an anwser to each situation you provided. This is why each situation you provided will probably never happen (save DM fiat, in which case, there's nothing anyone can do).

Tokiko Mima
2007-12-03, 03:11 PM
First off, there's a fundamental problem I have with the view that magic-users and other classes SHOULD be balanced in the first place. We're talking about someone who can fundamentally alter reality with sheer willpower and mental discipline vs someone who hits people with sharp metal. Any instance where the two are even comparable is most likely caused by some arbitrary increase to the metal-wavers abilities(ToB), decrease to the magic-users(SR/anti-magic zone), or special circumstances where magic is not very useful. Also as I've seen mentioned in some of the 'Wizard vs X' threads, the pc classes were never intened to be balanced AGAINST each other, but rather meant to complement each other, so everyone has a role in the group. That said, I've always enjoyed playing melee classes, and not just to avoid how convoluted spellcasting can become. We often have melee characters that outshine the casters of the party, espesially when our group's resident powergamer is running them. He likes to run casters too, but mostly as buffers.

I have no problem with Wizards being dramatically more powerful than your average fighters, but when you add in the concepts of "levels" you introduce a need for a certain parity. Monks and fighters are relatively balanced, for example, so that a 15th level Monk can adventure with a 15th level fighter and not totally be outdone.

Where this breaks down is when you introduce a 15th level Wizard who can do everything the Monk and Fighter do and more, only better and faster. The 15th level Wizard, while numerically at the same level, is effectively miles and miles ahead of his melee peers and is unchallenged by encounters that would give them great difficulty. You wonder at this point why the Wizard is bottomfeeding with the second rate classes, since there would be better XP/loot fighting things that are actually close to the Wizards ability.

This is why a Wizard (especially an optimized one!) is unbalanced. A wizard level is out of balance with melee class levels, and a Wizard class level is ultimately worth so much more in sheer power, utility and ability.


Another thing I like (and am implementing in my own campaign setting) is the idea that magic is very hard to do. You can't start as a 1st level caster (ex d20 modern) you have to work you're way up to it. Being a wizard involves nearly all of your free time and funds and takes a lot of hard work to be good at. It is NOT something you can do as a summer job. My dad's rule, somewhat inverse of mine, is that you cannot BECOME a wizard without years of training. If you don't start as one, you cannot multi-class as one without dropping out of the campaign for a while.

Anyway, my bottom line is this: A good DM can easily run a campaign where the wizard is a useful and valued member of the party without being an unstoppable, unequaled and immense Power who dominates every situation and combat. Fighters and other melee oriented classes CAN perform and shine (without ToB, though I do like the book) and can be interesting to play. Basically I'm saying I've never had the trouble everyone says goes on with wizards and clerics overshadowing the party and I'm trying to understand why so many people complain about it.

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that magic is somehow harder to learn than proper skilled sword fighting (aka "hitting people with sharp metal.") I can assure you that learning swordsmanship is a pretty involved past-time and involves a great deal of practice and repetition. Imagine the lifestyle of an Olympic athlete, and you will see that they train every single day to the exclusion of anything else. If you wanted to have a reasonable chance of not dying a bloody and horrific death in melee combat against an opponent that trains to that level then I politely suggest that's a reasonable level of time investment for yourself.

Additionally, every other D&D core class would present obstacles for casual learning, with the exception of sorcerer who gets off easy because their talent is inborn. So should your players only be allowed to multiclass to sorcerer?

Cuddly
2007-12-03, 03:47 PM
First off, there's a fundamental problem I have with the view that magic-users and other classes SHOULD be balanced in the first place. We're talking about someone who can fundamentally alter reality with sheer willpower and mental discipline vs someone who hits people with sharp metal. Any instance where the two are even comparable is most likely caused by some arbitrary increase to the metal-wavers abilities(ToB), decrease to the magic-users(SR/anti-magic zone), or special circumstances where magic is not very useful.

I find this an extremely frustrating, and ultimately flawed, argument. There's no good reason why magic users must be better than non-magic users, save for a world where magic is always better than not using magic. Sure, if you want to play "World of Harry Potter the Gathering," by all means, make it so wizards do really cool stuff, and the fighters hang out and fondle their swords in admiration.

In fact, the reason why fighters suck, compared to wizards, is precisely because of this attitude. For instance, it takes an entire FEAT to be able to use your dex for climbing instead of strength. In 3.0, being able to disarm someone took a feat, and snatching their weapon as they were disarmed took a feat (I'm not sure if this is still the case).

Meanwhile, the cleric can DMM persist greater aspect of the deity, and flies around as a half-celestial all day.

The fighter is stuck burning all his feats to power leap attack shocktroop charge to keep his damage meaningful against all the save or dies being flung around, while saddled with bad will saves. In order for a fighter to do ANYTHING even approaching a fraction of the wizard's versatility (teleporting, flying, invis, rope trick, ethereal), the fighter must burn the only thing he as available- feats.

Or, he goes into a mediocre PrC that allows him to do a handful of mediocre abilities a handful of times a day.

The entire system is totally rigged in the casters' favor, due to the assumption that casters should be allowed to do anything they want, and that fighters should be extremely limited, since that's just how it should work.

Retarded.

psychoticbarber
2007-12-03, 04:23 PM
and my party loves to run blasters

This is the source of the confusion. Blasters aren't the overpowered Wizards.

Snadgeros
2007-12-03, 04:24 PM
I'm gonna have to go and agree with virtually everything Cuddly just said. The most ridiculous thing about wizards and clerics is that they can learn ANY spell. The closest we have to a balanced caster is the sorceror, who is exactly what they intended wizards to be: a glass cannon. Magic takes years upon years of study, so why can a wizard learn a spell he's never used before in a mere 8 hours? I'm hoping with the combining of wizard and sorceror into mage in 4E that they fix this and make them just like sorcerors. Either that or make specialization a requirement for all casters so they're at least somewhat limited.

If they idea of nerfing Batman seems repulsive to you, then here are a few tips for improving melee classes. First off, if wizards can pull off supernatural tricks like flight and save-or-dies, why shouldn't a fighter be granted supernatural jumping abilities or the ability to cripple enemies? They're a class based entirely around feats, none of which will enable him to do anything close to what a caster could. Monks have magical ki energy flowing through their bodies, yet they can't do jack with it without burning a crapload of feats all for a mediocre blast attack. If you're going to create a world in which characters can break the laws of reality at will, you either have to severely limit that power or give it to everyone. Make melee fighters like they're straight out of the Matrix, with the ability to dodge, block, and counter blows, rather than just sap damage.

This is beyond a simple cheese build or an overpowered class; this is a fundamental problem with game design that needs to be fixed.

tainsouvra
2007-12-03, 04:27 PM
Magic takes years upon years of study, so why can a wizard learn a spell he's never used before in a mere 8 hours? Music takes years of study, so why can a musician learn a song he's never played before in a mere 8 hours? Easy, it's actually not that hard to use a particular application of something based on a skill that takes years of practice to master, especially after you've spent those years practicing.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-03, 04:30 PM
The problem with wizards, clerics, and the like is actually a problem with their spells. Compare them to Arcana Evolved, Monte Cook's "variant PHB". The wizard-types (Magister) there actually have a stronger spellasting mechanism, plus more class features.

