PDA

View Full Version : Do you alllow wizards in your games?



Frosty
2008-03-07, 04:58 PM
Ok, so based on my experience with trying to fix the Knight class, I'm homebrewing a somewhat similar class called the Protector. I'm trying to decide if I'm making the class too powerful, and then I laughed because this thing has no spellcasting and no maneuvers, so how can it be too powerful right? This brings me to the next question: If Wizards are so broken, why do we allow them in games?

kamikasei
2008-03-07, 05:02 PM
Yes, I do, because I trust my players not to be jerks, and see it as my responsibility to challenge them; I'm happier nerfing spells or feats, or directly asking a player to avoid a particularly unbalancing tactic or build, than removing a core part of the game and iconic class.

MeTheGameGuy
2008-03-07, 05:07 PM
Because D&D isn't roll playing. It's role playing. The various classes aren't there to be exactly balanced with one another, they're there to be fun. Some people get more fun out of Wizards, some get fun out or Barbarians, and some get fun out of obscure prestige classes nobody has ever heard of.

By the way, I posted almost the exact same message at the WOTC forums to reply to someone saying that non-casters should be removed :smallbiggrin: .

The_Snark
2008-03-07, 05:10 PM
A class can't be broken without spells now? That's a very dangerous assumption to make. A spellcaster is incredibly versatile, but a class that deals too much damage for its level or whose defenses are insurmountable can be even more overpowered, because while there are a lot of monsters with all kinds of magical defenses and immunities, nothing is immune to hit point damage.

Do I allow wizards? Yes... because players don't have to break them, just like you don't have to break the artificer while playing it. Played without a lot of their more overpowered options (Celerity, metamagic rods, things like that), they don't actually break the game. Useful and versatile, yes, but not game-breaking.

Very few people actually play a wizard who employs Foresight and Celerity, begins and ends every fight with Time Stop, and sleeps only in Magnificent Mansions.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-07, 05:14 PM
Very few people actually play a wizard who employs Foresight and Celerity, begins and ends every fight with Time Stop, and sleeps only in Magnificent Mansions.Why not? That's the best use for a seventh-level slot ever. The vulnerability to dispel and the like is a problem, but after spending 6 moths in the wild with a barbarian, a building with a master bath is very nice.

In other words, before I ever read about Batman on here, I planned to use MMM as a mobile hotel simply because of how nice a place to stay it is. I'm a practical person.:smallbiggrin:

Frosty
2008-03-07, 05:14 PM
A class can't be broken without spells now? That's a very dangerous assumption to make. A spellcaster is incredibly versatile, but a class that deals too much damage for its level or whose defenses are insurmountable can be even more overpowered, because while there are a lot of monsters with all kinds of magical defenses and immunities, nothing is immune to hit point damage.

Well I'm close to done writing up the class. Care to critique it in a little bit when I post it here?

Yakk
2008-03-07, 05:23 PM
Nerfing Wizards isn't that hard: audit spell choices, and (possibly) don't play level 20 games.

It is true that the level-based abilities like spells and maneuvers provide a huge amount of flexibility, and usually there are key one from the lists that are too powerful. (nobody picks the poor ones -- they just pick the good ones!)

...

If you want to really nerf the "list casters":
All spells are unique. There are multiple nearly identical versions of the spell (that are nearly identical mechanically), but each spell or power is a unique singular power. Only one being can control it.

If two individuals have access to the power (say, you read another wizard's spell book), then only the most powerful of the two can use the magic while the other lives.

This means that magic is jealously guarded.

Divine spells are embedded into Holy Relics, which give their blessing to one person at a time. Clerics and Druids gain access to the blessing of these Relics by performing actions that support their organization -- or they steal them from people who have no right to them!

Arcane spells are written up in highly guarded spell books, found in crystals of magic power, or are held by beings of great knowledge about the world.

Wizards copy spells into their spellbook. Not every spell you found is an orphan -- but sometimes one might find an ancient scroll that nobody else has ownership over!

Sorcerers absorb the essence of these spells into their very person. Those spells that nobody else in the world knows congeal after the sorcerer dies, and can be extracted from the tissue of the sorcerer using various arcane methods. Spells that others also know instead fly off to the others.

Martial adepts abilities work the same way. Each technique is powered by a spirit, and is unique -- there can only be one master. Variations on the technique exist. Orders of martial adepts horde the knowledge of these techniques, and pass it out to worthy and loyal students.

...

Viola. Now the quest for magical power becomes a plot device. And you have control over which spells and abilities that each character possesses. :)

AKA_Bait
2008-03-07, 05:29 PM
Well I'm close to done writing up the class. Care to critique it in a little bit when I post it here?

I'd be happy to, but please post it in the homebrew forum. :smallwink:

Kurald Galain
2008-03-07, 05:30 PM
If Wizards are so broken, why do we allow them in games?

Because it's only really a problem at high level, and if the character has access to every spell, and if the player really wants to upstage the rest of the group.

So the answer is to either (1) not play at high level, and/or (2) disallow certain of the brokenest spells, and/or (3) don't play with jerks.


(edit) this is why I believe the cleric, druid and monk are more broken than the wizard: you have to actively try to make a broken wizard in order to end up with one (and no, merely having MMM on your list isn't bad at all in and of itself). Whereas with a cleric, druid or monk, you can end up with a broken character (overpowered in the first two cases, useless in the third) without even trying.

Heck, even fighters and sorcerers suffer more from this problem, in that if you pick ineffective feats or spells, respectively, you're stuck with them and can plausibly end up with a sub-par or nigh-useless character.

AslanCross
2008-03-07, 05:34 PM
Thankfully the Wizard in my current campaign isn't a jerk and roleplays his character well. I haven't needed to resort to any restrictive measures. (We're currently at level 8).

horseboy
2008-03-07, 05:36 PM
Because it's only really a problem at high level, and if the character has access to every spell, and if the player really wants to upstage the rest of the group.

So the answer is to either (1) not play at high level, and/or (2) disallow certain of the brokenest spells, and/or (3) don't play with jerks.
(4)Play something else.

Talya
2008-03-07, 05:38 PM
I have no difficulties keeping wizards in line.

Lord Tataraus
2008-03-07, 05:39 PM
With the exception of one player, I'd never dream of disallowing a wizard and for that exception, I just need to watch him carefully. Anyone who has played a wizard or (more regularly) a sorcerer has spec-ed in evocation because its more fun (with the exception of the aforementioned munchkin). We have our unwritten, assumed code of conduct of what is just not accepted at our table and every (usually) follows that. We never play over 15th level, in fact last time we played over 12th it just fell apart because we just don't like it. We play from 3rd to 12th most of the time and its fine. In fact, the barb is usually the most broken in the group.

The_Snark
2008-03-07, 05:40 PM
Why not? That's the best use for a seventh-level slot ever. The vulnerability to dispel and the like is a problem, but after spending 6 moths in the wild with a barbarian, a building with a master bath is very nice.

In other words, before I ever read about Batman on here, I planned to use MMM as a mobile hotel simply because of how nice a place to stay it is. I'm a practical person.:smallbiggrin:

It depends. It's certainly reasonable for a wizard who likes his luxuries to try to do that. The hallmark of the wizard who is doing it out of paranoia is that prior to level 13, they spent every resting period inside a Rope Trick.


Well I'm close to done writing up the class. Care to critique it in a little bit when I post it here?

Sure. Post it in Homebrew and maybe put a link here when you do.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-03-07, 05:42 PM
Of course I do. I don't allow some spells. The list isn't just the most effective ones for their level--for example, I'm not going to ban Glitterdust despite how brutally effective it is at low-through-mid levels, because a lot of CRs pretty much assume the wizard is doing something of that sort.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-07, 05:45 PM
The problem with banning spells is that one of the most effective ones at level one is Sleep. :smallannoyed:

Kurald Galain
2008-03-07, 05:45 PM
(4)Play something else.

I prefer not to play with jerks in any other kind of game, either :smallbiggrin:

Frosty
2008-03-07, 05:57 PM
Sure. Post it in Homebrew and maybe put a link here when you do.

Here it is! http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74443

PEACH ^_^

strayth
2008-03-07, 06:14 PM
I have no difficulties keeping wizards in line.

No kidding; they're basically designed for being foiled. I punish my wizards (warning the player who makes one first) to keep a balance. Their spellbooks are forfeit, same with their familiars, sleeping patterns and component pouches.

You really don't have to look far to cripple a wizard, it's surprising how infrequently I see this happen.

kamikasei
2008-03-07, 06:18 PM
You really don't have to look far to cripple a wizard, it's surprising how infrequently I see this happen.

If someone has a tendency to run ahead of the rest of the group, cutting off their feet won't keep them in line, it'll take them out of the race all together.

Frosty
2008-03-07, 06:24 PM
Which spells do you guys ban? I ban Foresight, Celerity, demi-plane-related spells, Astral Projection, and a lot of divinations.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-07, 06:30 PM
You really don't have to look far to cripple a wizard, it's surprising how infrequently I see this happen.