But because of what their spells do, they aren't overpowered.

Prophaniti
2007-12-03, 05:57 PM
Where this breaks down is when you introduce a 15th level Wizard who can do everything the Monk and Fighter do and more, only better and faster.
I fail to see this happening. I'm not aware of a Wizard who has a high armor class that doesn't dissipate after a few minutes or hours (a fighter in decent armor), or one who is formidable with no weapon, equipment or preperation whatsoever (a monk), or one who can do fight after fight and, provided they managed to sustain only minor injuries, still be as effective on fight #15 as they were on fight #1 (most of the melee classes). The key to a wizards power is planning, and it is dramatically reduced if they a)cannot prepare properly or b)prepare for a different situation than the one they find themselves in. These are fairly broad statements, I know, and a good wizard caught unawares is still a formidable opponent, but no, they can't do EVERYTHING all the other classes can do better and faster, nor can they do it as often.

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that magic is somehow harder to learn than proper skilled sword fighting (aka "hitting people with sharp metal.") I can assure you that learning swordsmanship is a pretty involved past-time and involves a great deal of practice and repetition. Imagine the lifestyle of an Olympic athlete, and you will see that they train every single day to the exclusion of anything else.
I am under no such assumtion. I have participated in many fencing and broadsword classes and competitions and I am fully aware that like any sport or hobby, it requires a great investment of time and energy in order to be good at it. The assumtion I AM operating under is that magic is, and should be, more difficult to learn than an average sport or hobby or career. Else, everyone would learn it. Everyone would be a wizard of some degree or another, and why not? Don't you want to be able to shape things without touching them, move objects with a gesture and cause things to explode with a word of power? I do. It simply MUST require a huge amount of time, energy and mental discipline to be a mage, fantasy worlds and settings as they stand really don't make sense otherwise.

The problem with wizards, clerics, and the like is actually a problem with their spells. Compare them to Arcana Evolved, Monte Cook's "variant PHB". The wizard-types (Magister) there actually have a stronger spellasting mechanism, plus more class features.

But because of what their spells do, they aren't overpowered.
This is an excellent point. I'm not familiar with the material you're referencing, but I like the idea. Instead of worrying about a class, worry about the spells. Though the point of my post was that, in practice, I don't find wizards to be as overpowered as people say, I do concede that this holds less and less true as you approach epic levels, or as you allow more cheesy splatbook spells. Approaching the spells themselves instead of the class does strike me as an elegant solution, and one I'll keep in mind for my own campaign setting.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-03, 06:03 PM
...because the company making it is not called "Fighters of the Coast".


Seriously, most of the reasons why wizards are overpowered were added in third edition, and several of the tricks that prevented them from becoming overpowered were removed in third edition.

Kaelik
2007-12-03, 06:06 PM
I fail to see this happening. I'm not aware of a Wizard who has a high armor class that doesn't dissipate after a few minutes or hours (a fighter in decent armor), or one who is formidable with no weapon, equipment or preperation whatsoever (a monk), or one who can do fight after fight and, provided they managed to sustain only minor injuries, still be as effective on fight #15 as they were on fight #1 (most of the melee classes). The key to a wizards power is planning, and it is dramatically reduced if they a)cannot prepare properly or b)prepare for a different situation than the one they find themselves in. These are fairly broad statements, I know, and a good wizard caught unawares is still a formidable opponent, but no, they can't do EVERYTHING all the other classes can do better and faster, nor can they do it as often.

Except that you can never catch a Wizard without some spells memorized (because they don't cast all their spells every day.) And a Wizard caught by surprise in the middle of the night (if that ever happened) will still be better then a Monk. And we have proved time and again that a Wizard is better without equipment then a Monk.

And that high AC? Yeah, it dissipates after a few hours. If by a few you mean 30. Of course the fighter takes his off to sleep more often, so A wizard ends up having it active more often too (assuming he is built to care about AC.)

And really, sustains light wounds=can go forever? Well guess what, melee characters always sustain Severe wounds before the spellcasters run out of spells, of course the Spellcasters rarely sustain any.

Hyfigh
2007-12-03, 06:11 PM
I don't even think I've ever heard of a melee class that can continually fight creatures of the same CR. Granted a wizard will run out of spells, but this would happen long after the Fighter has run out of hit points.

Shoyliguad
2007-12-03, 06:16 PM
A wizard is never caught off guard, a simple divination spell takes care of that, hell if everything goes down all he has to do (assuming he doesn't care for the rest of the party) is just teleport away... all a fighter can do is try his best to run away... a monk can do that reasonably well.

Prophaniti
2007-12-03, 06:35 PM
Except that you can never catch a Wizard without some spells memorized (because they don't cast all their spells every day.) And a Wizard caught by surprise in the middle of the night (if that ever happened) will still be better then a Monk. And we have proved time and again that a Wizard is better without equipment then a Monk.
This is from personal experience of course, but our party generaly stops to rest BECAUSE the wizard is out of spells. Only occasionaly (usually after a battle with the BBEG or a major minion) do we need to rest for healing when the wizard still has a substantial amount of spells left. As I said, they can still be formidable with wands and scrolls and so forth, but in a situation of equipment irrevocably or indefinitely lost (captured and escaped, smart people don't keep the prisoners gear in the next room over) the monk still dominates.

And that high AC? Yeah, it dissipates after a few hours. If by a few you mean 30. Of course the fighter takes his off to sleep more often, so A wizard ends up having it active more often too (assuming he is built to care about AC.)
Sorry, now I am operating under an assumtion. I figured we were talking about wizards in a typical campaign, encompassing their abilities from level 1 through 20, I wasn't aware we were discussing a level 30 wizards abilities. There is no spell I can recall in Core or the more reasonable supplements (SC and such) that raises anything substantialy for longer than 1 hour per level (discounting permanency), nor should there be. I'll investigate this to be sure I'm correct, I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of wizard and cleric spells.

And really, sustains light wounds=can go forever? Well guess what, melee characters always sustain Severe wounds before the spellcasters run out of spells, of course the Spellcasters rarely sustain any.
Of course they can sustain severe injuries or even die, with about the same odds that the enemies will make all their saves against the wizards magic.

Kaelik
2007-12-03, 07:04 PM
This is from personal experience of course, but our party generaly stops to rest BECAUSE the wizard is out of spells. Only occasionaly (usually after a battle with the BBEG or a major minion) do we need to rest for healing when the wizard still has a substantial amount of spells left. As I said, they can still be formidable with wands and scrolls and so forth, but in a situation of equipment irrevocably or indefinitely lost (captured and escaped, smart people don't keep the prisoners gear in the next room over) the monk still dominates.

Smart people also don't let prisoners escape. Smart people (Wizards) make sure they have ways of finding their things, teleporting to them, and then getting them back. Once a Wizard has prepared spells for the day, there is no way to get them out of him, he will always have those spells as options until he casts them. Since the major limiter for Wizards is actions, it is unlikely that he will be without several options, including teleport (to where he has backup spell books, then prepares Locate Object amongst other things, finds his other things, and kills everyone.)


Sorry, now I am operating under an assumtion. I figured we were talking about wizards in a typical campaign, encompassing their abilities from level 1 through 20, I wasn't aware we were discussing a level 30 wizards abilities. There is no spell I can recall in Core or the more reasonable supplements (SC and such) that raises anything substantialy for longer than 1 hour per level (discounting permanency), nor should there be. I'll investigate this to be sure I'm correct, I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of wizard and cleric spells.

You are the one who through up the random level of 15 for the Wizard in your post. I just went with it. By the way, the reason it's 30 is because of extend spell. Which is used by most all competent Wizards in order to cast buffs, rest then wake up and have a whole days worth of spells.


Of course they can sustain severe injuries or even die, with about the same odds that the enemies will make all their saves against the wizards magic.

I don't even know what you are talking about here. Wizards avoid sustaining injuries by:
1) being immune to lots of things
2) Flying
3) Being Invisible
4) Killing anything that can deal with all three in a single round.

Fighters can:
1) Be hit by a bunch of things.
2) Be hit by more things.
3) Fail Will saves and lie on the ground while someone beats on them.
4) Fail will saves and beat on the rogue.

And nobody makes "all" their saves against the Wizard because the Wizard targets their weak ones so they almost auto-fail, or uses no save effects, or just ignores them because they have no way of hurting him.

How about this, what's your Touch AC? 24? Okay, I still stun you more then half the time, no save. 16? I have a 5% chance of missing.

Dausuul
2007-12-03, 07:05 PM
This is from personal experience of course, but our party generaly stops to rest BECAUSE the wizard is out of spells. Only occasionaly (usually after a battle with the BBEG or a major minion) do we need to rest for healing when the wizard still has a substantial amount of spells left.

Your party has a cleric, right? Your party assumes the wizard's function is to blast, so I'm guessing they also assume the cleric's function is to heal. So what happens when the fighter is beat up? The cleric heals the fighter. How many spells does the cleric get? About as many as the wizard. Therefore, assuming the cleric spends as much mojo on healing as the wizard does on being Batman, they'll run out of spells about the same time. Hence, the fighter will still have plenty of hit points when the casters are out of juice--but only because the fighter is being supported by one of those casters. If the cleric went the CoDzilla route and didn't bother healing, the fighter would die long before the wizard's spells were exhausted.


As I said, they can still be formidable with wands and scrolls and so forth, but in a situation of equipment irrevocably or indefinitely lost (captured and escaped, smart people don't keep the prisoners gear in the next room over) the monk still dominates.

Depends on whether the wizard picked up Spell Mastery. Moreover, this applies only to wizards. Divine casters can do tolerably well under those conditions, and sorcs even better.

And targeting the wizard's spellbook is essentially admitting that the class is overpowered; it's like Sundering the weapon that the fighter spent half his WBL to buy. How often do you actually propose to cut the wizard off at the knees?


Sorry, now I am operating under an assumtion. I figured we were talking about wizards in a typical campaign, encompassing their abilities from level 1 through 20, I wasn't aware we were discussing a level 30 wizards abilities. There is no spell I can recall in Core or the more reasonable supplements (SC and such) that raises anything substantialy for longer than 1 hour per level (discounting permanency), nor should there be. I'll investigate this to be sure I'm correct, I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of wizard and cleric spells.

Lesser metamagic rod of extend spell. For 3,000 gold, you can double the duration of three spells per day, as long as they're level 3 or below.

Or, hell, you can just cast it again.

Not that it really matters. Once they hit around level 7-8, smart wizards don't bother cranking up their AC beyond the standard daily casting of mage armor; they're never going to get it into a range where it's not phenomenally easy for the enemy to hit them, so why waste time and money trying? They're better off using spells like overland flight, mirror image (if they have time to buff), and so on.

Wizards don't fulfill the fighter's role by trying to be fighters. They fulfill the fighter's role by doing what the fighter exists to do, that is, take out enemies while keeping those same enemies from getting to the wizard (and other PCs).

Now, in all fairness, wizards look stronger on paper than they are in actual play. Mostly this is because wizards on paper have the luxury of Schrodinger's Spellbook*, while wizards in play can and do make mistakes when preparing spells and buying scrolls. People talk about using divination magic to know what you're going to face in a given day, but divination magic isn't all it's cracked up to be; there are plenty of ways to counteract it or deceive it, and smart opponents will use them.

Nevertheless, with careful planning and preparation (and a good array of scrolls for backup), a smart wizard at level 11+ can easily attend to his own defense while laying down the smack.

*Schrodinger's Spellbook: The ability unique to hypothetical wizards that allows their prepared spells to remain indeterminate until the wizard is faced with a threat or challenge. This collapses the waveform, whereupon the wizard's prepared spells are observed to be whatever spells are needed for the current situation.

Renegade Paladin
2007-12-03, 08:30 PM
So long as there's yet another thread about this, here's the lock build. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=883706) Now, that doesn't make the system balanced; it's just one very specific fighter build that will shut down just about any caster. The fact that you have to optimize so hard and specifically to stand up to a wizard who's not even trying is evidence enough of that.

horseboy
2007-12-03, 09:06 PM
Your party has a cleric, right? What usually happens when the fighter is beat up? The cleric heals the fighter. How many spells does the cleric get? About as many as the wizard. Therefore, assuming the cleric spends as much mojo on healing as the wizard does on being Batman, they'll run out of spells about the same time. Hence, the fighter will still have plenty of hit points when the casters are out of juice--but only because the fighter is being supported by one of those casters. If the cleric went the CoDzilla route and didn't bother healing, the fighter would die long before the wizard's spells were exhausted.

No, if the cleric is going CoDzilla, the fighter doesn't rank high enough on the threat meter to warrant being attacked, so he'll be fine. :smallamused:

Dausuul
2007-12-03, 09:25 PM
So long as there's yet another thread about this, here's the lock build. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=883706) Now, that doesn't make the system balanced; it's just one very specific fighter build that will shut down just about any caster. The fact that you have to optimize so hard and specifically to stand up to a wizard who's not even trying is evidence enough of that.

Well, any caster who doesn't know what he's going up against, at least.

hamstard4ever
2007-12-03, 09:44 PM
The key to a wizards power is planning, and it is dramatically reduced if they a)cannot prepare properly or b)prepare for a different situation than the one they find themselves in.

You are correct about the key to a wizard's power being planning. You seem to assume that this is because the wizard can plan their entire spell loadout around a single situation, which leaves them screwed if any other situation comes up. This is incorrect. The key to a wizard's power is planning for as many contingencies as possible. The good spells generally allow the wizard to shut down most of an encounter or bypass an obstacle in 1-2 spells. Even setting aside spell slots for their long-term buffs (hours/level lasts a long time at level 10+) that leaves them with plenty of room to pick up a broad array of spells to choose from for many divergent situations while still having the power to get things done.

Polymorph is one of the biggest offenders here. With one spell choice you get a ridiculous amount of versatility. Need a movement power? You're covered. Defenses? Got 'em covered. Want lots of attacks? Polymorph has them. Need uber STR scores to smash something up? Polymorph!

Yes, Polymorph has its limits. It has considerably fewer of them than practically any other option ever available to non-spellcasters, however. Nerfing Polymorph/Alter Self/etc. goes a long way towards keeping wizards at a sane level, although it's not enough on its own to drag them down to parity with the fighter without additional houserules.

Similarly Summon Monster spells also have a huge range of options. They're not anywhere near as broken as Polymorph (even though they provide a lot of options that even Polymorph can't provide), but the mid level Summon Monster spells still provide wizards with very useful multipurpose toolkit spells.

In the event that they're caught totally unprepared--and yes, it does happen--they're generally more able to bail themselves out of immediate trouble than most classes are, largely thanks to spells like Teleport. The fact that it is possible to catch a wizard off-guard is not a weakness of the wizard class: anyone without access to lots and lots of magic is even easier to catch off-guard and rendered ineffectual than a wizard would be, at least out of the low levels.


These are fairly broad statements, I know, and a good wizard caught unawares is still a formidable opponent, but no, they can't do EVERYTHING all the other classes can do better and faster, nor can they do it as often.

There is a difference between being able to do EVERYTHING all the other classes can do better, and being able to do ANYTHING all the other classes can do better. Wizards come very close to being able to do ANYTHING all the other classes can do (especially with the Spell Compendium at their disposal) and the few exceptions are mostly the provinces of other full spellcasters.

Kompera
2007-12-03, 10:26 PM
I never like when people start with "Fighters hit stuff, wizards snap the rules of reality with their minds" line for the be-all 'duh' part of the answer. Obviously the wizard gets to that level as you move toward epic, but the reality is that the wizard has a number of *extremely specific* ways to bend the rules in short bursts.Is 608 an extremely specific number? Because that's the number of spells I count in the PHB. Yeah, I didn't actually count them. Cut and paste to a file and let wc -l do my counting for me, so I may be off by a bit. Some of those spells may not be available for Wizards, without some Feat or another which gives such access. Let's assume that I missed the actual number by 208, just for argument's sake. If so, Wizards can cast 400 *extremely specific* spells.

Fighters, on the other hand, can cast the following *extremely specific* 'spells':
Swing a weapon;
Shoot a missile.

So no, it's not at all a 'duh' response.



Most people also ignore that wizards decrease in usefulness rapidly as you approach the proper number of random encounters per day - wizards as put forth generally blow their end-all spells in about 1.5 battles. The same issue comes up in the 'Why psionics is/isn't balanced' argument, since psionics is balanced against a day's worth.

Just a minor gripe. :smallwink:Encounters per day is a great theory for a means to balance the power of the Wizard. Just not in practice. Once you consider that the Wizard can far more easily avoid any additional encounters after he's expended most of his casting power for the day, while the Fighter can not, it starts to come into a better perspective.

JaxGaret
2007-12-03, 10:31 PM
So long as there's yet another thread about this, here's the lock build. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=883706) Now, that doesn't make the system balanced; it's just one very specific fighter build that will shut down just about any caster. The fact that you have to optimize so hard and specifically to stand up to a wizard who's not even trying is evidence enough of that.

Did you even read the post to which you linked?

Aelyrinth built Lockdown specifically to take on a melee Druid, and it also works as a melee battlefield controller. It's not a general caster-killer by any means, and is not meant to be.

In other words, you are completely and irrevocably wrong, and the fact that you posted as if you were absolutely sure of yourself shows your lack of knowledge on the issue.

Kaelik
2007-12-03, 10:35 PM
So long as there's yet another thread about this, here's the lock build. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=883706) Now, that doesn't make the system balanced; it's just one very specific fighter build that will shut down just about any caster. The fact that you have to optimize so hard and specifically to stand up to a wizard who's not even trying is evidence enough of that.

Ah yes, the "Lockdown Build" the number one non-caster caster counter...That still loses to a Wizard 20 everytime they start 200ft away, Or the Wizard knows what's coming, or he has Foresight/Celerity/Time Stop. Or he roles higher on Init.

The best part is that he's got WBL + some extra in the "Essential Items" section, and he still can't keep up with a Wizard in mobility or protections.

Just to be clear. The Lockdown build is very good at what it was designed to do. And that is, beat Druids. Druids maybe the most useful casters, but they still can't beat Wizards in PvP.

And the lockdown Build isn't even as useful as a Druid, Cleric, or Wizard in a party.

Fuzzy_Juan
2007-12-03, 11:18 PM
Don't any fighters just use anti-magic field against a wizard? Is that so hard?

Heh, for fun, during a screwy game (epic arena really) we were to make a level 23 character (why 23, I can't remember)...we were allowed a single template (not paragon:smalltongue: ). I chose 23 scorcerer 1/2 dragon with a huge sword and permanent emanation anti-magic field. Against most everyone I would be a sorcerer...but when faced with mages, up went the field and down came the hammer..so to speak.

Take away their magic and wizards aren't really very strong...no matter what form they are in, what monsters they summoned...of course...the problem is using magic against them if you can't 'normally' cast magic yourself.

Straightup..class abilities alone...no gear...a caster wins pretty much every time. Considering the world that inspired DnD though (LotR anyone?)...why shouldn't it be like that? Do remember, in the 1st edition, a fighter and thief would advance in level fast...when a fighter was 11th level, the party mage would be 7th...and with bonuses to stats really hard to come by, that mage was frail...very very frail...magic items were scarce, and if a wizard got high enough to make one, they had to sacrifice a point of permanent con to do it...no item factories...

3rd ed tried to make the classes equal xp wise...but they were never meant to be equal...burning xp by making scrolls and other magic items is supposed to sorta be like the mage increased XP cost...but more often than not they just buy them, or find them in dungeons and call it a day, eager for more power as fast as possible.

Wizards and fighters were not meant to be equals...any idea to the contrary is a bit silly when you look at how the game began.

Kaelik
2007-12-03, 11:30 PM
Don't any fighters just use anti-magic field against a wizard? Is that so hard?

Heh, for fun, during a screwy game (epic arena really) we were to make a level 23 character (why 23, I can't remember)...we were allowed a single template (not paragon:smalltongue: ). I chose 23 scorcerer 1/2 dragon with a huge sword and permanent emanation anti-magic field. Against most everyone I would be a sorcerer...but when faced with mages, up went the field and down came the hammer..so to speak.

Wizard flies up high, Wizard:

1)Orbs you to death
2)Summons some SR monsters to pound you
3)at level 23? I'm sure there's a way to make epic spells ignore AMF
4) Invoke Magic followed by your Death.

Swordguy
2007-12-03, 11:34 PM
Essentially, the problem is poor design.

D&D was designed so each character would be able to contribute something to a party. However, the designers didn't consider some of the ramifications of their design choices, leading to fighters and other non-magical melee characters being extremely limited combatants when compared to magical powerhouses; Swordguy had some information from an uncle regarding this, that much of the playtesting was done under "this is how we play" conditions, rather than "let's try to break the system" conditions. When you go outside the set parameters of their design (3-4 tough encounters per day, parties playing defined roles and not attempting to overlap roles of other party members except in extremis), it doesn't do poorly. If you do (CoDzilla, Batman, even a well-funded mechanic rogue), then the game breaks.

Indeed. His name is Jon Pickens (http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=6), and I outlined his commentary about the balance of 3.0 and 3.5 in this thread here: Optimizing - Designer's Intent (previous title: "Why Optimizing is playing "wrong") (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49378).

Essentially, as long as you play D&D the way it was playtested (and the way it was played from early on) - with 4 PCs each filling a specific role - it's generally fine. In short: the designers didn't anticipate people wanting to fill other people's roles in a party. That's the biggest problem right there.

Draco Ignifer
2007-12-04, 12:09 AM
First off, there's a fundamental problem I have with the view that magic-users and other classes SHOULD be balanced in the first place. We're talking about someone who can fundamentally alter reality with sheer willpower and mental discipline vs someone who hits people with sharp metal.

Your assumption here is flawed, and is one which I've never quite understood. Look at examples of heroic fiction or mythology - they're both people who can fundamentally alter reality with sheer willpower. One just literally alters reality on an overt level, while the other does so on a level more covert, but still obvious when you're looking for it. Shooting flying dragons in the one soft spot in their armor while they swoop down like falcons, strangling lions with their bare hands, ripping monsters so massive that they can consume entire bands of warriors without pausing to settle their stomachs limb from limb... this is the stuff of heroes. How are any of those more realistic than mumbling a few words and making flames appear?

That's the problem with D&D... it basically only tries to reproduce the power and awe of the wizard, while ignoring that of the warrior. The warrior's feats should be just as beyond the pale, just as spectacular, but in a different way. However, there seems to be an engrained view that heroes are just louts with sharp pieces of metal. You might as well say that wizards are just losers who lucked into knowing the words that call up life's special effects grid... there's no intelligence or will involved, but instead just a good memory and skill with the tongue.

Doesn't sound like any fun, does it?

Woot Spitum
2007-12-04, 12:46 AM
Don't any fighters just use anti-magic field against a wizard? Is that so hard?Well, Anti-magic field isn't on the fighter's spell list.:smallbiggrin: That and there aren't any core magic items that create an anti-magic field. I'm not even sure if such an item exists even in a splatbook.

Kaelik
2007-12-04, 12:54 AM
Well, Anti-magic field isn't on the fighter's spell list.:smallbiggrin: That and there aren't any core magic items that create an anti-magic field. I'm not even sure if such an item exists even in a splatbook.

Torc of Anti-Magic or something. Somewhere. But it does exist.

tyckspoon
2007-12-04, 12:54 AM
Well, Anti-magic field isn't on the fighter's spell list.:smallbiggrin: That and there aren't any core magic items that create an anti-magic field. I'm not even sure if such an item exists even in a splatbook.

Torc of antimagic (or some similar name), 25,000 gp, probably in the MIC. Unusually cheap for an antimagic effect and probably intended to let fighters use it.. but it still doesn't help. Consider that the standard AMF is only a ten-foot radius. You turn on your field and get up to your target. Hopefully you've charged him, because otherwise you probably can't hit him hard enough to drop him in one shot. On his turn, he casts a flight spell or just teleports and moves out of your AMF, so all his magic is back up. And he's flying out of your reach. No problem, you say! You'll just use your boots of flying to catch up and.. oh. Yeah. Antimagic. Huh.

Voyager_I
2007-12-04, 01:05 AM
Fighters than hit thinks kinda hard (but not as hard as level-appropriate monsters, buffed Clerics, wildshaped Druids, or moderately effective melee builds).

Wizards can disintegrate him, turn him into a frog, paralyze him, petrify him, charm him, summon a monster that can beat him up, open the locked chest with a level 2 spell, and teleport home in time for dinner.

...while invisible and flying.

the_tick_rules
2007-12-04, 01:08 AM
put some universal adhesive on it and stick it to him.

Talic
2007-12-04, 01:21 AM
And let's not enter in the CodZilla/DruidZilla section. (There is a druid that don't take the natural spell feat?)

Well, the MoMF/Nature's Warrior Build has casting almost as an afterthought, since the caster ability doesn't progress with the PrC. That emans that if any druid build can get away with it, it's the MoMF build.

Satyr
2007-12-04, 02:14 AM
First off, there's a fundamental problem I have with the view that magic-users and other classes SHOULD be balanced in the first place. We're talking about someone who can fundamentally alter reality with sheer willpower and mental discipline vs someone who hits people with sharp metal. Any instance where the two are even comparable is most likely caused by some arbitrary increase to the metal-wavers abilities(ToB), decrease to the magic-users(SR/anti-magic zone), or special circumstances where magic is not very useful.

I don't think this is a valid argument. On the contrary, from a certain point of view, a spellcaster should be much weaker than a melee fighter. D&D is, like almost all fantasy RPGs a heroic game, where heroes do heroic things. Now, this works well with most fighters etc. They are the essential hero material - the guys who fight and suffer, often from a weaker position, because when you are much stronger than your opposition, you may be smart, but not heroic. Heroism is about overcoming the odds.
Spellcasting is anti-heroic; you don't need to do anything, you are more powerful and that's about it. And throwing spells at your enemies is just not hero-stuff.Killing out a goblin tribe in a cloud skill is about as heroic as using mustard gas, for example.

Therefore, spellcasters should be villains, or sidekicks to the true heroes at best and any system that fails to represent this is eternally flawed.

(No I don't mean this too seriously).

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-04, 02:20 AM
Spellcasting is anti-heroic; you don't need to do anything, you are more powerful and that's about it. And throwing spells at your enemies is just not hero-stuff.Killing out a goblin tribe in a cloud skill is about as heroic as using mustard gas, for example.

Therefore, spellcasters should be villains, or sidekicks to the true heroes at best and any system that fails to represent this is eternally flawed.

(No I don't mean this too seriously).

That is pretty much exactly how it is in the Conan stories, actually--and the Conan RPG (which is d20, but models this sort of thing fairly well). In fact, Conan is a great example of why the whole spellcasters should automatically be vastly more powerful than mere sword-swingers argument is ridiculous.

Solo
2007-12-04, 02:22 AM
Spellcasting is anti-heroic; you don't need to do anything, you are more powerful and that's about it. And throwing spells at your enemies is just not hero-stuff.Killing out a goblin tribe in a cloud skill is about as heroic as using mustard gas, for example.


And for heaven's sake, why are you fighter types being so un-heroic as to use weapons! Disparity of force, I say, disparity of force! Divest yourself of your weapons and go at the enemy with your bare hands, like a real man!

:smallwink:

Ulzgoroth
2007-12-04, 02:30 AM
That is pretty much exactly how it is in the Conan stories, actually--and the Conan RPG (which is d20, but models this sort of thing fairly well). In fact, Conan is a great example of why the whole spellcasters should automatically be vastly more powerful than mere sword-swingers argument is ridiculous.
Well, that's definitely a bit of a point-of-view thing...
I have trouble with the notion that there's anything unheroic about using the best tools you can get. Or the notion that there's some moral advantage in mauling people with sharp metal over any other method.

Most broadly, you only get heroism points for a disadvantage if it isn't your fault in the first place.:smalltongue:

Bit of a tangency, though. The CR system makes it very clear that different classes are intended to be of similar power at any given level, even if the level system isn't clear enough about that in its own right. I've got no problem with magic innately dominating mundane techniques, but if it's going to be that way then all non-magical classes ought to be NPC classes.

Khanderas
2007-12-04, 02:35 AM
First off, there's a fundamental problem I have with the view that magic-users and other classes SHOULD be balanced in the first place. We're talking about someone who can fundamentally alter reality with sheer willpower and mental discipline vs someone who hits people with sharp metal. Any instance where the two are even comparable is most likely caused by some arbitrary increase to the metal-wavers abilities(ToB), decrease to the magic-users(SR/anti-magic zone), or special circumstances where magic is not very useful.
I agree, it is ok for Wizards to be powerful as heck as the reshapers of reality (provided the setting is one where such levels of magic exist). The problem, I feel, begins when the Wizard applies his daily buffs and gains more defenses then the Fighters. Glass cannons does imply the cannon can get beat up fast and hard if forced into melee, but nowadays they got the celeritytimestopdelayedfireballsdimensiondoor trick that is the new standard (from a powergaming point of view as you mention in your OP, that I apparantly cut away to save some space).

The issue isnt who can do what, but rather who needs who. If the Fighter needs the Wizard at higher levels, but the Wizard do not need the Fighter... we lost balance and problebly intrest from the melee classes.
I suggest spells like Windwall should not just say "total immunity" but a penalty, along the same notion freedom of movement equipment should only bring a bonus vs grapples and holds (the spell I guess can keep the total immunity). That way a symbiosis is approached.

More and better ways are problebly already posted. Ill go read more then the first post now :smallsmile:

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-04, 02:41 AM
Anyone who wants to redesign spells--I've mentioned it before, but I'll say it again: take a look at Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved (I'm sure you can figure out some way to look at it for free) and compare it with regular 3.5. What spells at each level do in terms of offense, defense, and buffs under those (d20) rules should be a big help (not that you'd want to nerf, say, Wizards to casting Arcana Evolved spells in regular D&D, but as a guideline).

Kurald Galain
2007-12-04, 11:49 AM
put some universal adhesive on it and stick it to him.

Since universal glue is a magical item, it doesn't function in an anti-magic field :smallbiggrin:

Roderick_BR
2007-12-04, 02:56 PM
And for heaven's sake, why are you fighter types being so un-heroic as to use weapons! Disparity of force, I say, disparity of force! Divest yourself of your weapons and go at the enemy with your bare hands, like a real man!

:smallwink:
If the monsters stop using their claws, teeth, tails, dozens of attacks, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities, then sure, I'll drop my weapon and fight fair... Heck, a monk could even become useful that way!

Renegade Paladin
2007-12-04, 05:05 PM
Did you even read the post to which you linked?

Aelyrinth built Lockdown specifically to take on a melee Druid, and it also works as a melee battlefield controller. It's not a general caster-killer by any means, and is not meant to be.

In other words, you are completely and irrevocably wrong, and the fact that you posted as if you were absolutely sure of yourself shows your lack of knowledge on the issue.
I did read it. I'm waiting for someone to take the claim apart, because it keeps being thrown at me whenever I claim to my group that wizards are that overpowered.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-04, 06:10 PM
I don't think this is a valid argument. On the contrary, from a certain point of view, a spellcaster should be much weaker than a melee fighter. D&D is, like almost all fantasy RPGs a heroic game, where heroes do heroic things. Now, this works well with most fighters etc. They are the essential hero material - the guys who fight and suffer, often from a weaker position, because when you are much stronger than your opposition, you may be smart, but not heroic. Heroism is about overcoming the odds.
Spellcasting is anti-heroic; you don't need to do anything, you are more powerful and that's about it. And throwing spells at your enemies is just not hero-stuff.Killing out a goblin tribe in a cloud skill is about as heroic as using mustard gas, for example.

Therefore, spellcasters should be villains, or sidekicks to the true heroes at best and any system that fails to represent this is eternally flawed.

(No I don't mean this too seriously).

No, actually, you're exactly right.

Spellcasters as PCs (and, by implication, heroes) only work if they do have to "beat the odds" somehow. A good example of this, actually, is the anime series Slayers, which features a "core four" group of characters of whom three are spellcasters of some type, and only one is a pure fighter (and yet, the pure fighter is actually useful and important).

The thing about Slayers magic is that although it's much more powerful than D20 magic when it comes to blasting (a good Slayers "Fireball" probably rivals Meteor Swarm in power, while there's nothing in D20 that can even approximate a Dragon Slave), it's also incredibly more limited. Sorcerers can't teleport ... at all. Or become invisible ... at all. They can fly, but flying and casting at the same time is extremely problematic (to the extent that it's even possible at all). Time Stop? Celerity? Foresight? Mordenkainen's Magnificent Cheese? Don't make me laugh.

Oh, and if someone dies, they stay dead. No magic in Slayers can bring someone back from being completely dead.

It works for dramatic tension because the characters, although extremely powerful (they are basically epic), just don't have anything utterly broken in their arsenal. Even Lina Inverse herself, the heroine of the series, could conceivably be brought down by one well-placed sword blow -- no Contingency or Foresight/Celerity/Time Stop cheese is there to save her, so she has to do it herself on guts and skill.

It works, and it's a lot of fun. Yet if you introduced an equivalent-level d20 wizard, rules as written, you'd just destroy all sense of dramatic tension. "Hay guys lookie, Im invincible! Oh noes, my spell r used up, tiem 4 teh MMM! Invincible again! I winzor!"

God forbid you add a cleric.

"Oh noes, sum1 died! True Resurrection FTW!"

All the dramatic tension of World of Warcraft or EverQuest. Yay.

Kaelik
2007-12-04, 06:18 PM
Did you even read the post to which you linked?

Aelyrinth built Lockdown specifically to take on a melee Druid, and it also works as a melee battlefield controller. It's not a general caster-killer by any means, and is not meant to be.

In other words, you are completely and irrevocably wrong, and the fact that you posted as if you were absolutely sure of yourself shows your lack of knowledge on the issue.

Wow, I never even noticed the spectacular ninja of my own criticism of the Lockdown build rebuttal. Way to go Garet. You gain a level, that's +1d6 Sudden Strike for you. (Personally I prefer Rogue, but to each their own.)

SpikeFightwicky
2007-12-04, 06:37 PM
I find this an extremely frustrating, and ultimately flawed, argument. There's no good reason why magic users must be better than non-magic users, save for a world where magic is always better than not using magic. Sure, if you want to play "World of Harry Potter the Gathering," by all means, make it so wizards do really cool stuff, and the fighters hang out and fondle their swords in admiration.


To be fair, in WoW, magic isn't quite the be all end all power (and pure magic users are usually dropped in a couple of seconds in PvP). Then again, non-magical classes have abilities beyond 'power attack it until I or it dies'.

Has anyone seen the Korgoth of Barbaria pilot? It's a Conan-esque cartoon in gritty 80s style animation where the main character is melee only, and goes toe to toe with a high level magic user. IMO, melee characters should be able to do that kind of stuff in D&D.

Renegade Paladin
2007-12-04, 07:03 PM
You know, I'm still having a hard time seeing how it doesn't deal with wizards. Everything anybody does other than hit the lock-build fighter within his (massive) reach provokes a double-damage AoO. They cannot move or cast spells; that screws a wizard even more than a druid, by a lot.

Kaelik
2007-12-04, 07:43 PM
You know, I'm still having a hard time seeing how it doesn't deal with wizards. Everything anybody does other than hit the lock-build fighter within his (massive) reach provokes a double-damage AoO. They cannot move or cast spells; that screws a wizard even more than a druid, by a lot.

Except that:
1) They stay out of his range
2) They are faster
3) The automatically go first while he is flat-footed and can't take AoOs
4) They can Chain Dispel/Quicken Chain Shatter all his gear
5) They can swift/immediate action teleport several times a day
6) His Touch AC ain't so great
7) You know all those summons they get? Those.
8) Five actions for every one of his. Cast, Quicken Cast, Move, Familiar casts, Familiar Quicken Casts. Game Over.

Prophaniti
2007-12-04, 07:43 PM
I realized halfway through a post on a similar topic that this is an excellent summary of my view and why I posed the question of this thread in the first place.
Originally posted by me:I still hold the view that the classes, espesially casters, are only unbalanced in theory, such as the discussions on the boards here and at WotC. In practice, in most peoples D&D games with friends and family, there is very little trouble with the casting classes dominating the game for a number of reasons:
1)Most players just don't know about all the cheese out there
2)Some do know, but don't want to go through all the effort of making the build or looking up all the spells they have to use to own every situation
3)Many people I know and play with know the cheese but simply don't use it, mostly because IT'S NOT FUN.

The purpose is to have fun with friends and the more ridiculous cheese, the kind that inspires quests for rebalancing and discussions such as these and what happened at my post (Why do fighters suck/wizards rule?), lower the enjoyment of everyone at the table. Those who simply must find every loophole and cheese technically allowed by RAW are usually stimied by the rest of the group. No system is ever perfectly balanced, balance can be approached, and perhaps D&D 3.X is further from it than some systems, but those who choose to exploit this to the detriment of everyone else's game time will eventually find themselves playing video games at home, where no on cares if the find all the loopholes.
This basically sums up what I meant when I started the post. I suppose if a fix is wanted there's no reason not to, I know what its like to have obstinate min/maxers in the group that don't want to play a reasonably powerful character, they HAVE to play the best thing the rules will allow.

If you need a fix for wizards in this situation, the only one I've heard and like is the idea that it's not the class that needs fixed, it's the spells. over level 6 is where you start to get the really cheesy stuff, so that's what I'd focus on if this ever became an issue for my group.

horseboy
2007-12-04, 08:02 PM
It works for dramatic tension because the characters, although extremely powerful (they are basically epic), just don't have anything utterly broken in their arsenal. Even Lina Inverse herself, the heroine of the series, could conceivably be brought down by one well-placed sword blow -- no Contingency or Foresight/Celerity/Time Stop cheese is there to save her, so she has to do it herself on guts and skill.

It works, and it's a lot of fun. Yet if you introduced an equivalent-level d20 wizard, rules as written, you'd just destroy all sense of dramatic tension. "Hay guys lookie, Im invincible! Oh noes, my spell r used up, tiem 4 teh MMM! Invincible again! I winzor!"

God forbid you add a cleric.

"Oh noes, sum1 died! True Resurrection FTW!"

All the dramatic tension of World of Warcraft or EverQuest. Yay.

Which pretty much sums up the "wizards and clerics aren't broken, they're spells are" camp. It's also why it's not such a huge disparity problem in other systems.

Renegade Paladin
2007-12-04, 08:10 PM
Except that:
1) They stay out of his range
2) They are faster
3) The automatically go first while he is flat-footed and can't take AoOs
4) They can Chain Dispel/Quicken Chain Shatter all his gear
5) They can swift/immediate action teleport several times a day
6) His Touch AC ain't so great
7) You know all those summons they get? Those.
8) Five actions for every one of his. Cast, Quicken Cast, Move, Familiar casts, Familiar Quicken Casts. Game Over.
They don't automatically go first. Moment of prescience does not apply to initiative. Without that, the rest of it just doesn't follow.

Furthermore, the build has Combat Reflexes, ergo it can take AoOs while flat-footed. Now who hasn't read the build? :smalltongue:

Kaelik
2007-12-04, 08:16 PM
They don't automatically go first. Moment of prescience does not apply to initiative. Without that, the rest of it just doesn't follow.

Furthermore, the build has Combat Reflexes, ergo it can take AoOs while flat-footed. Now who hasn't read the build? :smalltongue:

UM? DO YOU...Have you ever read anything on this board or any other?

Celerity. Foresight. Game Over.

Also, did you forget the very real possibility that they don't start right nex to each other?

The Mage probably has higher dex, might have Improved Init, Nerveskitter, and maybe insightful divination. Looks like he wins init anyway, even if he doesn't use Foresight and Celerity, even if he doesn't start 200ft away.

Combat Reflexes-Which doesn't help if you don't start next to each other, or if he you know, uses a swift action to travel 1000ft straight up. Or whatever. Or win init.

And even if you win Init. And attack, you have exactly one attack before he swift action teleports out of there and then spams his three other spells that round on you.

Oh right, and Contingency.

Renegade Paladin
2007-12-04, 08:27 PM
UM? DO YOU...Have you ever read anything on this board or any other?

Celerity. Foresight. Game Over.

Also, did you forget the very real possibility that they don't start right nex to each other?

The Mage probably has higher dex, might have Improved Init, Nerveskitter, and maybe insightful divination. Looks like he wins init anyway, even if he doesn't use Foresight and Celerity, even if he doesn't start 200ft away.

Combat Reflexes-Which doesn't help if you don't start next to each other, or if he you know, uses a swift action to travel 1000ft straight up. Or whatever. Or win init.

And even if you win Init. And attack, you have exactly one attack before he swift action teleports out of there and then spams his three other spells that round on you.

Oh right, and Contingency.
Again, you're demonstrating that you didn't read the build. The fighter doesn't need to start next to the wizard; he has boots of teleportation.

Combat Reflexes: Stop dodging. You didn't read the build and shifting the subject isn't going to make me forget it.

Occult Opportunist: That swift action teleport? AoO. Yeah, I thought of it too when thinking up ways to beat this thing.

Nerveskitter: As written, the spell doesn't work; you can't take immediate actions while flat-footed. As long as we're going all RAW here. :smalltongue:

And contingency? Expensive as all hell, and so specific that it's either easily circumvented or too easily triggered.

illathid
2007-12-04, 09:03 PM
Nerveskitter: As written, the spell doesn't work; you can't take immediate actions while flat-footed. As long as we're going all RAW here. :smalltongue:


Check the errata. Nerveskitter is specifically allowed to be used while flat-footed.

Kaelik
2007-12-04, 09:14 PM
Again, you're demonstrating that you didn't read the build. The fighter doesn't need to start next to the wizard; he has boots of teleportation.

Boots of Teleportation which would require a Standard action to use? Oh yeah.


Combat Reflexes: Stop dodging. You didn't read the build and shifting the subject isn't going to make me forget it.

I'm not dodging, I did read the build, I just didn't remember that particular aspect of Combat Reflexes, though thanks for reminding me, it will help a character I have (maybe if that situation comes up.)


Occult Opportunist: That swift action teleport? AoO. Yeah, I thought of it too when thinking up ways to beat this thing.

Oh, you mean that Feat that the build doesn't take? Schroedinger's Feats aren't any better then Schroedinger's Spellbook.


Nerveskitter: As written, the spell doesn't work; you can't take immediate actions while flat-footed. As long as we're going all RAW here.

Note the errata. Also foresight.


And contingency? Expensive as all hell, and so specific that it's either easily circumvented or too easily triggered.

Or easily triggered by dangerous opponents, like people who I want to avoid anyway.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-04, 09:14 PM
I could swear I've seen this thread before.

Bosh
2007-12-04, 11:42 PM
I think that a lot of this problem comes from D&D wargaming roots. In original D&D there was the fighting man who was basically heavy infantry, thieves which were basically scouts and magic users who were basically artillery (good long range attacks, bad defenses and bad at close range).

This worked out fairly decently but then they started giving magic users all kinds of other spells to simulate the sorts of things that magic users do in fiction. These extra spells were more of less used to supplement the main artillery role. This worked FAIRLY well in the old editions at lower levels (D&D has ALWAYS sucked balance-wise at higher levels), but it did piss off people who wanted to play wizards as something like Gandalf instead of a howitzer wearing robes.

But then in 3ed monster hit points of monsters go up a lot so direct damage becomes weaker, wizards get more spells, wizards level up at the same rate as everyone else, etc. But the big problem is that by now there's such a big backlog of all the cool little support spells that now with direct damage being less useful just sticking with the cool little support spells is now more powerful than being a howitzer. So now you have a class that was designed basically as a wargame howitzer that is BETTER if it doesn't shoot **** but is still balanced from the point of view of shooting ****. Its like playing a wargame and giving howitzers flying and invisibility and telepathy and poison gas and just about anything else you could want if they give up some ammo and expecting marines to be still worth something.

What 4ed seems to be doing is kicking the wizard back into his howitzer with robes role and stripping him of a lot of his batman power. Shame really, I never liked playing a howitzer with robes, I always prefered the more creative batman style stuff, but just wished it were more balanced.

That said, the reason why a lot of people don't have a problem with wizards being overpowered in their own personal campaigns is because:

1. A lot of people multiclass and multiclassing DESTROYS the power of casters (with a few exceptions).
2. A lot of people play wizards as pretty much solely blasters.
3. A lot of powergamers show restraint and do something like play a buffing cleric or a meatshield.
4. A lot of munchkins are very bad at actually powergaming effectively and do something like take the monkey grip feat. Similarly a lot of munchkins have a hard time realizing that color spray is VASTLY more powerful than magic missile.
5. A lot of campaigns focus on the very low levels where casters are a bit less unbalanced.
6. A lot of GMs go out of their way to deal with unbalances in the rules.
7. Optimal caster tactics in computer games and old edition D&D are very different than optimal caster tactics in 3ed, which helps keep people from realizing how to play a wizard tactically in 3ed.
8. Many save or die/suck spells are so stupidly overpowered that a lot of GMs fudge results to make critters pass saves when they shouldn't.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-05, 12:25 AM
I think taking monkey grip is grounds for having your professional munchkin status revoked. Unless, of course, you find a combination of feats/variant rules/pestige classes that turn monkey grip into a game-breaking monstrosity.:smalleek:

Bosh
2007-12-05, 12:34 AM
I think taking monkey grip is grounds for having your professional munchkin status revoked. Unless, of course, you find a combination of feats/variant rules/pestige classes that turn monkey grip into a game-breaking monstrosity.:smalleek:

Well at least for me munchkin is more the desire for raw power without a lot of thought behind it while powergaming is more detailed analysis of the rules for tactical advantage. Munchkins are often very bad at doing what they set out to do because they do things like take monkey grip in order to get MORE DAMAGE without thinking things through.

In a lot of games munchkins end up a lot like the guy with the impressive sword moves that Indie shoots down in The Last Crusade.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-05, 12:48 AM
Well at least for me munchkin is more the desire for raw power without a lot of thought behind it while powergaming is more detailed analysis of the rules for tactical advantage. Munchkins are often very bad at doing what they set out to do because they do things like take monkey grip in order to get MORE DAMAGE without thinking things through.

In a lot of games munchkins end up a lot like the guy with the impressive sword moves that Indie shoots down in The Last Crusade.I suppose that playing the Munchkin cardgame leaves me biased in this area, but I've always thought of munchkins as anyone who builds an overpowered high-level character using an absurd amount of different classes and prestige classes (five or more), that owes most of its power to a combination of abilities that were never intended to be combined.

I think of powergamers as people who do this with a single class, such as codzilla, batman wizard, or tripmeister builds.

Bosh
2007-12-05, 12:52 AM
I suppose that playing the Munchkin cardgame leaves me biased in this area, but I've always thought of munchkins as anyone who builds an overpowered high-level character using an absurd amount of different classes and prestige classes (five or more), that owes most of its power to a combination of abilities that were never intended to be combined.

I think of powergamers as people who do this with a single class, such as codzilla, batman wizard, or tripmeister builds.

Well a lot of the time those bizarrely-complicated dip builds don't work unless you cheat (which munchkins do quite a bit) or at least end up a lot weaker than something like straight druid.

JaxGaret
2007-12-05, 12:59 AM
The fighter doesn't need to start next to the wizard; he has boots of teleportation.

Anticipate Teleport. Or the Greater version. 24 hour duration.


And contingency? Expensive as all hell, and so specific that it's either easily circumvented or too easily triggered.

Craft Contingent Spell is expensive. Contingency (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contingency.htm) is free. And awesome. One of my favorite uses for it is "when I cast X spell, my Contingency triggers". That's nice for getting an extra spell off in round 1/surprise round. And that's not even an optimal use.


Wow, I never even noticed the spectacular ninja of my own criticism of the Lockdown build rebuttal. Way to go Garet. You gain a level, that's +1d6 Sudden Strike for you. (Personally I prefer Rogue, but to each their own.)

No Sudden Strike for me - i'm taking levels in Ninja of the Crescent Moon :smallsmile:

thxbtwomgwtfbbq

Morty
2007-12-05, 04:42 AM
I could swear I've seen this thread before.

About hundred times before, actually.