Crippling a character because you dislike the character class is not something I would call good DM'ing.

osyluth
2008-03-07, 06:51 PM
D&D is fantasy. It has to have wizards.

Frosty
2008-03-07, 07:05 PM
Anyone had a chance to look over my homebrew class yet?

Squash Monster
2008-03-07, 07:08 PM
You might be interested in the option of banning Core. If you take away all the core classes, feats, races, and spells, you end up with a fairly balanced, if somewhat quirky game.

Otherwise... well, wizards aren't the strongest, so it seems odd to me that you'd ban them specifically.

KIDS
2008-03-07, 07:25 PM
I have a slight dislike for them, but allow them out of habit and because they were fortunate enough to be printed in core. Had they been a splatbook class like Wu-Jen, they wouldn't get such an easy treatment.... *growl*

Vortling
2008-03-07, 07:28 PM
You might be interested in the option of banning Core. If you take away all the core classes, feats, races, and spells, you end up with a fairly balanced, if somewhat quirky game.

Banning PHB2 or not? Seems like you'd have a shortage of spontaneous arcane casters if you did.

Saph
2008-03-07, 07:30 PM
Wizards are highly dependent on the skill and optimisation-fu of the player, more so than almost any other class. So it's worth bearing in mind that a) most players aren't capable of making wizards really broken and b) a player who is capable of making a wizard really broken is probably capable of achieving the same result in at least a dozen other ways, so banning wizards isn't going to make much difference.

Also, at lower levels, wizards aren't broken at all. At levels 5-10, they're actually quite a well balanced class. So until your game's level gets into the teens, you aren't likely to have any more problems with wizards than you'll have with any other class.

- Saph

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-07, 07:31 PM
You might be interested in the option of banning Core. If you take away all the core classes, feats, races, and spells, you end up with a fairly balanced, if somewhat quirky game.This is an inordinately good idea for how severe it is.

And @ the OP, wizards can be broken with a lot of work that is easier in theory than in practice, and generally not fun. If you want to ban something, ban Clerics. Or Druids.

Emperor Tippy
2008-03-07, 07:37 PM
Do I ban wizards? Not unless I have a setting specific reason for it (no arcane or divine magic for instance).

Why? Because if I go through and ban everything that is potentially broken your left with almost nothing left. Anyone who can break a wizard on their own (and not just copy a batman build from the internet) can break most things if they try.

valadil
2008-03-07, 08:20 PM
I don't ban wizards but I do ban players who read the optimization board when building their wizards.

TheThan
2008-03-07, 08:24 PM
Iím with just about everyone else here.

The thing is just because wizards can be broken doesnít mean they will be broken. In fact you have to know what youíre doing to break one. In fact itís much easier to break a druid or cleric than it is a wizard.
The higher level spells that are OMG brokenz I donít have to worry about because I rarely if ever play at those levels. That just leaves the lower level ones that are sort of broken (remember sleep grants a will save, and only affects up to 4 HD worth of creatures).

But still to answer the OPís question I ban wizards for setting specific reasons, like say Iím running an Oriental adventures game or a psionics game.

Fhaolan
2008-03-07, 09:51 PM
Nah, I don't ban wizards. I also don't run high-level games, and my current batch of players aren't into optomization, so the more glaring 'win' buttons don't come up.

Frosty
2008-03-07, 09:56 PM
I'd like to be able to run high level games, so banning spells and sometimes just saying "that doesn't work/exist" is necessary. Oh yeah, I made a few minor changes to the Protector class. Designated Charge now scales, and Delay Death is now keyed off of Con instead of Dex.

shadowdemon_lord
2008-03-07, 10:24 PM
Most people I've run into don't well, optimize the living daylights out of their wizards. First off a lot of people don't think "support" when they think wizard, and ultimately until you get into the very high levels a lot of what makes batman so powerful is that he sets up the battlefield for everyone else to win the fight. Spells like solid fog and black tentacles are great, but it's the buff fighter that wades through your black tentacles to the enemy casters that delivers the death blow to the wizard, and it's probably the rest of the party that kills the portion of the opposition that's not trapped in fog, the wizard just cut the battle in half for them.

Now that said, it's hard to avoid win buttons when you get to ninth level spells. With spells like Wail of the Banshee, wish, Shape Change, Time Stop, and Gate at your disposal you kind of can't avoid overshadowing everything in sight. I mean, when you can Gate in Solars (that cast as 18th level clerics), the cleric in the party doesn't look quite so impressive anymore. I think 9th level spells in general should just be banned out right, as the power level on them is beyond anything else ever published.

Roderick_BR
2008-03-07, 11:59 PM
My group can't optimize, so everything is alright :smallsmile: