PDA

View Full Version : Why are blasters that weak?



weenie
2008-05-11, 04:13 PM
While I understand how battlefield control spells can hinder an opponent in combat and how some buffs may make other party members much more effective than what they normally are, I still don't understand why good old blasting is considered weak.

Other party members usually rely primarily on hit point damage to bring down foes, so if the mage of the group uses damage dealing spells, that should sinergize well with what the others are doing. Sure, your fireball may not kill the monster outright, but it'll soften it up enough for the fighter to kill it on his next full attack.

Other than a higher spell expenditure, I can't really se a fault in that logic. :smallconfused:

AstralFire
2008-05-11, 04:20 PM
Basically, it's because Blasting is a means to an end (killing them) while Save or Suck/Die IS the end.

If Save or Dies were generally removed and blasting was a little less inefficient, the situation would be quite different.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-11, 04:21 PM
Primarily because, in the migration from 2nd edition to 3rd, melee damage was increased a lot, and correspondingly, hit points were increased a lot (both from monsters, as well as from PCs who now get full hit dice at levels 10 and up, as opposed to just one or two hit points). However, spell damage was not increased.

"Sure, your fireball might not kill the monster outright" - strike that, your fireball won't kill anything worth killing outright, because even at its maximum it only does an average of 35 points of damage. On the other hand, a save-or-lose spell will kill the monster outright.

Assuming a failed save, of course, but blasting spells are quite unremarkable on a succesful save (17.5 damage, woot).

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-11, 04:22 PM
The difference is in Save-or-Die and No-save spells. HP damage is rendered irrelevent with that, especialy since blasting spells are usually AoE and the most dangerous encounters are usually a solo enemy.

Bryn
2008-05-11, 04:22 PM
The Logic Ninja explained all, better than I could, back in the original Batman guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18500).

direct damage. Those are occasionally useful, and will be mentioned later, but in general, avoid them. Why? Because everyone else can do damage, and often, much better than you, while you can also do all the things no one else can. Leave damage to the guys with pointy sticks; you have better things to do.

-Haste: offensive and defensive buff. It makes everyone move faster, which is handy for mobility--and gives them an extra attack per round.
A fireball deals 5d6 at level 5--that's 17 average damage on a *failed* save. A fighter can do 17 damage a hit at level 5, and with Haste, he'll be getting an extra attack each round. The damage from those will pile up above and beyond what the fireball most likely accomplished.
etc.

Thiel
2008-05-11, 04:25 PM
Other than a higher spell expenditure, I can't really se a fault in that logic. :smallconfused:
A wizard lives or dies by his spells, so any tactic that decreases his spell expenditure will be stronger than one that doesn't.

monty
2008-05-11, 04:31 PM
Save-or-lose >> damage

Which is better, hitting the BBEG with a bunch of damage that might not kill him anyway, or making him into your personal slave for 1 day/level (and then ordering him to tie himself up or something so you can coup-de-grace him before the spell runs out)?

Jack_Simth
2008-05-11, 04:31 PM
While I understand how battlefield control spells can hinder an opponent in combat and how some buffs may make other party members much more effective than what they normally are, I still don't understand why good old blasting is considered weak.

Other party members usually rely primarily on hit point damage to bring down foes, so if the mage of the group uses damage dealing spells, that should sinergize well with what the others are doing. Sure, your fireball may not kill the monster outright, but it'll soften it up enough for the fighter to kill it on his next full attack.

Other than a higher spell expenditure, I can't really se a fault in that logic. :smallconfused:
It's not so much that they're weak, exactly; the game is actually designed around a blaster-wizard; it's just that other uses of spells are stronger.

See, I can Fireball my opponent for 5d6 damage at 5th level; at that point, a CR 5 opponent is going to have in the neighborhood of 40-80 hit points. As 5d6 averages 17.5 damage, I'm going to need about two to five Fireballs to eliminate my opponent... assuming my opponent fails every save. If I figure that my opponent will make half of his saves, that's three to eight fireballs needed.

If, instead, I use Deep Slumber, and assume that my opponent will make half of his saves, I'm going to need one or two castings - as Deep Slumber doesn't care about hit points, just will saves.

If, instead, I cast Haste on the party Fighter, I've now basically doubled his damage output (at 5th, he's got one attack per round - I've just increased his to-hit by 5%, AND doubled the number of attacks in a round, assuming he can stop and make full attacks) - and it'll stay that way for five rounds. Plus, I can also speed up the Rogue and the Cleric (and myself); if we've got a melee-Fighter, and an Archer Rogue and Cleric, with one spell, I've doubled the party damage output. And I can do something else next round.

This is just a simple example for mid-low levels. It gets progressively worse at higher levels.

Kami2awa
2008-05-11, 04:34 PM
Save-or-lose >> damage

Which is better, hitting the BBEG with a bunch of damage that might not kill him anyway, or making him into your personal slave for 1 day/level (and then ordering him to tie himself up or something so you can coup-de-grace him before the spell runs out)?

How do you tie YOURSELF up?

monty
2008-05-11, 04:36 PM
How do you tie YOURSELF up?

Lots of ranks in Use Rope?

Anyway, that's not the point. You could just tell him to stand still while you tie him up. Same end result.

Saph
2008-05-11, 04:46 PM
The short answer is that save-or-X spells are generally better than direct damage spells of the same level. Comparing fireball to haste against a single target is a bit unfair, though, as fireball is specifically designed as a long-range spell against multiple targets. In that situation, it's not bad (though haste is still the better all-purpose choice).

But direct-damage spells aren't useless. In general, the effectiveness of direct damage spells is proportional to how low the monster's HP is. The higher your chance of one-shotting the thing, the better a damage spell becomes.

100% health: don't use damage, buff your allies or use a save-or-X.
50% health: it depends.
15% health: break out the damage spells, they'll either kill it or allow the next character to finish it off.
5% health: just magic missile the thing already.

Direct damage actually comes into its own at mid- and high-levels. Once you have access to metamagic and some of the really nice scaling damage spells, direct damage can easily one-shot an opponent who isn't prepared for it. You still don't want to rely on it, but it's a nice option to have.

- Saph

valadil
2008-05-11, 04:49 PM
In blasting's defense, while doing damage as a wizard is rarely optimal, it is rare that blasting is totally useless. Furthermore there are a lot of GMs out there that protect certain enemies from save or die effects. They just don't want to see a Baleful Polymorph put an end to an otherwise big and important fight. The effectiveness of a blaster mage goes up in the presence of that sort of GM (of course an overly effective blaster who kills things outright will just make the GM increase HP). It can also be nice to be able to just finish someone off with damage after your party has done most of the work.

What I'm getting at is that a sorcerer's spell list has room for one or two direct damage spells.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-11, 04:52 PM
Empowered Orb of Acid, at level 11 (CL 12--Create Magic Tattoo), does 16d6, or 56 points of damage on average. A young adult blue dragon has 189 HP; an 11-headed hydra, 118; a glabrezu, 174; a Hezrou, 138; a barbed devil, 126; an ice devil, 147 (and demons/devils have acid resistance); an elder earth elemental, 228;

Against humanoid enemies (which tend to have lower HP), this might be a better bet. A level 12, d6-HD enemy with 14 CON will only have 66 HP. Of course, with d10s that goes up to 90 (which does mean the party could drop them in one round). then again, humanoid enemies with low hit dice will have various defenses (mirror images, or higher touch AC, or etc).

Quirinus_Obsidian
2008-05-11, 05:01 PM
Primarily because, in the migration from 2nd edition to 3rd, melee damage was increased a lot, and correspondingly, hit points were increased a lot (both from monsters, as well as from PCs who now get full hit dice at levels 10 and up, as opposed to just one or two hit points). However, spell damage was not increased.

"Sure, your fireball might not kill the monster outright" - strike that, your fireball won't kill anything worth killing outright, because even at its maximum it only does an average of 35 points of damage. On the other hand, a save-or-lose spell will kill the monster outright.

Assuming a failed save, of course, but blasting spells are quite unremarkable on a succesful save (17.5 damage, woot).

What fireball are you looking at? the base level 5d6 fireball cast from a 5th level wizard? Umm, maxes out at 60 (10d6) dude, at the very least. While it is not as supercheesy as the Shock Trooping/Leap Attacking Lion Totem Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker, it is still a damn good spell for taking out the mooks. That can also be increased easily. Energy Admixture, Empower Spell, etc.

Besides, Evocation direct damage is weak to begin with. Give me Conjuration spells any day. Orbs of [energy] , Thunderlance, etc.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-11, 05:07 PM
What fireball are you looking at? the base level 5d6 fireball cast from a 5th level wizard? Umm, maxes out at 60 (10d6) dude, at the very least. While it is not as supercheesy as the Shock Trooping/Leap Attacking Lion Totem Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker, it is still a damn good spell for taking out the mooks. That can also be increased easily. Energy Admixture, Empower Spell, etc.

Besides, Evocation direct damage is weak to begin with. Give me Conjuration spells any day. Orbs of [energy] , Thunderlance, etc.10d6 is 35 damage, not 60. We compare averages, not a 1-in-10,077,696 chance.

MeklorIlavator
2008-05-11, 05:08 PM
He's looking at the average damage that the spell will do when its variable components are ate their maximum, as looking at the max damage is often misleading as you will more often do some amount that is between the max and min, thus the average. And those metamagic feats start burning spell levels fact(+4 for admixture, for example).

BRC
2008-05-11, 05:09 PM
What fireball are you looking at? the base level 5d6 fireball cast from a 5th level wizard? Umm, maxes out at 60 (10d6) dude, at the very least. While it is not as supercheesy as the Shock Trooping/Leap Attacking Lion Totem Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker, it is still a damn good spell for taking out the mooks. That can also be increased easily. Energy Admixture, Empower Spell, etc.

Besides, Evocation direct damage is weak to begin with. Give me Conjuration spells any day. Orbs of [energy] , Thunderlance, etc.
It should be noted that he said Averages at 30, not caps at 30.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-11, 05:12 PM
Blasters can actually be the most powerful wizards in the game, it just requires you abusing one of the more powerful PrC's and better Feats.

A maximized Orb of Fire at CL 15 is 90 damage. With Arcane Thesis, Invisible Spell, and being a 10th level Incantatrix (or the Easy Meta: Maximize feat) that still only takes a 4th level spell slot. Twin it and your at 180 damage.

If you can metamagic up your damage dealing spells to absurd levels and use Orbs (no save, no SR), preferably an Orb of Fire with Mastery of Elements High Arcana to make it into Sonic Damage, then blasting can be the best offensive action the wizard can take.

If you can't abuse meta then blasting sucks.

drengnikrafe
2008-05-11, 05:14 PM
10d6 is 35 damage, not 60. We compare averages, not a 1-in-10,077,696 chance.

I did that "woah" the other day. I was trying to write rules for how much damage from arrows of a volley should hit any given target, based upon the widespreadness of the arrows. Eventaully I gave it up, but before I did, I figured "Why not 10d10% of the damage for that square?" It led the question of... what's the chance you're only hit with 1/10 of the power? One in Ten Billion. That's quite the "Woah" moment.
Sorry about the off topic, I just had to tell the story.

Admiral Squish
2008-05-11, 05:20 PM
I know there's a lot of hate for blaster arcane casters, but actually, a psion can be pretty effective at it. No damage caps, choose your element with each cast, there's even a measure of save or suck in the kineticist path with energy missile [sonic] and equipment-heavy fellows. Still, there's better things you could be doing, but it doesn't completely suck.

quiet1mi
2008-05-11, 05:30 PM
The short answer is that save-or-X spells are generally better than direct damage spells of the same level. Comparing fireball to haste against a single target is a bit unfair, though, as fireball is specifically designed as a long-range spell against multiple targets. In that situation, it's not bad (though haste is still the better all-purpose choice).

But direct-damage spells aren't useless. In general, the effectiveness of direct damage spells is proportional to how low the monster's HP is. The higher your chance of one-shotting the thing, the better a damage spell becomes.

100% health: don't use damage, buff your allies or use a save-or-X.
50% health: it depends.
15% health: break out the damage spells, they'll either kill it or allow the next character to finish it off.
5% health: just magic missile the thing already.

Direct damage actually comes into its own at mid- and high-levels. Once you have access to metamagic and some of the really nice scaling damage spells, direct damage can easily one-shot an opponent who isn't prepared for it. You still don't want to rely on it, but it's a nice option to have.

- Saph

i completely agree with you there... but when you have the power to tell the laws of physics to sit down an shut up, i believe things like a ball of fire is a little underwhelming... that is just me anyway...

Jack_Simth
2008-05-11, 05:39 PM
I did that "woah" the other day. I was trying to write rules for how much damage from arrows of a volley should hit any given target, based upon the widespreadness of the arrows. Eventaully I gave it up, but before I did, I figured "Why not 10d10% of the damage for that square?" It led the question of... what's the chance you're only hit with 1/10 of the power? One in Ten Billion. That's quite the "Woah" moment.
Sorry about the off topic, I just had to tell the story.

Well, an individual arrow either hits, or it doesn't. You can calculate the probability of any given arrow hitting quite trivially. From there, you just use the "choose" function and use Succeed/Fail percentages to the appropriet power to figure the chance of any one number of arrows, then multiply from the result of nCr. E.g., if each individual arrow has a 25/75 chance of a hit/miss, and three arrows are going after the subject....



Row 0: 1
Row 1: 1,1
Row 2: 1,2,1
Row 3: 1,3,3,1
Row 4: 1,4,6,4,1
... and so on

The probability of no hits is (3C0)*(0.25^0)*(0.75^3) = 1*(0.25^0) * (0.75^3) = 1*1*0.421875=0.421875= 42.1875%
The probability of exactly one hit is (3C1)*(0.25^1)*(0.75^2) = 3*(0.25^1) * (0.75^2) =0.421875 = 42.1875%
The probability of exactly two hits is (3C2)*(0.25^2)*(0.75^1) = 3*(0.25^2)*(0.75^1) = 0.140625 = 14.0625%
The probability of exactly three hits is (3C3)*(0.25^3)*(0.75^0) = 1*(0.25^3)*(0.75^0) =0.015625 = 1.5625%
... and if I did that right, the probability of 0, 1, 2, or 3 hits should sum to 1: 0.421875 + 0.421875 + 0.140625 + 0.015625 = 1.000000.

You can do it with larger numbers, but for that, you'll want to use something with a proper Choose function and a few easily changed variables, rather than the quick table, above. But for that particular set of numbers, with three arrows, you really only expect to get a single hit in... and almost half the time, you won't even get that.

That's a bit too complex, though, so in general, when you're using absurd numbers of arrows, you'll want to do it statistically and just roll dice for the damage, not the attack rolls - if I'm firing 400 arrows, and they need a 19 or 20 to hit, and crit on a 20 only (needing a 19 or 20 to confirm), then of the 400 I fire, I can expect 40 to hit; 20 of those will be potential criticals, but only 2 will confirm. If I'm using a weapon with a x3 crit modifier, I need to roll weapon damage 44 times (40 times for the hits, twice extra for each confirmed crit).

The Rose Dragon
2008-05-11, 05:58 PM
Blasters are weak because lightsabers are where it's at, baby. :smallbiggrin:

Xuincherguixe
2008-05-11, 06:00 PM
As others have said, it's not so much that it's weak, it's that there are usually far better options.

While probably part of the game design was that you had to pick your spells carefully, a spell like fireball isn't going to be very useful in most situation. If you had a choice of what kind of energy damage you do when casting it, that'd go a long way, but then you get into a situation "why bother even having energy resistance?"

I bring that up because Psions are largely considered pretty good at blasting. This has less to do with throwing around large numbers of dice, but that for a lot of their powers they can choose what kind of energy damage they deal.

monty
2008-05-11, 06:00 PM
Well, an individual arrow either hits, or it doesn't. You can calculate the probability of any given arrow hitting quite trivially. From there, you just use the "choose" function and use Succeed/Fail percentages to the appropriet power to figure the chance of any one number of arrows, then multiply from the result of nCr. E.g., if each individual arrow has a 25/75 chance of a hit/miss, and three arrows are going after the subject....



Row 0: 1
Row 1: 1,1
Row 2: 1,2,1
Row 3: 1,3,3,1
Row 4: 1,4,6,4,1
... and so on

The probability of no hits is (3C0)*(0.25^0)*(0.75^3) = 1*(0.25^0) * (0.75^3) = 1*1*0.421875=0.421875= 42.1875%
The probability of exactly one hit is (3C1)*(0.25^1)*(0.75^2) = 3*(0.25^1) * (0.75^2) =0.421875 = 42.1875%
The probability of exactly two hits is (3C2)*(0.25^2)*(0.75^1) = 3*(0.25^2)*(0.75^1) = 0.140625 = 14.0625%
The probability of exactly three hits is (3C3)*(0.25^3)*(0.75^0) = 1*(0.25^3)*(0.75^0) =0.015625 = 1.5625%
... and if I did that right, the probability of 0, 1, 2, or 3 hits should sum to 1: 0.421875 + 0.421875 + 0.140625 + 0.015625 = 1.000000.

You can do it with larger numbers, but for that, you'll want to use something with a proper Choose function and a few easily changed variables, rather than the quick table, above. But for that particular set of numbers, with three arrows, you really only expect to get a single hit in... and almost half the time, you won't even get that.

That's a bit too complex, though, so in general, when you're using absurd numbers of arrows, you'll want to do it statistically and just roll dice for the damage, not the attack rolls - if I'm firing 400 arrows, and they need a 19 or 20 to hit, and crit on a 20 only (needing a 19 or 20 to confirm), then of the 400 I fire, I can expect 40 to hit; 20 of those will be potential criticals, but only 2 will confirm. If I'm using a weapon with a x3 crit modifier, I need to roll weapon damage 44 times (40 times for the hits, twice extra for each confirmed crit).

This makes my inner math geek happy (and my outer one, too).:smallbiggrin:

drengnikrafe
2008-05-11, 06:01 PM
Well, an individual arrow either hits, or it doesn't. You can calculate the probability of any given arrow hitting quite trivially. From there, you just use the "choose" function and use Succeed/Fail percentages to the appropriet power to figure the chance of any one number of arrows, then multiply from the result of nCr. E.g., if each individual arrow has a 25/75 chance of a hit/miss, and three arrows are going after the subject....



Row 0: 1
Row 1: 1,1
Row 2: 1,2,1
Row 3: 1,3,3,1
Row 4: 1,4,6,4,1
... and so on

The probability of no hits is (3C0)*(0.25^0)*(0.75^3) = 1*(0.25^0) * (0.75^3) = 1*1*0.421875=0.421875= 42.1875%
The probability of exactly one hit is (3C1)*(0.25^1)*(0.75^2) = 3*(0.25^1) * (0.75^2) =0.421875 = 42.1875%
The probability of exactly two hits is (3C2)*(0.25^2)*(0.75^1) = 3*(0.25^2)*(0.75^1) = 0.140625 = 14.0625%
The probability of exactly three hits is (3C3)*(0.25^3)*(0.75^0) = 1*(0.25^3)*(0.75^0) =0.015625 = 1.5625%
... and if I did that right, the probability of 0, 1, 2, or 3 hits should sum to 1: 0.421875 + 0.421875 + 0.140625 + 0.015625 = 1.000000.

You can do it with larger numbers, but for that, you'll want to use something with a proper Choose function and a few easily changed variables, rather than the quick table, above. But for that particular set of numbers, with three arrows, you really only expect to get a single hit in... and almost half the time, you won't even get that.

That's a bit too complex, though, so in general, when you're using absurd numbers of arrows, you'll want to do it statistically and just roll dice for the damage, not the attack rolls - if I'm firing 400 arrows, and they need a 19 or 20 to hit, and crit on a 20 only (needing a 19 or 20 to confirm), then of the 400 I fire, I can expect 40 to hit; 20 of those will be potential criticals, but only 2 will confirm. If I'm using a weapon with a x3 crit modifier, I need to roll weapon damage 44 times (40 times for the hits, twice extra for each confirmed crit).



*Gaping Mouth*

Thank you.
Oh, god, thank you so very much.

LibraryOgre
2008-05-11, 06:02 PM
Someone has mentioned some of the reasons, but the reason blaster-casting is comparatively weak has to do with the differences between AD&D and D20.

1) Hit points greatly increased, while spell damages did not. Constitution bonuses starting at 13, Constitution bonuses for monsters, increased hit die for many monsters; all of this eroded the value of direct damage spells.

2) Saving throws got harder to make. AD&D's saving throws became much more likely to succeed as one increased in level. There's still a good chance of failing a high-level saving throw, especially against a higher-level spell. This meant that in AD&D, many Save-or-Suck or Save-or-Lose spells would fall into the Save category; it wasn't guaranteed, but it was likely. D20 changed this, making the battlefield control spells and save or suck spells a lot more likely to succeed.

Those two reduced the effectiveness of the blaster caster, compared to the "Batman".

AslanCross
2008-05-11, 06:08 PM
The general consensus is that if you're going to be blasting at all, use Conjuration spells instead of Evocation. The orb spells offer no SR chance, (The difference is apparently because Evocation is an explosion of magical fire, while Conjuration magically creates nonmagical fire. :smallconfused: Okay, whatever.) use ranged touch attacks (far more likely to hit and deal full damage than a reflex save. Also, rolling the die yourself kind of adds a semblance of control to it), and offer status effects on the side. I think they also have a higher damage cap at 15d6, so they stay useful longer. (They're 4th level spells.)

Gralamin
2008-05-11, 06:10 PM
Well, an individual arrow either hits, or it doesn't. You can calculate the probability of any given arrow hitting quite trivially. From there, you just use the "choose" function and use Succeed/Fail percentages to the appropriet power to figure the chance of any one number of arrows, then multiply from the result of nCr. E.g., if each individual arrow has a 25/75 chance of a hit/miss, and three arrows are going after the subject....



Row 0: 1
Row 1: 1,1
Row 2: 1,2,1
Row 3: 1,3,3,1
Row 4: 1,4,6,4,1
... and so on

The probability of no hits is (3C0)*(0.25^0)*(0.75^3) = 1*(0.25^0) * (0.75^3) = 1*1*0.421875=0.421875= 42.1875%
The probability of exactly one hit is (3C1)*(0.25^1)*(0.75^2) = 3*(0.25^1) * (0.75^2) =0.421875 = 42.1875%
The probability of exactly two hits is (3C2)*(0.25^2)*(0.75^1) = 3*(0.25^2)*(0.75^1) = 0.140625 = 14.0625%
The probability of exactly three hits is (3C3)*(0.25^3)*(0.75^0) = 1*(0.25^3)*(0.75^0) =0.015625 = 1.5625%
... and if I did that right, the probability of 0, 1, 2, or 3 hits should sum to 1: 0.421875 + 0.421875 + 0.140625 + 0.015625 = 1.000000.

You can do it with larger numbers, but for that, you'll want to use something with a proper Choose function and a few easily changed variables, rather than the quick table, above. But for that particular set of numbers, with three arrows, you really only expect to get a single hit in... and almost half the time, you won't even get that.

That's a bit too complex, though, so in general, when you're using absurd numbers of arrows, you'll want to do it statistically and just roll dice for the damage, not the attack rolls - if I'm firing 400 arrows, and they need a 19 or 20 to hit, and crit on a 20 only (needing a 19 or 20 to confirm), then of the 400 I fire, I can expect 40 to hit; 20 of those will be potential criticals, but only 2 will confirm. If I'm using a weapon with a x3 crit modifier, I need to roll weapon damage 44 times (40 times for the hits, twice extra for each confirmed crit).

Well, thats the first time I've ever seen a use for permutations and combinations. And even Pascals triangle. Well done.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-11, 06:13 PM
This makes my inner math geek happy (and my outer one, too).:smallbiggrin:


*Gaping Mouth*

Thank you.
Oh, god, thank you so very much.

Ah, good - and here I was thinking the post would leave people confused, and would be nothing more than useless trivia to anyone reading it.

Glad to help.

Edit:

Well, thats the first time I've ever seen a use for permutations and combinations. And even Pascals triangle. Well done.
Thanks. Most of that stuff was actually developed because somebody had a use for it. I'm just using it for exactly what it's designed for - calculating aggregate probabilities.

SilentNight
2008-05-11, 06:17 PM
Just my 2cp. Yes blasters are not the most efficient or coolest casters. However, at CL 11, elemental darts from The Dragonlace campaign setting is an average of 134 damage per round. (To a single target.) Just cast one and then quicken the other cause it's a second level spell.

Also, this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72212) should be mentioned just to show how crazy blasting can be. Although it is pretty damn unwieldly.

holywhippet
2008-05-11, 06:24 PM
But direct-damage spells aren't useless. In general, the effectiveness of direct damage spells is proportional to how low the monster's HP is. The higher your chance of one-shotting the thing, the better a damage spell becomes.


Very true. In one game session our party (all level 4) were planning to attack a small fort being manned by goblins. Before we began the attack a local Baron who was negotiating with the goblins (and their barghest master) rode inside. We attacked the fort anyway, setting it ablaze with alchemists fire. The Baron tried to ride to safety but we hit his horse with a sleep spell (this surprised the DM as he'd not intended for us to fight him). He ran back and began smacking the crap out of us (he was a level 8 fighter with a magical sword). We might have been in trouble if my monk didn't score a critical hit during a flurry of blows. What took him down was magic missile from our sorcerer/ranger. The Baron was very low on hp at that point and it was just enough to take him down.

Mike_G
2008-05-11, 06:30 PM
They're not weak per se, just weak compared to other options.

Damage spells are pretty well balanced against what the other classes are contributing, and worked well in 1e and 2e when saves were easier to make,and HP were lower.

Look at Magic Missile compared to other first level spells. Low damage, but no save and always hits. That was balanced nicely against a Sleep spell in 1e, when the average goblin would drop from one MM, and may or may not make his save versus Spells, which was the same regardless of your Int or the spell level. Now, in 3.5, he won't drop from the MM, and given the fact that the caster can pump up the DC of the save, Sleep is far better, no question.

The average damage from MM was close to what a fighter of the same level could do in AD&D, before Power Attack, Shock Trooper, etc. Fireball was on par with, with the hurt a fifth level fighter could lay out, scaling upward, but hurt everyone in the area. The trade off of more damage a few times per day versus decent damage all day was nicely balanced.

Now that the Fighter's average damage is higher, the HP of the enemy are higher, and the Fireball still does 1d6 per level, it's not as good as Hasting the Fighter, in terms of raw HP damage, or of just Save or Lose-ing the enemy with Tasha's Hideous Laughter in a lower slot.

That said, blasting has its place. Wands are a nice way to do it to save your slots, and some seemingly weak spells like Magic Missile are better against incorporeal undead than most of the usual Win Button spells.

Plus, blowing stuff up is fun.

TheOOB
2008-05-11, 06:43 PM
Every class can do damage, and many of them can do a great deal of damage with little resource consumption (a fighter can power attack and a rogue can sneak attack all day for example). So why would you expend your class resources to do what anything class can do for free, especially when you can do something even more powerful with those resources that no other class can do.

monty
2008-05-11, 06:48 PM
Very true. In one game session our party (all level 4) were planning to attack a small fort being manned by goblins. Before we began the attack a local Baron who was negotiating with the goblins (and their barghest master) rode inside. We attacked the fort anyway, setting it ablaze with alchemists fire. The Baron tried to ride to safety but we hit his horse with a sleep spell (this surprised the DM as he'd not intended for us to fight him). He ran back and began smacking the crap out of us (he was a level 8 fighter with a magical sword). We might have been in trouble if my monk didn't score a critical hit during a flurry of blows. What took him down was magic missile from our sorcerer/ranger. The Baron was very low on hp at that point and it was just enough to take him down.

I once saw the party sorcerer take down the BBEG with a Ray of Frost. It was a long encounter (casters were almost out of spells), and he had dropped 2 of us at the beginning with lucky criticals, but we managed to get him down to 2 hp before the sorcerer hit him.

valadil
2008-05-11, 06:59 PM
Every class can do damage, and many of them can do a great deal of damage with little resource consumption (a fighter can power attack and a rogue can sneak attack all day for example). So why would you expend your class resources to do what anything class can do for free, especially when you can do something even more powerful with those resources that no other class can do.

Damage will eventually kill an enemy. If the rest of the party is dealing damage they will occasionally leave enemies in a state where half damage from a saved fireball will still kill an enemy. I mean, if an enemy is already down to 10% HP, do you really need a high level save or die spell when a magic missile will finish him off? Maybe you hit Finger of Death in the first and second round, but the rest of your party did what they do (damage) and you can finish someone off the same way for cheaper than a save or die effect.

Flickerdart
2008-05-11, 08:11 PM
For the same reason that the goddamn Batman can take on a bunch of guys with guns and win. Namely, shark-repellent spray.

But when you're dicing with Undead that are immune to most Save or Die/Suck/Whatever, a few shots with the trusty Fireball can go a long way.

On a note, I played a 10th level Generalist a while back. Save or Suck didn't really work for me...I dropped three Dominate Persons on the enemy guy and he made each save. Really, I got the most mileage from Wall of Ice in that campaign. I also Summoned a Celestial Badger into infinite nothingness, but that's another story.

Wizards do suck with blasting compared to, say, Sorcerers, who get more casts of the same Fireball and don't have to prepare their tricks. And when you don't have a pile of supplements, you make do.

Chronos
2008-05-11, 08:47 PM
The thing is, though, if the monster is so weakened that a Magic Missile or a Ray of Frost (or even a Fireball) will finish it off, then it's also so weakened that one more attack from the fighter will finish it off, too. So then you have to ask why you're bothering to use a spell on it at all.

Flickerdart
2008-05-11, 08:52 PM
Well, if there's a mob of Zombies coming at you, and the Fighter can't off one in a single hit to set up a chain for Great Cleave, one Fireball and a single Fighter attack knocks 'em all down. Without it, he'd be tangling with them, and then the party would have a field day healing him of the various diseases.

Riffington
2008-05-11, 08:54 PM
Also... Blasters are great when you face large numbers of foes. You can kill a lot of grunts with a fireball - and what you don't kill is now much easier for your team-mates to finish.

But the problem: many DMs have the climactic fight as "PCs vs one BBEG." If your DM's idea of a "boss fight" is that, blasters are at a comparative disadvantage. But if the climactic fights tend to be "You are outnumbered", then blast away :)

Oops ninja'd. But to Chronos: well, you finish it off *and* start the pain on a bunch of others.

Flickerdart
2008-05-11, 08:57 PM
The BBEG is going to be a spellcaster of some sort, which means you're going to suck with any Will-save spells. Finger of Death is what, 7th level? Until then, it's Fireballs or Orbs.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-11, 08:58 PM
If you have fun slinging Empowered Admixtured Fireballs (20d6+50%, average 105 damage)... then by all means, do it. However, the real "jewel" of spellcasting isn't even the save or suck spells... its the utility spells that make everyone better.

In my gaming groups, we've gotten a ton of use out of Mass Fire Shield (so much so that our dm cursed our names after we cast it when 4 fiendish girallons showed up)... Things that enhance everyone have an overall greater benefit... not just buffs...

My personal motto: Solid Fog Ends Fights.

MeklorIlavator
2008-05-11, 09:00 PM
Or rays(Enfeeblement, etc). Or buffs(Haste, etc). Or Dispel Magic. Or non-save based spells(solid fog, etc).

Reel On, Love
2008-05-11, 09:02 PM
The BBEG is going to be a spellcaster of some sort, which means you're going to suck with any Will-save spells. Finger of Death is what, 7th level? Until then, it's Fireballs or Orbs.

Baleful Polymorph is 5th.
Stinking Cloud--a nauseated-for-multiple-rounds BBEG is a dead BBEG--is third.

Flickerdart
2008-05-11, 09:02 PM
Hey, you can stand around after you buff while the glass cannon and big stupid fighter do everything for you if that's your idea of fun. Me, I would rather burn the BBEG to shreds...and don't ask me how.

Utility is nice, but being party horse is also not an enviable role.

Edit: As for Stinking Cloud, the BBEG probably has Gust of Wind or something. Plus the melee guys need to close in somehow, too.

Chronos
2008-05-11, 09:09 PM
Also... Blasters are great when you face large numbers of foes. You can kill a lot of grunts with a fireball - and what you don't kill is now much easier for your team-mates to finish.And you can finish off just as many with a Stinking Cloud or a Web, and nearly as many with a Widened Color Spray. That covers all three saves, so you can pick whichever one is most likely to work, and two of those even use a lower level slot that Fireball. And even if you're going to be blasting, Fireball is almost never your best choice, nor is an arcane caster: A Wall of Fire is only one level higher, and affects a much larger area (or the same level as Fireball, and with selectable energy type, if you're playing a psion), and at 5th level spells, druids get Control Air, which affects thousands of times more enemies than a Fireball does, and does both damage and save-or-suck.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-11, 09:11 PM
Enervation. The best of both worlds, really, you blast, but with something useful.

And if you want a BBEG to compete alone at high levels, the best thing I've found is giving the BBEG a ring that grants a Spell turning that regenerates every 1d3+1 rounds and self destructs upon death or being disabled. Works wonders, since it makes the Batmen spend a few slots on dispel magics instead of one shotting the BBEG.

Aquillion
2008-05-11, 09:13 PM
The BBEG is going to be a spellcaster of some sort, which means you're going to suck with any Will-save spells. Finger of Death is what, 7th level? Until then, it's Fireballs or Orbs.
Or dispel/greater dispel magic. Or Black Tentacles. Or Resilient Sphere. Or Enervation. Or Dismissal. Or Feeblemind (-4 penalty to the save.) Or Antimagic Field. Or Disintegrate. Or Touch of Idiocy (with some way to extend your reach).

Any of those things will be vastly more effective than fireballs and orbs, either by negating the BBEG's abilities (so your fighter can walk up to them and do actual damage) or by crippling / shutting them down completely.


And if you want a BBEG to compete alone at high levels, the best thing I've found is giving the BBEG a ring that grants a Spell turning that regenerates every 1d3+1 rounds and self destructs upon death or being disabled. Works wonders, since it makes the Batmen spend a few slots on dispel magics instead of one shotting the BBEG.Why would anyone in their right mind make a ring that explodes when hit by a dispel magic? Turning a temporary disabling effect into a permanent one seems like a terrible design feature to me.

(Yes, I know why you,, as the DM did it -- because you don't want your toy to fall into the hands of the PC. But it seems like a rather heavy-handed way to go about it, and it makes no logical sense. Why would the BBEG care if you get his ring off his cold dead body? He's dead. He'd be more interested in ensuring that if he does survive a fight in which it's dispelled, it is still there afterwards and hasn't randomly self-destructed. In fact, even if he dies he probably doesn't want it self-destructing, because he can always get resurrected and get it back.)

Devils_Advocate
2008-05-11, 09:13 PM
I know there's a lot of hate for blaster arcane casters, but actually, a psion can be pretty effective at it. No damage caps, choose your element with each cast, there's even a measure of save or suck in the kineticist path with energy missile [sonic] and equipment-heavy fellows. Still, there's better things you could be doing, but it doesn't completely suck.
A psionicist's damage output is capped by his manifester level.

I think the consensus on psions is that they can be powerful blasters by burning through their PP way faster than sorcerers use up spell slots. Basically, it's one of those things that works great so long as nothing's preventing the group from hiding in a rope trick whenever they want.

MeklorIlavator
2008-05-11, 09:16 PM
I think he meant no caps like the 10d6 limit on fireball, which doesn't really make that much sense from an in game perspective.

Aquillion
2008-05-11, 09:21 PM
A psionicist's damage output is capped by his manifester level.

I think the consensus on psions is that they can be powerful blasters by burning through their PP way faster than sorcerers use up spell slots. Basically, it's one of those things that works great so long as nothing's preventing the group from hiding in a rope trick whenever they want.Psions also get to get every element for free from one power. Wizard blasting, already weak, is crippled further by the fact that you have to either waste a feat or something similar on getting a way to change your spell's elements (an entire feat or an equivilent just so you can use underpowered blasting spells when the alternative is free? No.), or waste multiple spell slots on getting many different elemental spells, some of which are going to be useless even in the limited number of situations where blasting is a good idea. Plus, as noted, sorc/wiz blasty spells typically have nasty caps while psion ones keep scaling forever... another reason why you need to grab so many spells.

Blasting is a good idea for a psion to pick up just because it's so easy -- you grab one power and you're done; every other power you get can go into something else, and you still have decent blasting when you want it. If Scorching Ray scaled into every element and upwards into every level, blasting would be a decent option for a Sorcerer to put in their arsenal, too. But when you're talking about wasting a significant percentage of their spell slots and possibly a feat or two on it, it becomes a much, much less attractive option.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-11, 09:23 PM
And when that fails, you can always errataed Ego Whip for something like 5d4 CHA damage. Eat your heart out, shivering touch.

valadil
2008-05-11, 10:53 PM
The thing is, though, if the monster is so weakened that a Magic Missile or a Ray of Frost (or even a Fireball) will finish it off, then it's also so weakened that one more attack from the fighter will finish it off, too. So then you have to ask why you're bothering to use a spell on it at all.

A weakened enemy still hits at full strength. If your MM finishes off an enemy before he gets a chance to use his turn, I'd say that's worth a first level spell slot. A webbed or stinking clouded enemy is another story and I'd gladly wait for the fighters in those cases, but there are enough enemies that don't breath and enough enemies that have freedom of movement, that I still like to carry some direct damage just in case (my fav damage spell at the moment being PHB2's Melf's Unicorn Arrow).

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-11, 10:56 PM
Edit: As for Stinking Cloud, the BBEG probably has Gust of Wind or something. Plus the melee guys need to close in somehow, too.

Except he can't actually cast Gust of Wind, or any other spells, because he is Nauseated. Yeah, Stinking Cloud is better then Fireball. What else is new.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-11, 11:06 PM
Except he can't actually cast Gust of Wind, or any other spells, because he is Nauseated. Yeah, Stinking Cloud is better then Fireball. What else is new.Combine it with a Web for real fun.

And if you know a Magic Missile will be enough to kill him(how do you know), it's still a waste of a slot, as usually someone else will act after you but before the enemy to kill him, and even if they don't, just Ray of Enfeeblement them. Or Grease their weapon. Either will render them weak enough to not be a threat no matter their HP. Why would you have MM prepared?

TheOOB
2008-05-11, 11:15 PM
Damage will eventually kill an enemy. If the rest of the party is dealing damage they will occasionally leave enemies in a state where half damage from a saved fireball will still kill an enemy. I mean, if an enemy is already down to 10% HP, do you really need a high level save or die spell when a magic missile will finish him off? Maybe you hit Finger of Death in the first and second round, but the rest of your party did what they do (damage) and you can finish someone off the same way for cheaper than a save or die effect.

Yes, but most monsters in 3e have a proportionally large amount of HD(and thus HP) for their CR, meaning that it takes a good deal of damage (read multiple hits) to kill them even with your highest level abilities, and it's just not efficient to be doing those large sums of damage when the fighter can do it just as well for free. Sure you can snipe an enemy who is close to death with damage, and often thats even a good idea, but usually a rogue can do that just as well. A good group brings an arcane caster along to control groups of enemies and weaken/disable the powerful ones, and that is usually the best way you can help your group. If you want to blast people play a duskblade, not a wizard.

AmberVael
2008-05-11, 11:28 PM
Blasters are weak because people point to the fact that Save/Suck spells take someone out if they work once, and don't factor in immunities, high saves, lucky dice, and general lack of usefulness that save or lose spells will actually encounter in any given game- not to mention how they often lack versatility and thus you have to prepare a great variety of them, taking up your precious spell slots.

Blasters are weak because people focus on how buffing, in the end, can deal more damage in a specific situation which comes up more infrequently. Don't forget that the longer you spend buffing in combat, the less useful it will actually become, but of course that won't matter at all to someone who ignores it.

Blasters are weak because there is no perception of optimization around them- no one has pointed out good ways to make them effective, and how they can use their talents in combination with their peers and their other skills to more devastating effects. No one has shown how blasting- while not as effective as a successful save or die spell, works far more consistently when used correctly.

Essentially, blasters are not nearly as weak as people would like to claim, because they overestimate the other spells of a wizard and the sheer complexity in trying to use them all correctly and balance it with still being effective.
Now, I'll wait for everyone to rail at me and tell me how I'm wrong and "educate and enlighten" me.

Frosty
2008-05-11, 11:31 PM
Blasters can be optimized. I've done it.

What is the truth is that Unoptimized blaster < unoptimized save-or-die wizard.

Save or sucks are just better out of the box.

Highly cheesy-optimized blasters > highly-optimized save-or-die wizard in terms of killing enemies.

That suck, both highly-optimied wizards will be complete overkill anyways.

Rutee
2008-05-11, 11:32 PM
Blasters are weak because people point to the fact that Save/Suck spells take someone out if they work once, and don't factor in immunities, high saves, lucky dice, and general lack of usefulness that save or lose spells will actually encounter in any given game

Not to rail, but does htat last bit refer to the fact that many sensible GMs will say "Oh hell no; You're fighting the Big Bad, not Crowd Controlling him, period"?

monty
2008-05-11, 11:33 PM
Yeah, after a point, does it really matter if you're using no-save-and-lose spells on everything in sight or just doing 500 damage a round to everything in sight?

Frosty
2008-05-11, 11:34 PM
Yeah, after a point, does it really matter if you're using no-save-and-lose spells on everything in sight or just doing 500 damage a round to everything in sight?

The distinction comes in when the wizard is unoptimized, and hence he is only doing 35 damage a round to everything in sight.

AmberVael
2008-05-11, 11:36 PM
Not to rail, but does htat last bit refer to the fact that many sensible GMs will say "Oh hell no; You're fighting the Big Bad, not Crowd Controlling him, period"?
I don't refer to anything specific, but I suppose that could be one minor case.
Though I think that's a rather silly complaint on the DM's part. If crowd control spells ARE more effective in disabling the big bad so you can have the fighter plunge a sword in his throat, I don't see why he should be griping. :smalltongue:

monty
2008-05-11, 11:36 PM
The distinction comes in when the wizard is unoptimized, and hence he is only doing 35 damage a round to everything in sight.

"after a point"

When you get into heavy optimization, everything kills everything else in one round, so does it really matter what strategy you use?

Frosty
2008-05-11, 11:39 PM
Well, after a point, Blasting becomes better, to be honest. I mean, things can be immune to a lot of Save or Dies, but very, VERY few things actually become immune to damage. So, if you heavily optimize blasting, it becomes more deadly than save or dies.

Rutee
2008-05-11, 11:39 PM
I don't refer to anything specific, but I suppose that could be one minor case.
Though I think that's a rather silly complaint on the DM's part. If crowd control spells ARE more effective in disabling the big bad so you can have the fighter plunge a sword in his throat, I don't see why he should be griping. :smalltongue:
It's not dramatic for the fight to be that easy :P

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-11, 11:41 PM
Now, I'll wait for everyone to rail at me and tell me how I'm wrong and "educate and enlighten" me.Gladly.
Blasters are weak because people point to the fact that Save/Suck spells take someone out if they work onceExactly.
and don't factor in immunitiesignored by the simple expedient of using your slots on variety.
high savesSee above, or just choose no-save spells.
lucky diceI deal in statistics, not luck. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go get my dicce out of the freezer. They've been punished enough.
and general lack of usefulness that save or lose spells will actually encounter in any given gameWrong.
not to mention how they often lack versatility and thus you have to prepare a great variety of them, taking up your precious spell slots.Ray of Enfeeblement. Kill them while they climb out of their armor so they can move.
Blasters are weak because people focus on how buffing, in the end, can deal more damage in a specific situation which comes up more infrequently. Don't forget that the longer you spend buffing in combat, the less useful it will actually become, but of course that won't matter at all to someone who ignores it.Buff the first round, maybe 2, and SoL the rest. Haste deals damage equal to a fireball every round until the end of combat. That's still more effective 2 rounds from the end.
Blasters are weak because there is no perception of optimization around them- no one has pointed out good ways to make them effective, and how they can use their talents in combination with their peers and their other skills to more devastating effects.Cindy, one of the strongest Wizards on these boards, is a Blaster, but her primary strength is still her buffs.
No one has shown how blasting- while not as effective as a successful save or die spell, works far more consistently when used correctly.More consistant than summoning a bear to eat their face, or just, you know, playing a Fighter? The class designed to do damage all day long? Yeah.
Essentially, blasters are not nearly as weak as people would like to claim, because they overestimate the other spells of a wizard and the sheer complexity in trying to use them all correctly and balance it with still being effective.Trust me, it takes no planning or skill whatsoever to know to drop a Black Tentacles when you get hit with a swarm of mooks. Or to use a Fort save on the Wizard and a Will save on the Fighter. Try Batman sometimes, he's a lot more effective.

LibraryOgre
2008-05-11, 11:45 PM
I deal in statistics, not luck. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go get my dice out of the freezer. They've been punished enough.

"The dice have no memory. You've got to earn your luck again every morning." - Mike Havel, in S.M. Stirling's Dies The Fire

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-11, 11:46 PM
As I have already said, blasters are the most powerful wizards (at least offensively) if properly optimized. They are flat out better than save or X wizards in the end game. But this is an extreme example, in regular play the Save or X wizard will be offensively better.

But at the point where blasting takes the lead its just effectively a no save, just suck spell.

AmberVael
2008-05-11, 11:47 PM
Try Batman sometimes, he's a lot more effective.
I have. Repeatedly.
I must say, I'm not impressed at all.

TempusCCK
2008-05-11, 11:47 PM
I have to agree with Vael a little on this, there does seem to be some sort of Aura of Snootiness surounding the use of Save or whatever spells. I think this comes from the fact that the wizard is archetypically the "Blaster" and people like to move beyond stereotypes and defined boundaries. When people do such a thing, it's very easy to fall into the trap of thinking yourself much better for doing so.

My example for this- People b**** and moan about how sneak attack is poor because it doesn't effect constructs, oozes, or undead....

I never hear a single complaint about Save or X spells that target fortitude.

Then again, there are spells that will be effective against Constructs Oozes and undead, and are readily available to the Wizard. The Rogue, on the other hand, also has those options, but lacks the spellpower to get them.

Then then again, there are other work arounds to the Save or X spells. It's really all circumstantial, as are most things. If the Rogue has Gravestrike, then he's alright, if the Wizard has Disintegrate prepared, he's alright too.

The point of course, being, Sneak attack is archetypical, so people think less of it than the break-the-mold caster who took Finger of Death (Fort save, right?) Even though there's no real difference between the two. They both have work arounds.

Talic
2008-05-11, 11:54 PM
I think the biggest misconception with blasting is that there IS a difference between a bully spell and a precision blast.

Bully spells, such as Fireball, have a fundamental weakness. The damage they do is rarely precise enough to avoid allies without work, and is usually not enough to be worth the action you're spending on it. If an enemy is weak enough to consider a Fireball a serious threat, then the enemy can be likely be dealt with just as effectively in other ways.

A good blast spell will directly harm targets, precisely. You give up too much damage potential with most AoE. So, you go with spells that allow better targeting, and optimize their use, and you can achieve roughly the same amount of damage at range as most melee types will get on a charge. Now, you've become, more or less, a different type of damage for the party. Another way to bypass resistances and DR. This will never change the fact that, typically, an effect that stops an enemy is better than an effect that hurts an enemy, but it can increase your chances of stopping an enemy via HP damage.

Talic
2008-05-11, 11:57 PM
My example for this- People b**** and moan about how sneak attack is poor because it doesn't effect constructs, oozes, or undead....

I never hear a single complaint about Save or X spells that target fortitude.


There is a reason for this. The sneak attack is the primary combat feature of the rogue.

The save or x spell that targets fort is one small aspect of the wizard's combat feature. Typically, there are other spells that are highly effective against undead. The issue is having the right spell for the right job.

Aquillion
2008-05-12, 12:00 AM
Well, after a point, Blasting becomes better, to be honest. I mean, things can be immune to a lot of Save or Dies, but very, VERY few things actually become immune to damage. So, if you heavily optimize blasting, it becomes more deadly than save or dies.The difference is that to be good at blasting, you have to base your entire character around it (generally we're talking multiple feats at the very least, and usually most of your character progression will go into classes intended to provide metamagic reduction.) And you tend to need the most broken classes and forms of reduction, too.

Yeah, for a character using all the most broken forms of metamagic cost reduction, blasting can be effective, although at that point it's more because metamagic cost reduction has let you 'fake' a spell dozens of levels above what it should be, and damage is just the most direct way to apply that absurd increase in power to your target.

But. Even then, it isn't optimal. If you're playing a game at that level of power, your ubercharging fighter can do a roughly similar level of damage once they have a straight line to the enemy, too. If you're fighting anything even remotely challenging at that level of power, it's going to be because the DM is going to be throwing completely new and strange challenges at you in every fight, not just targets you can lock your ubercharger and obscene metamagic orb of XYZ at and call it a day.

Comparing save-or-die to blasting is taking the wrong track, because that isn't what we're really comparing to blasting. Being batman is what really beats blasting -- being a wizard with a bag of tricks who uses versitile spells that they can pull out against almost any situation. Your Obscene Metamagic Orb of XYZ (henceforth abbreviated as OMOoXYZ) isn't what saves you when you get put in a Forcecage, or if a wall of some sort is created in your path, or if the enemy surrounds themselves with a prismatic sphere, or teleports away, or anything like that. And once you've negated those problems, anyone can do the actual killing work, even the fighter.

The wizard's job isn't to do damage or to save-or-die or anything like that (though those can help.) The wizard's real job is to be the 'handyman' -- they get the most broad bag of tricks out of anyone in the game, and their job is to make sure they select their spells carefully and intelligently enough to get the party out of all the situations that the rest of the party can't handle. If you're constantly reduced to ending encounters on your own -- whether through damage or finger of death -- you're not in the "arcanist" role as we usually describe it; you're a refluffed archer who uses the word 'spells' instead of 'arrows'.

Solo
2008-05-12, 12:06 AM
There is a reason for this. The sneak attack is the primary combat feature of the rogue.

The save or x spell that targets fort is one small aspect of the wizard's combat feature. Typically, there are other spells that are highly effective against undead. The issue is having the right spell for the right job.

A good fort based Save or X spell that targets undead would be Disintegrate

TempusCCK
2008-05-12, 12:11 AM
There is a reason for this. The sneak attack is the primary combat feature of the rogue.

The save or x spell that targets fort is one small aspect of the wizard's combat feature. Typically, there are other spells that are highly effective against undead. The issue is having the right spell for the right job.

Which is very true, however, the rogue merely needs the right equipment for the job. I happen to think that WBL should be extended for non-spellcasting players, just thrown into play under a less than 'THIS IS A BALANCE MEASURE!" facade.

That way, the Rogue can afford the Dagger of Gravestrike.... and all the other things he needs.

Frosty
2008-05-12, 12:16 AM
Which is very true, however, the rogue merely needs the right equipment for the job. I happen to think that WBL should be extended for non-spellcasting players, just thrown into play under a less than 'THIS IS A BALANCE MEASURE!" facade.

That way, the Rogue can afford the Dagger of Gravestrike.... and all the other things he needs.

As a DM, I tend to give Fighter-types 125% WBL already.

Talic
2008-05-12, 12:18 AM
The wizard's job isn't to do damage or to save-or-die or anything like that (though those can help.) The wizard's real job is to be the 'handyman' -- they get the most broad bag of tricks out of anyone in the game, and their job is to make sure they select their spells carefully and intelligently enough to get the party out of all the situations that the rest of the party can't handle. If you're constantly reduced to ending encounters on your own -- whether through damage or finger of death -- you're not in the "arcanist" role as we usually describe it; you're a refluffed archer who uses the word 'spells' instead of 'arrows'.

To which I counter, if the adventure is such that the bulk of the wizard's spells need to be doing the things that nobody else can do...

Then there's too many things nobody else can do. That outlook trivializes the other members of the party even more than wizards did when they printed the "Magic" section of the PHB.

Frosty
2008-05-12, 12:21 AM
But really, there's just too many things spellcasters can do that non-casters can't, especially out of combat. I guess you can TRY to use Knowledge (engineering) to build a device of Teleportation or something, or try to advance science enough to be able to devleop Stimpacks.

In order for non-magic to fill a lotof the roles, you need enough technology.

Talic
2008-05-12, 12:27 AM
To which I say, the primary difference between a 10 minute teleport and a 2 month trip is 80,630 minutes.

Time. The way for a fighter to duplicate Teleport in most instances? Walk.

Yeah, it takes longer, but it gets the job done.

Rutee
2008-05-12, 12:38 AM
In order for non-magic to fill a lotof the roles, you need enough technology.

Nah, just suspend the laws of physics for everyone.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-12, 01:28 AM
Let's please not turn this into a "Why can't non-casters get nice things?" thread.

Vael. In all honestly you missed the point of real Wizard guides. Yes people talk alot about save-or-X spells. Because they can be pretty freakin awesome. But those aren't the only or even best part about being a Wizard.

The fact is that if you take away Arcane Thesis and Incantatrix blasters become pretty bad. You can't actually build a blaster that compares to a well done Fighter in damage, much less a Rogue.

Blasting is highly undervalued on this board, but there is a reason, and that is that a Blaster Mage fits the role of the Fighter. He must optimized considerably more then the Batman Wizard to be comparable. The fact that Blasting has a higher threshold thanks to Arcane Thesis, the Chaos Shuffle, and Incantartix is nice, but not all that important when you compare a Wizard that casts Fireball to a Wizard that casts Stinking Cloud. One of those does 17.5 or 35 damage to each affected party. The other takes at least half your enemies out of the fight, period.

Yes at high levels, blasters can start to look good. But when Batman lays down a Black Tentacles on the opposing forces or uses Stun Ray on the Dragon, that's called winning.

Things like Spirit Wall/Wall of Stone/Black Tentacles/Solid Fog/Acid Fog/Stinking Cloud/Orb of Fire (because of the daze+damage)/Fleshshiver/Disintegrate/Rays up to wazoo/Avasculate/ect.
are really really good.

And you talk about immunities, or high saves, but if you are a blaster many things are going to be immune to what you are blasting with. That might only mean half damage, but that even further focuses on the point that you have to build your whole character around doing one thing to be an optimized blaster, and while in the absolute best of situations that one thing does 400 damage to most things, 300 damage to things immune to Cold (or Fire or whatever), 350 damage to Undead, and 250 damage to undead immune to your element of choice, that's the best case, more often you be doing a lot less damage then that to anyone, much less the worst case scenario.

It's very easy to prepare a spell set up that never leaves you wanting as Batman. But without incredible levels of Cheese and optimization, a blaster is going to have a very tough time against a whole subset of creatures, not to mention your limited effectiveness the rest of the time.

CockroachTeaParty
2008-05-12, 01:29 AM
I recognize the power and utility of batman wizards, but I also enjoy a good blasting every now and again. I came across an interesting solution to my conundrum. While it would probably be better to just play a straight generalist wizard, in a campaign that just recently started I'm playing an Ultimate Magus from Complete Mage as a wizard / warmage.

My warmage levels are way behind my wizard ones, but the warmage spell list gives me access to just about any elemental energy I might need, and if I run out of wizard spells (or my wizard spells are of little use), then I can blast away. It's a lot of fun, and the INT synergy with Warmage edge is great.

We recently fought a hydra. I hit it with a ray of enfeeblement, then blinded it with glitterdust. My duty as Batman was accomplished: the rest of the fight I sealed the severed head stumps with acid splashes: 1d3+3 acid damage was just enough to seal a stump on a good roll. Good times were had by all.

Sure, I would have access to better buffs and save-or-sucks if I went straight wizard, but between myself and the party druid we've got things pretty much on lock-down. Plus, a wizard with a military background is pretty hardcore, compared to the stereotypical bookish mage.

Aquillion
2008-05-12, 04:28 AM
To which I counter, if the adventure is such that the bulk of the wizard's spells need to be doing the things that nobody else can do...

Then there's too many things nobody else can do. That outlook trivializes the other members of the party even more than wizards did when they printed the "Magic" section of the PHB.But... that's the way the game is set up. You can't really argue with that; you mentioned the PHB yourself. Go look at it.

To be clear, everyone (or at least every archtypical party role) is supposed to have things that nobody else can do. It's just that the non-arcanist roles get, to some degree or another, progressively smaller and smaller as the arcanist role widens. A DM who is determine to fight this by handing out magic items and giving more WBL and all that rot can fix this, yes, but that defeats the point of the discussion... when you have an OberoniDM like that, nobody's going to be weaker or less useful than anyone else.

That's probably the best of all possible worlds, but it's still important to discuss how things work using the basic rules so that new (and even more experienced) DMs know what problems they have to look out for.


To which I say, the primary difference between a 10 minute teleport and a 2 month trip is 80,630 minutes.

Time. The way for a fighter to duplicate Teleport in most instances? Walk.

Yeah, it takes longer, but it gets the job done.No it doesn't. First, to be clear here: It's a 6-second teleport, not a 10-minute teleport. Greater Teleport is one standard action. Walking is 806,300 rounds, twice that if you want to go back.

Let's say we're in the middle of combat, and someone in the party suddenly realizes that to win this fight we need an item that we accidently left, oh, I don't know, anywhere in the entire world.

Wizard: "Gotcha. Be back next round."
Fighter: "Uh... can you hold out for about another million and a half rounds?"

Other things the arcanist can do: Create walls and other obstructions instantly, even with almost nothing to work with. Likewise, create openings in walls and other obstructions instantly, digging large pits or holes into almost any substance the middle of a fight. Create illusions necessary to convince anyone of anything (no save if they don't interact with it!) Grant or counter the advantages of invisibility and flight. Instantly escape from almost any situation. Generate disposable minions on a whim. Stop time and do all of the above at once.

That barely scratches the surface, and doesn't even go into the particularly broken spells (I didn't include "summon and control creatures twice his level" or "perfectly copy the abilities of nearly any creature up to 25 HD", say.) Those are all using basic spells that almost every arcanist is going to have available once they reach the right level, at least one in each category.

You can do this with UMD, too, but UMD is basically a way for skill-monkey types to double as arcanists in a pinch (I think WotC wanted them have a "bag of tricks" role, too. It sort of works.)

You don't have to play all your wizards like this. I've noticed some people defensively saying "But I like blasting!" Nothing wrong with that. Like I said earlier, it's like being a refluffed archer -- they don't compare that badly to other archers, and if you use a really broken build you can dish out damage.

But when people talk about the "caster problem" in terms of balance, what they're really talking about is the arcanist role I described above (which really covers all full-casters, including divine ones.) Blasters are overshadowed by that "arcanist role" because, well, everyone ends up getting overshadowed by that arcanist role. A wizard who has Greater Teleport prepared twice can grab anything anywhere in the world and be back within twelve seconds. That's kind of hard to beat using nothing but d6s.

Talic
2008-05-12, 05:22 AM
But... that's the way the game is set up. You can't really argue with that; you mentioned the PHB yourself. Go look at it.I have. I can read quite well. I've also memorized about 95% of it. I know that wizards are capable of a lot more than non-casters. The encounters and challenges that a DM provides, however, should be designed with the entire party in mind, not just the wizard. That has nothing to do with Oberoni fallacy, as RAW doesn't support NOT doing this. This isn't the hallmark of a perfect DM, it's a feature that any COMPETENT DM will do. RAW doesn't support random encounters, though it provides for them. RAW doesn't support building campaigns and CR's so that the rogue, fighter, and cleric can't do anything.

To be clear, everyone (or at least every archtypical party role) is supposed to have things that nobody else can do. It's just that the non-arcanist roles get, to some degree or another, progressively smaller and smaller as the arcanist role widens. A DM who is determine to fight this by handing out magic items and giving more WBL and all that rot can fix this, yes, but that defeats the point of the discussion... when you have an OberoniDM like that, nobody's going to be weaker or less useful than anyone else.It's not that other classes can do less as levels progress, it's that the wizard can do more by comparison. It goes from the Wizard doing the things the others can't, to doing that stuff, and some of the things the other classes can do also. Nobody's arguing that Wizard isn't stronger than other classes. I've never, in my entire D&D life, insinuated that in any way...

Which brings the question, why are you arguing your point as if someone's disagreeing with you?
That's probably the best of all possible worlds, but it's still important to discuss how things work using the basic rules so that new (and even more experienced) DMs know what problems they have to look out for.And the basic rules don't address how a DM should build a campaign, or how he/she should tailor encounters. If the DM is building them so that other classes can't perform what they're supposed to do, then it's not RAW failing. It's the DM.
No it doesn't. First, to be clear here: It's a 6-second teleport, not a 10-minute teleport. Greater Teleport is one standard action. Walking is 806,300 rounds, twice that if you want to go back.Sorry, I was a few rounds over on cast time. Again, agreed, Teleport has combat applications. However, for the majority of uses of teleport, it's a convenience spell for transport. Walking accomplishes the same thing, in greater time.

Let's say we're in the middle of combat, and someone in the party suddenly realizes that to win this fight we need an item that we accidently left, oh, I don't know, anywhere in the entire world.

Wizard: "Gotcha. Be back next round."
Fighter: "Uh... can you hold out for about another million and a half rounds?"Great job trying to make others look foolish by oversimplistic example. Yes, point conceded. Teleport has possible combat applications. Still, the example you brought up is so incredibly situational as to be practically impossible. Let's take an example, where a party that includes a cleric and a wizard is on a power level capable of casting Greater Teleport, and now, let's try to engineer a CR-appropriate encounter where the only possible way to overcome it is to go to location x, halfway around the world, and get item y, which is conveniently easy enough to get that the wizard won't take more than a round grabbing it.

Other things the arcanist can do: Create walls and other obstructions instantly, even with almost nothing to work with. Likewise, create openings in walls and other obstructions instantly, digging large pits or holes into almost any substance the middle of a fight. Create illusions necessary to convince anyone of anything (no save if they don't interact with it!) Grant or counter the advantages of invisibility and flight. Instantly escape from almost any situation. Generate disposable minions on a whim. Stop time and do all of the above at once.Again, nobody has denied wizards can do many many things that other players cannot. That has never been disputed here, or anywhere else, by me. So, please, PLEASE, stop trying to teach remedial wizarding to alumni.

What IS the issue, is creating a wall is not the end. It's a means. Creating a pit is a means also. It's a method to accomplishing a goal. Thus, the wizard can, in a round, time stop, set up a forcecage and a cloudkill around the outsider, and then drop a dimensional anchor.

A frenzied berzerker barbarian can charge it, and kill it in one pouncing charge.

In both situations, the goal was accomplished. The wizard did many things the barbarian couldn't DREAM of doing. However, in the end, that was a means to an end. And the barbarian accomplished the same end. This is an example of how the wizard's method of problem solving isn't the ONLY method available.
That barely scratches the surface, and doesn't even go into the particularly broken spells (I didn't include "summon and control creatures twice his level" or "perfectly copy the abilities of nearly any creature up to 25 HD", say.) Those are all using basic spells that almost every arcanist is going to have available once they reach the right level, at least one in each category.Sigh. You really seem to be beating a dead horse on this one. If the end result is "Dead monster", then the wizard can drop 17 epic spells of power, instantly obliterating all memory of the creature's existence, along with it's life, soul, and body.

The fighter can bring it to -10 with a sharp stick.

Guess what? Both examples get the same XP for overcoming the challenge. Yes, the wizard can do more. Guess what? If the fighter doesn't get to do anything, then the DM isn't doing the job outlined for him in the DMG.

You can do this with UMD, too, but UMD is basically a way for skill-monkey types to double as arcanists in a pinch (I think WotC wanted them have a "bag of tricks" role, too. It sort of works.)No disagreements.

You don't have to play all your wizards like this. I've noticed some people defensively saying "But I like blasting!" Nothing wrong with that. Like I said earlier, it's like being a refluffed archer -- they don't compare that badly to other archers, and if you use a really broken build you can dish out damage.Wrong. Blaster wizards can do more than archers, in different ways than archers, with different properties than archers. That's like saying that archers are re-fluffed melee. The mechanics are totally different, in many cases. For example, a staple in the blaster arsenal is disintigrate. Show me any attack an archer can make that hits without an attack roll, and forces a save vs an average of 7 damage per character level.

But when people talk about the "caster problem" in terms of balance, what they're really talking about is the arcanist role I described above (which really covers all full-casters, including divine ones.) Blasters are overshadowed by that "arcanist role" because, well, everyone ends up getting overshadowed by that arcanist role. A wizard who has Greater Teleport prepared twice can grab anything anywhere in the world and be back within twelve seconds. That's kind of hard to beat using nothing but d6s.
Really? How about the item of power that is the only way to beat the BBEG, guarded by an ancient red dragon, inside of a cave with dimensional anchor? Because, after all, that's how "the one and only thing that could hope to defeat this encounter" should be protected. McGuffins don't normally lay out like the 25 copper you left in the sofa. Just saying.

Your post is a classic example of how someone can be 90% right, and yet 100% wrong.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-12, 06:38 AM
For example, a staple in the blaster arsenal is disintigrate. Show me any attack an archer can make that hits without an attack roll, and forces a save vs an average of 7 damage per character level.

Disintegrate requires an attack role.

Cainen
2008-05-12, 07:02 AM
Blasters aren't weak. Not by a longshot. They can toss lots of damage out over a very widespread area very quickly, among other things - they're versatile in the types and amounts of damage they do, and aren't as limited by their feat choice as, say, a Fighter is.

The problem is that they're not going to be able to keep this up as long as a melee class will, and the job of those classes is to be doing damage specifically - they can be outclassed in the amount dealt, the time it takes to deal it, and how long they can keep it up. Not only that, they're outclassed by SoD-based wizards played intelligently. They're technically worse, sure. But they're not necessarily weak, and are definitely playable.

namo
2008-05-12, 07:05 AM
As I have already said, blasters are the most powerful wizards (at least offensively) if properly optimized. They are flat out better than save or X wizards in the end game. But this is an extreme example, in regular play the Save or X wizard will be offensively better.

But at the point where blasting takes the lead its just effectively a no save, just suck spell.
Since in the months I've been away Cindy seems to have become a reference, I will take what I remember of her as a reference. Using an equivalent amount of cheese, I believe one could easily make a SoD-based wizard with about the same efficiency.


Another thing to consider (which does not change the accepted truth about them) : blasters are good at novas. A Sudden Empowered Sudden Maximized damage spell, followed by a Residually-Maximized (at levels 9+) Rod-Empowered casting of the same spell will wipe many an encounter... but leave the blaster dry for the day.

Larrin
2008-05-12, 07:11 AM
If i play a mage, i'm going to be a blaster. I don't play a sorceror to worry about tactics and optimization, i do it to make things explode. That being said, think about this.

To Kill something with 300-400 hit points in one hit as a blaster, you'll need some pretty intensive feat/class/item combos. You'll need to read several books, get help from CharOp boards, spend lots of gold, and perhaps talk really fast so the DM lets you use a certain class from a book that he might not consider "Core". Your turn consists of you spending 10 minutes saying everything your doing, twinning, chaining, and meta-ing.

To kill that same 300-400 (or 1000 ) hit point creature with a finger of death you need only have that spell and adequate INT/CHA to cast it.

Ouch.


A save-mage can keep up with a fairly optimized blaster without nearly as much headache. Thats where the weakness of blasting comes in. You might be able to blast to the same level of effectiveness as a save-mage (or better), you'll just put 10 times the effort into it.

I don't bother trying. I don't find Save-o-mancy fun, i don't find incantrix/twinned spell/maximized fire-sonic-cheese orb fun. I like good old fashioned evocations as they come. I just hold no illusions that my way is by any means competitive.

AmberVael
2008-05-12, 07:38 AM
Vael. In all honestly you missed the point of real Wizard guides. Yes people talk alot about save-or-X spells. Because they can be pretty freakin awesome. But those aren't the only or even best part about being a Wizard.
I think you missed what I said then, because I talked about buffing and (indirectly) battlefield control through both of those as well.
And if you begin telling me how amazing and awesome a wizard is out of combat because he can take the place of everything I will polite inform you that you're using schrodinger's wizard, because there is no way you can be useful in terms of buffing, battlefield control, save or x spells, AND out of combat utility with as few spell slots as a wizard actually gets.
It's hard enough being versatile in one area.


The fact is that if you take away Arcane Thesis and Incantatrix blasters become pretty bad. You can't actually build a blaster that compares to a well done Fighter in damage, much less a Rogue.
The other fact is that if you take away good feats/spells/class features for any class, they become pretty bad. :smallyuk:
And really, the above is just one way to make a good blaster. Depending on your level there may be much more effective ways to blast.


Blasting is highly undervalued on this board, but there is a reason, and that is that a Blaster Mage fits the role of the Fighter. He must optimized considerably more then the Batman Wizard to be comparable. The fact that Blasting has a higher threshold thanks to Arcane Thesis, the Chaos Shuffle, and Incantartix is nice, but not all that important when you compare a Wizard that casts Fireball to a Wizard that casts Stinking Cloud. One of those does 17.5 or 35 damage to each affected party. The other takes at least half your enemies out of the fight, period.
Let us do a little comparison here.
First, lets assume level 5- because at level 10, a good blaster isn't just going to be chucking around a solitary, wimpy fireball.
At level five, however, it might be more viable.
(But for the purpose of this discussion, since no doubt batmen will have all the spells they could ever want, we'll assume that Mr. Blaster can use what energy he wants- which IS viable. Lightning bolt, energy substitution- he can take advantage of that sort of thing fairly easily.)
Now lets also look at some CR 5 monsters.
Hm... Rast.
25 HP.
Higher end. Salamander. (CR 6, actually)
58 HP.
Spider Eater.
42.

With a good party, a single blast spell and a round of attacks is quite likely going to finish one of them off in a single turn- while using a save or suck spell MAY take them out immediately, there is still a high chance of the spell failing entirely and thus doing nothing.
If throw up a bunch of smaller enemies, a single fireball will probably kill them all straight out due to their extremely low HP, or at the very least, kill a number of them and, "remove them entirely."

And let me not forget the haste argument here. Oh yes, haste does more damage than fireball.
Let me say something here.
No it doesn't.
Yes, that's right. I contradicted that. Tell me, buff fanatics, why is it that you argue so frequently that fighters won't get full attacks until it comes down to whether Haste is good or not?
The fact is that Haste WOULD have been good- in 3.0
But now that it doesn't give you an extra action, it is merely average. Mediocre. If you toss a fireball, that damage is certain. If you use Haste, your fighter MIGHT get a full attack at some point and MIGHT hit with an attack on a monster and MIGHT do more damage to the monster than a fireball.
That's a lot of mights, isn't it?


Yes at high levels, blasters can start to look good. But when Batman lays down a Black Tentacles on the opposing forces or uses Stun Ray on the Dragon, that's called winning.
Level 7 (at minimum).
Grapple modifier- +8 (no scaling)
+8? That's it? My CR 6 salamander has a better modifier than that! If a creature doesn't have a good modifier against it, they'll have escape artist, or short range teleportation or that one spell batmen love to toss in melee people's faces Freedom of Movement.
And if you argue that monsters can't get that, notice the Spider Eater above.
Also think about the monsters with fly speeds.
And where casting that spell is ineffective because the area will simply negate anything the fighter can do is effectively blocked by his inability to move into the area because he'll get grappled too.
Etc.

Of course, using save or suck spells on a dragon or buffing on a party going up against a dragon is just common sense. They have too much HP to really rely on blasting, and they're waaay too dangerous to leave unhindered.
So bring out good old stinking cheese Shivering Touch and watch them turn into a statue. :smalltongue:
(note, I don't actually recommend that unless your DM is a retard that is tossing you up against dragons far too high for your level. Then it is okay.)


Things like Spirit Wall/Wall of Stone/Black Tentacles/Solid Fog/Acid Fog/Stinking Cloud/Orb of Fire (because of the daze+damage)/Fleshshiver/Disintegrate/Rays up to wazoo/Avasculate/ect.
are really really good.
I really hope you understand that I'm not advocating pure blasting here. Anyone who focuses on a single aspect of wizardry is bound to be disappointed, because they'll definitely come across unbeatable enemies if they do that. Furthermore, a good few of those spells you recommend I would consider as blasting- like Orb of Fire, Fleshshiver, Disintegrate, Avasculate, etc.
Yet, I can't help but notice almost all of your choices are going to be beaten by a good maneuverability and dexterity.


And you talk about immunities, or high saves, but if you are a blaster many things are going to be immune to what you are blasting with. That might only mean half damage, but that even further focuses on the point that you have to build your whole character around doing one thing to be an optimized blaster, and while in the absolute best of situations that one thing does 400 damage to most things, 300 damage to things immune to Cold (or Fire or whatever), 350 damage to Undead, and 250 damage to undead immune to your element of choice, that's the best case, more often you be doing a lot less damage then that to anyone, much less the worst case scenario.
Now if the batmen can have enough slots to prepare spells to deal with all the immunities they'll encounter, I believe the blasters will have a far easier time with it.
A good blaster will have force and sonic effects at her disposal, or even just *gasp* other energy types.
I know it sounds like blasphemy, but you CAN have multiple energy types prepared, or even a rod of energy substitution. (Which, incidentally, is really fun with Orb of Fire. Daze? Check. Acid damage? Check. :smalltongue:)


It's very easy to prepare a spell set up that never leaves you wanting as Batman. But without incredible levels of Cheese and optimization, a blaster is going to have a very tough time against a whole subset of creatures, not to mention your limited effectiveness the rest of the time.
You overestimate the number of slots a batman will have, and underestimate the amount of spells he'll need to prepare, while also ignoring the fact that a blaster has the same amount of slots and yet less things to prepare against.
A batman will have to deal with HD number, three types of saves, flight, freedom of movement, high stats, high AC, paralysis immunity, sleep immunity, the dreaded immunity to mind influencing effects, good spot checks... etc.
A blaster only has to deal with four energy immunities/resistances (if you count sonic I will laugh because there are only like... four things in the core set that have sonic resistance), AC, and maybe a few of the saves. It's far easier for a blaster to prepare for his set than a batman to prepare for his.

SparkMandriller
2008-05-12, 08:16 AM
First, lets assume level 5- because at level 10, a good blaster isn't just going to be chucking around a solitary, wimpy fireball.
At level five, however, it might be more viable.
With a good party, a single blast spell and a round of attacks is quite likely going to finish one of them off in a single turn- while using a save or suck spell MAY take them out immediately, there is still a high chance of the spell failing entirely and thus doing nothing.

If your idea of contribution is doing 9 damage per round, why aren't you playing a fighter? They can do that all day.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-12, 08:41 AM
With a good party, a single blast spell and a round of attacks is quite likely going to finish one of them off in a single turn- while using a save or suck spell MAY take them out immediately, there is still a high chance of the spell failing entirely and thus doing nothing.

A "high" chance? I'd like to hear your definition of "high"...

A level-5 wizard casting a third level spell has a base saving throw DC of 16. And that's without any kind of optimization (spell focus, for instance, or a very high intelligence score; otherwise he could make the DC hit 20 without raising a sweat). The monsters you mention have saving throws of +2 to +6, thus giving a success change of up to 65% (85% when optimizing). And let's not forget that spells like slow, stinking cloud, deep slumber, and major image affect a group of monsters.

fractal_uk
2008-05-12, 09:21 AM
Now lets also look at some CR 5 monsters.
Hm... Rast.
25 HP.
Higher end. Salamander. (CR 6, actually)
58 HP.
Spider Eater.
42.




And let me not forget the haste argument here. Oh yes, haste does more damage than fireball.
Let me say something here.
No it doesn't.
Yes, that's right. I contradicted that. Tell me, buff fanatics, why is it that you argue so frequently that fighters won't get full attacks until it comes down to whether Haste is good or not?
The fact is that Haste WOULD have been good- in 3.0
But now that it doesn't give you an extra action, it is merely average. Mediocre. If you toss a fireball, that damage is certain. If you use Haste, your fighter MIGHT get a full attack at some point and MIGHT hit with an attack on a monster and MIGHT do more damage to the monster than a fireball.
That's a lot of mights, isn't it?


Let's have a look at a wizard's level 5 lightning bolt then, that'd be 5d6 damage - for an average of 17.5 if they fail their save or a pathetic 8.75 points of damage if they pass. The salamander has a reflex save bonus of +7 which gives it around about a 50/50 chance of passing. So averaging the two, you're doing 13.125 damage per round with lightning bolts so it'll take you between 4 and 5 rounds to kill it with lightning bolts.

I'd use fireballs, only salamanders are immune to fire since it's the most commonly resistable form of energy.

If instead, you cast haste, which is probably useless in the first round while the barbarian charges - in the second round the barbarian gets to attack a second time for around d12+11 - average 17.5 while not power attacking at all.

The barbarian also has a greater than 50/50 chance of doing that damage because the salamander has AC 18 and the barbarian is likely hitting on +13 or so (+14 with haste). If we power attack for 5 then, we still can't get down to as low odds of hitting as the salamander has of failing the wizards reflex save because haste gives you an additional +1 to hit! The barbarian is now doing d12+21 damage (he's obviously using a 2 handed weapon, because why wouldn't he?). That's an average of 30.5 (27.5*2*11/20) and with the two attacks from haste - well over double the wizards average damage with a lightning bolt! Note that this doesn't even include the possibility of a critical hits, which sways things even more in hastes favour - to 33.55 damage if we continue to assume a greataxe, it would be even higher for a greatsword.

Even counting the first round where the haste did nothing - it still did more damage than the lightning bolt on average and only 1 point of damage less than the lightning bolts maximum damage! But a lightning bolt can affect multiple targets you cry! Well, not half so affectively as the fireball which a lot of things are resistant to, which means you need to sculpt your lightning bolt or energy substitute your fireball.

Even then, haste lasts rounds/level so the barbarian can work his way through a whole bunch of salamanders repeatedly power attacking for his 33.55 damage/round. The more party members that get in on the hacking the more effective haste becomes (read: haste makes your party working together more effective).

Granted a sculpted lightning bolt becomes more effective with increasing numbers of salamanders, but at what point does it occur that the wizard can't get off enough lightning bolts before one of the salamanders comes over and eats him before he can kill them? Certainly before the point that lightning bolt became better than haste.



Level 7 (at minimum).
Grapple modifier- +8 (no scaling)
+8? That's it? My CR 6 salamander has a better modifier than that! If a creature doesn't have a good modifier against it, they'll have escape artist, or short range teleportation or that one spell batmen love to toss in melee people's faces Freedom of Movement.
And if you argue that monsters can't get that, notice the Spider Eater above.
Also think about the monsters with fly speeds.
And where casting that spell is ineffective because the area will simply negate anything the fighter can do is effectively blocked by his inability to move into the area because he'll get grappled too.
Etc.


The grapple modifier of black tentacles is actually caster level +8, i.e +15 for a level 7 wizard and 4 better than your salamander. Even if it passes the check it is reduced to half movement and gives you more time to prepare for it to emerge from the area assuming it doesn't get grapped on it's next turn!

At high levels, blasting can improve (so long as it is done in a suitably optimised fashion) as more and more creatures get access to things like freedom of movement, mind blank to remove the threat of mind affecting spells and similar and deathward to stop death effects. Though you'll find that surprisingly few monsters actually get any of these anyway.

Even then though, elemental damage is pretty poor as a lot of things can resist it or have outright immunity to it - so you have to rely more on spells like orb of force that cap at 10d6 but can't be resisted compared to the 15d6 of the other orbs.

In the majority of circumstances though, a wizard has better things to do than direct damage - other people can take over that.

Frosty
2008-05-12, 10:53 AM
Haste also gets a bit better if the Fighter is smart and has ways of moving *and* full attacking, like with Travel Devotion or with Pounce.

Chronos
2008-05-12, 11:58 AM
(But for the purpose of this discussion, since no doubt batmen will have all the spells they could ever want, we'll assume that Mr. Blaster can use what energy he wants- which IS viable. Lightning bolt, energy substitution- he can take advantage of that sort of thing fairly easily.)To a degree. A 5th-level wizard, assuming a reasonable intelligence and specialization, gets three 3rd-level spells per day. Each of those slots, you can use for a Lighting Bolt, a Fireball, an energy-substituted version of one of those, etc. (remember that you need to apply Energy Substitution at the time of preparation, not casting). So you can have up to three different elements available of your highest level (the 5d6 spells). Below that, your best blasting options are Scorching Ray (4d6 one target), Acid Arrow (4d4 one target), or Burning Hands (5d4 multiple targets, save half). For each of those, you have to pick an element, and for any given element you pick, some things are going to be immune to it (yes, even Sonic: That's negated completely by a spell castable by someone two levels below you).

Meanwhile, let's look at a Batman's spell list for level 5. I'm assuming specialization in either Conjuration or Transmutation, and barring any two of Evocation, Enchantment, and Necromancy.
Cantrips: 2x Prestidigitation, Acid Splash, Mage Hand, Detect Magic
1st: Mage Armor, Grease, Color Spray, Silent Image, Enlarge Person
2nd: Web, Glitterdust, Alter Self, Detect Thoughts
3rd: Dispel Magic, Stinking Cloud, Haste

Obviously, other lists are possible, but this gives me options for any combat situation, and a good many non-combat situations, as well. If my enemies have any poor save, I can target it with a save-or-suck. For Reflex or Will, I actually have two choices each. Mindless things, I can send on a wild goose chase via Silent Image. Against enemy casters, I can dispel buffs or counterspell. As long as I can anticipate when the fight's going to be to within 5 hours, I can make myself considerably less squishy. Out of combat, I can disguise myself or get to difficult-to-reach places via Alter Self, interrogate prisoners with Detect Thoughts, find the presence of magical traps or sort treasure with Detect Magic, or just plain have fun with Prestidigitation. And if all else fails, I can always Haste the party or Enlarge the meat shield, which is always effective no matter what the enemy does or has. I'm hard pressed to think of any situation that this wizard can't handle just as well as or better than the blaster wizard.

Aquillion
2008-05-12, 12:29 PM
I have. I can read quite well. I've also memorized about 95% of it. I know that wizards are capable of a lot more than non-casters. The encounters and challenges that a DM provides, however, should be designed with the entire party in mind, not just the wizard. That has nothing to do with Oberoni fallacy, as RAW doesn't support NOT doing this. This isn't the hallmark of a perfect DM, it's a feature that any COMPETENT DM will do. RAW doesn't support random encounters, though it provides for them. RAW doesn't support building campaigns and CR's so that the rogue, fighter, and cleric can't do anything.It's not that other classes can do less as levels progress, it's that the wizard can do more by comparison. It goes from the Wizard doing the things the others can't, to doing that stuff, and some of the things the other classes can do also. Nobody's arguing that Wizard isn't stronger than other classes. I've never, in my entire D&D life, insinuated that in any way...

Which brings the question, why are you arguing your point as if someone's disagreeing with you?And the basic rules don't address how a DM should build a campaign, or how he/she should tailor encounters. If the DM is building them so that other classes can't perform what they're supposed to do, then it's not RAW failing. It's the DM.Wha? I never said the other classes didn't have their own things to do. Every class is supposed to have things nobody else can do. The wizard just has a lot more things only they can do, something you seemed to be denying right here:


To which I counter, if the adventure is such that the bulk of the wizard's spells need to be doing the things that nobody else can do...

Then there's too many things nobody else can do. That outlook trivializes the other members of the party even more than wizards did when they printed the "Magic" section of the PHB.Which is silly. If the DM is challenging the party like you say, the wizard will be faced with many more things that only they can do. The DM will be trying to give each person things only they can do.

Of course, finding things that only the wizard can do is much, much easier, but them's the breaks. You seemed to be arguing that wizards ought to be redundant, which is silly.


Great job trying to make others look foolish by oversimplistic example.It was your oversimplistic example. It isn't my fault you said walking is as useful as teleport, is it?


A frenzied berzerker barbarian can charge it, and kill it in one pouncing charge.

In both situations, the goal was accomplished. The wizard did many things the barbarian couldn't DREAM of doing. However, in the end, that was a means to an end. And the barbarian accomplished the same end. This is an example of how the wizard's method of problem solving isn't the ONLY method available.Yeah. And then the next day another challenge arrives, and the wizard can come up with something completely different, while the Berzerker can... charge and pounce at it again. Why do you object to the fairly obvious assertion that the wizard is 'filling the gaps' on the Berzerker's fairly limited skillset? Not every situation can be dealt with using a charge and a pounce, and in that case, the Berzerker is fairly useless (most non-combat challenges fall into that category, of course.) Whereas making something that the wizard can't deal with requires, basically, a huge blatant 'NO WIZARDS HERE' sign using an AMF, and even that isn't reliable.

If you put a wizard and a berzerker in a party together, the wizard is going to be left filling the gaps on all the things the berzerker can't do. Yeah, in theory everyone is supposed to be contributing their own things, but with the list of things the wizard can do so absurdly wide and the list of things the barbarian can do painfully narrow, it's kinda hard to avoid that conclusion.


Sigh. You really seem to be beating a dead horse on this one. If the end result is "Dead monster", then the wizard can drop 17 epic spells of power, instantly obliterating all memory of the creature's existence, along with it's life, soul, and body.

The fighter can bring it to -10 with a sharp stick.

Guess what? Both examples get the same XP for overcoming the challenge. Yes, the wizard can do more. Guess what? If the fighter doesn't get to do anything, then the DM isn't doing the job outlined for him in the DMG.


Wrong. Blaster wizards can do more than archers, in different ways than archers, with different properties than archers. That's like saying that archers are re-fluffed melee. The mechanics are totally different, in many cases. For example, a staple in the blaster arsenal is disintigrate. Show me any attack an archer can make that hits without an attack roll, and forces a save vs an average of 7 damage per character level.Their basic role is to do damage at range. They take up essentially the same slot in a party, and for the most part a challenge intended for one will work just as well for the other, barring a few things that specifically negate one sort of attack (and even then, magical arrows or those of the correct material / instant conjuration spells will usually put them back on par with each other.) The caster does have the ability to hit multiple enemies in an area, but that's just not a big deal -- it's fairly difficult to make a situation where you have to do that, while still having it be a challenge to a cleaving barbarian, say.


Really? How about the item of power that is the only way to beat the BBEG, guarded by an ancient red dragon, inside of a cave with dimensional anchor? Because, after all, that's how "the one and only thing that could hope to defeat this encounter" should be protected. McGuffins don't normally lay out like the 25 copper you left in the sofa. Just saying.Well, assuming you mean via Hallow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/hallow.htm) -- the usual way to get a long term dimensional anchor on an area -- the wizard has several options. They can use a maximized Time Stop, walk in, grab the item, and walk out. Or, within that time stop, they can always, you know, dispel the Hallow. They can Gate in something to grab the item for them. They can use magic to dig away the floor under the area (causing it to fall out of the area protected by dimensional anchor), then teleport in and grab the item out of the ruins. If we really want to go there, they can carefully-position themselves and take out the dimensional anchor with a Disjunction (which should never fail to do so, per RAW), although they'd probably want to make sure they don't hit the item they're aiming for...

Obviously, the DM you are talking about is going to fiat those into not working -- the dragon is suddenly wearing the item (which is likely to look, ah, a bit silly in most cases), the Hallow mysteriously can't be dispelled (or disjunctioned, somehow...), the floor is undiggable with magic, whatever. So I'll respond to your real point.

I will grant that an OberoniDM is perhaps the wrong word for your argument, but it comes down to the same thing -- yes, a good DM can create challenges for everyone, and in that happy situation there's no difference between the effectiveness or usefulness of characters, because the DM, in charge of the world, is going to see to it that everyone gets their fair share. At that point, many of the questions asked by this thread are moot.

But even then, unless the DM is actively working to suppress the wizard, the bulk of the wizard's spells are going to be doing the things that nobody else can do. In fact, your argument practically guarentees it -- after all, the DM is going to have to preserve monsters for the Barbarian to leap-attack pounce at, since that's the Barbarian's only real talent. The only way to keep the wizard busy with anything, therefore, is to give them things that nobody else can do -- that way, the wizard gets to teleport the party around or dispel things in their way or whatever else keeps them happy, without necessarily overshadowing anyone else.

Why would you object to having the bulk of the wizard's spells devoted to things nobody else can do? The problem comes when the wizard is devoting their spells to things other people can do, because that's when you risk people feeling overshadowed or redundant.

Chronos
2008-05-12, 01:44 PM
Or, within that time stop, they can always, you know, dispel the Hallow.No, I don't know. Hallow is instantaneous, and therefore not subject to dispelling.

AmberVael
2008-05-12, 02:46 PM
If your idea of contribution is doing 9 damage per round, why aren't you playing a fighter? They can do that all day.

Just because I prepare a damage spell doesn't mean all I can do is damage.
Essentially, let me say these mirrors of your question:
Why carry a weapon as a cleric? The fighter (unless you're playing a CoDzilla cleric) will do more damage.
Why use weapons as a rogue? The fighter can do it more consistently.
Why use skill points as a fighter? The rogue outclasses you.
Etc.

You also miss the point that a well place fireball can affect an area, and thus isn't doing a mere 9 damage, but around 9 (or 17, more likely) to everyone within the area.
Certain damage spells can also have other effects.


A "high" chance? I'd like to hear your definition of "high"...

A level-5 wizard casting a third level spell has a base saving throw DC of 16. And that's without any kind of optimization (spell focus, for instance, or a very high intelligence score; otherwise he could make the DC hit 20 without raising a sweat). The monsters you mention have saving throws of +2 to +6, thus giving a success change of up to 65% (85% when optimizing). And let's not forget that spells like slow, stinking cloud, deep slumber, and major image affect a group of monsters.
You're apparently not looking at the numbers.
The aforementioned Rast has a +5 to all its saves.
The salamander has two +8s and a +7.
The Spider eater has +9 fort, +5 reflex, and +2 will (ouch)
This means that without optimization you have a 50% success chance unless you're targeting that spider eater's will save (which would be a good idea).
If you're up against the Salamander, you're going to have a 35% chance of success.
Really, I don't call 50/35 chances favorable odds here.



*snip mathy lightning bolt/fireball stuff*
Just because the Barbarian can deal more damage doesn't mean using your own form of damage is effective. Indeed, if the Barbarian can smash something into a pulp, then it is MORE effective to use your damage dealing capabilities in conjunction with him.
If you assume a blaster is alone, then yes, they're likely going to be outclassed. They're not a character meant to be alone- they'll simply wear themselves out all too soon and then have to run screaming into the hills.
My point- damage dealing with the wizard, while it can be dampened by making a save or the like, is a certainty. If the barbarian has crushed something into oblivion with his attack, instead of using your silly little save or suck spell and hoping he'll fail his save, or instead of buffing the barbarian and waiting for him to take him out, you simply blast the guy and he's dead.
Appropriate use of blasting isn't so much about dealing massive amounts of damage, but almost being like a HP controller sitting on the back of the battleground. You shoot the weak enemies before they get another turn, and hammer the ones the fighter/barbarian/etc will have trouble hitting.
Instead of using save or suck spells, or battlefield control, or buffing initially (which I admit wizards of mine would use if I came into a combat situation initially) blasting is about managing the later turns of combat in order to make it all more efficient and smooth for the party.


The grapple modifier of black tentacles is actually caster level +8, i.e +15 for a level 7 wizard and 4 better than your salamander. Even if it passes the check it is reduced to half movement and gives you more time to prepare for it to emerge from the area assuming it doesn't get grapped on it's next turn!
Oh. Misread that. My mistake.


At high levels, blasting can improve (so long as it is done in a suitably optimised fashion) as more and more creatures get access to things like freedom of movement, mind blank to remove the threat of mind affecting spells and similar and deathward to stop death effects. Though you'll find that surprisingly few monsters actually get any of these anyway.

Even then though, elemental damage is pretty poor as a lot of things can resist it or have outright immunity to it - so you have to rely more on spells like orb of force that cap at 10d6 but can't be resisted compared to the 15d6 of the other orbs.

In the majority of circumstances though, a wizard has better things to do than direct damage - other people can take over that.

Elemental damage is poor only in the same respects that mind influencing effects are poor. It still has its use...
Yet once you get up to higher levels, you need to rely on it less and less. There are plenty of ways to get around the immunity and resistances of other creatures, and they just become more plentiful the further you go on (which is good, because resistances do too).


Besides, all this assumes a wizard. If I were really going to play a blaster, a sorcerer would be far more effective and useful as a blaster in the capacity that I see them taking. It allows instant use of metamagics (handy for such things as energy substitution which would otherwise be terrible), grants more spells per day (good since as a blaster you'll want to focus on the higher end spells) and also allows the nice little spell "Arcane Fusion" which is quite handy for blasters as well.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-12, 03:55 PM
I think you missed what I said then, because I talked about buffing and (indirectly) battlefield control through both of those as well.
And if you begin telling me how amazing and awesome a wizard is out of combat because he can take the place of everything I will polite inform you that you're using schrodinger's wizard, because there is no way you can be useful in terms of buffing, battlefield control, save or x spells, AND out of combat utility with as few spell slots as a wizard actually gets.
It's hard enough being versatile in one area.

1) A wizard is easily useful out of combat without being Schrodingerized. This is an argument that gets old. Batman prepares a list of spells which gives him out of combat and in combat utility. Period.

You also barely even mentioned the possibility of battlefield control, so there is no way you could have addressed it.


The other fact is that if you take away good feats/spells/class features for any class, they become pretty bad. :smallyuk:
And really, the above is just one way to make a good blaster. Depending on your level there may be much more effective ways to blast.

Feel free to mention them, since I know about 2 that are even comparable to the average Wizard.


Let us do a little comparison here.
First, lets assume level 5- because at level 10, a good blaster isn't just going to be chucking around a solitary, wimpy fireball.
At level five, however, it might be more viable.
(But for the purpose of this discussion, since no doubt batmen will have all the spells they could ever want, we'll assume that Mr. Blaster can use what energy he wants- which IS viable. Lightning bolt, energy substitution- he can take advantage of that sort of thing fairly easily.)
Now lets also look at some CR 5 monsters.
Hm... Rast.
25 HP.
Higher end. Salamander. (CR 6, actually)
58 HP.
Spider Eater.
42.

1) 35 damage/17.5 on a save was level 10. 17.5 damage/8.75 on a save is level 5. So yes, 8.75 damage a round sucks. A lot. The Rogue will do that all the time, the Fighter will do that half the time at level 1.

2) Batman doesn't have all the spells he ever wants. He has Stinking Cloud/Web/Glitterdust that gives him AoE wins for each save. Sure he might also prepare Ray of Clumsiness and Stupidity just for fun. But he throws out whichever one is best. And if he's a Wizard, McBlaster has the same supposed "problem" as Batman, which is to say that he has to prepare a number of each, and could run out of the useful one.

3) And what feats did he need to take to be throwing this around? And what feats did Batman need to cast his spells? None.


With a good party, a single blast spell and a round of attacks is quite likely going to finish one of them off in a single turn- while using a save or suck spell MAY take them out immediately, there is still a high chance of the spell failing entirely and thus doing nothing.

So if your DM sends a horde of mooks, and you use a suboptimal tactic, blasting can keep up? That's great, but the correct move is an AoE save or lose against those mooks, thus negating half or more of them in one shot.


If throw up a bunch of smaller enemies, a single fireball will probably kill them all straight out due to their extremely low HP, or at the very least, kill a number of them and, "remove them entirely."

If your DM is actually sending enough smaller enemies that can die in one Fireball to make a real encounter, he must have them standing adjacent to each other to actually hit most of them. And that's just bad DMing. Of course if you are being swarmed by 30 mooks they shouldn't be standing together.


And let me not forget the haste argument here. Oh yes, haste does more damage than fireball.
Let me say something here.
No it doesn't.
Yes, that's right. I contradicted that. Tell me, buff fanatics, why is it that you argue so frequently that fighters won't get full attacks until it comes down to whether Haste is good or not?
The fact is that Haste WOULD have been good- in 3.0
But now that it doesn't give you an extra action, it is merely average. Mediocre. If you toss a fireball, that damage is certain. If you use Haste, your fighter MIGHT get a full attack at some point and MIGHT hit with an attack on a monster and MIGHT do more damage to the monster than a fireball.
That's a lot of mights, isn't it?

Actually, Fighters get lots of Full attacks. Mostly due to things like Stun Ray/Stinking Cloud/Web/ect.


Level 7 (at minimum).
Grapple modifier- +8 (no scaling)

And Maximized Empowered Fireballs do only 2 damage, and that's if the enemy isn't immune to it!

Hey look, when we lie about what a spell does it doesn't look so good anymore!


+8? That's it? My CR 6 salamander has a better modifier than that! If a creature doesn't have a good modifier against it, they'll have escape artist, or short range teleportation or that one spell batmen love to toss in melee people's faces Freedom of Movement.
And if you argue that monsters can't get that, notice the Spider Eater above.
Also think about the monsters with fly speeds.

So what does your blaster do when he is faced with a Fire Salamander? I mean, his Fireball does nothing! Oh wait, you cast a spells that is awesome.

(Note that Black Tentacles works fine against a group of salamanders, but casting another spell is what one does in the case of FoM or flying creatures.)

But I guess if Batman where actually as smart about what spells he cast as McBlaster, well then that would defeat your argument. So I guess he has to be stupid.


And where casting that spell is ineffective because the area will simply negate anything the fighter can do is effectively blocked by his inability to move into the area because he'll get grappled too.
Etc.

Actually, EBT does more damage then a fireball (or the 4th level equivalent) doesn't bother the fighter (because you don't cast it on him) and immobilizes the enemy so that the fighter and rogue can have a field day from ranged. What's that? Your Rogue is too stupid to carry a bow? Yeah, that happens all the time when you aren't forcing it on the situation because you know that decent party members are more beneficial to Batman.


Of course, using save or suck spells on a dragon or buffing on a party going up against a dragon is just common sense. They have too much HP to really rely on blasting, and they're waaay too dangerous to leave unhindered.

So in other words. Blasting is the ****, and is always the best option. Except when it isn't. Which by the way so far includes single powerful enemies, large groups of mooks, and everything in between.


Furthermore, a good few of those spells you recommend I would consider as blasting- like Orb of Fire, Fleshshiver, Disintegrate, Avasculate, etc.

So in other words, steal all the good spells and pretend they are blasting. An Orb spell is meh damage when not metaed up, but it has a save or daze, which can be really handy when you face characters immune to almost everything else. Fleshshiver is blasting? a save or negate 15d6 doesn't even matter, what matters is that it's a no-save stun, followed by a save for Nauseated. That's why it get's cast, not because of some piddly damage that could be done with a 4th level spell. Disintegrate isn't blasting, it's save or die, and it always has been. Avasculate isn't blasting, it does half HP, not blasting, and it stuns. Claiming it is blasting is the same as claiming black tentacles, it does HP damage too you know.


Yet, I can't help but notice almost all of your choices are going to be beaten by a good maneuverability and dexterity.

Well then perhaps you missed: "Black Tentacles/Solid Fog/Acid Fog/Stinking Cloud/Orb of Fire/Fleshshiver/Disintegrate/Rays up to wazoo/Avasculate"

Since all of those work no matter what your maneuverability, and the Rays hit the AC of everything not using Scintillating Scales.

I'll add to the list, Web/Glitterdust/Wrathful Castigation/Avasculate Mass (free heightened web)/Ray of Stupidity/Finger of Death/Phantasmal Assailants/ect.


Now if the batmen can have enough slots to prepare spells to deal with all the immunities they'll encounter, I believe the blasters will have a far easier time with it.

Maybe your problem is you can't play Batman right, if you seriously think he has trouble overcoming these nebulous "Immunities" (Most immunities in the game are to energy types) with his spell slots. The real problem is for the DM, who has to hunt relentlessly for something that can't be disabled in one round.


A good blaster will have force and sonic effects at her disposal, or even just *gasp* other energy types.
I know it sounds like blasphemy, but you CAN have multiple energy types prepared, or even a rod of energy substitution. (Which, incidentally, is really fun with Orb of Fire. Daze? Check. Acid damage? Check.)

Right, because all enemies have Deathward/FoM/immunity to stunning/mind effects, but none of them (All high level Outsiders) have Immunity to 1 or more elements and resistance against others.

And of course no one ever casts Energy Immunity Sonic/Forceward/Silence.


You overestimate the number of slots a batman will have, and underestimate the amount of spells he'll need to prepare, while also ignoring the fact that a blaster has the same amount of slots and yet less things to prepare against.

No I don't.

1) I recognize that the blaster can effect everything. I also recognize that what he does with each spell slot is inherently inferior to what Batman does with it. When I say a tough time, I mean doing 1d6 per CL damage to a creature: IE being useless. I assume you optimize with metafeats for a specific energy type so that you can do something decent.

2) I don't overestimate Batman's spell slots. I do this all the time. I kick ass and take names with a Wizard casting BC/debuff/Save-or-X spells nearly every time I play D&D. I have a very good feel for a Wizard's spell slots. And I am not overestimating it at all.


A batman will have to deal with HD number, three types of saves, flight, freedom of movement, high stats, high AC, paralysis immunity, sleep immunity, the dreaded immunity to mind influencing effects, good spot checks... etc.

So in other words you went through every possible limitation any spell could have and then listed them all like they matter.

HD? Yeah, we stop using Color Spray and Sleep at level 5 and 3 respectively. so HD never comes up.

FoM? Don't cast EBT or Solid Fog, cast anything else.

Flight? So? Don't cast EBT or Web.

Paralysis? I don't have anything that causes it, so I don't care.

Mind Influencing? Oh no. I'll just have to use one of my 400 spells that don't care.

Spot checks? Really? Why on earth would I give a crap?

High AC? Great, I don't care because I'm targeting Touch, and that's never going to be high enough unless they use Scintillating Scales (a very small subset)

High stats? Okay so either I bring their high stats down to mediocre stats and they lose because of it, or I don't use my stat penalty spells.

and my favorite:

3 types of saves. Ha ha ha. Yes, there are three different types of saves, and every enemy I face has to raise all three to stand a chance against me. Because I hit the weakest one.

Heres the funny part about your list of immunities. Those are all the different things I can target with my basic spell list. So actually, the more you list, the more powerful I am. Because an enemy has to be immune to all of them before they are safe from me, and the only thing immune to all of them is a high level Wizard, who is also immune to all elements and Force effects.

That isn't a list of things I have to deal with, it's a list of things I don't deal with because I cast something that targets a weakness.


A blaster only has to deal with four energy immunities/resistances (if you count sonic I will laugh because there are only like... four things in the core set that have sonic resistance), AC, and maybe a few of the saves. It's far easier for a blaster to prepare for his set than a batman to prepare for his.

And there are only like four things in the Core set that have FoM, but it's practically the basis for your arguments. Not to mention the 3 non-associated levels of Wizard it takes to cast Silence.

Congratulations, if someone has high saves and touch AC you can't do anything and I still can. Yeah, that seems like a weakness on my part.

Solo
2008-05-12, 06:18 PM
And if you begin telling me how amazing and awesome a wizard is out of combat because he can take the place of everything I will polite inform you that you're using schrodinger's wizard, because there is no way you can be useful in terms of buffing, battlefield control, save or x spells, AND out of combat utility with as few spell slots as a wizard actually gets.

Do the words Ozymandias mean anything to you?

ps. Scrolls.

AmberVael
2008-05-12, 06:26 PM
Do the words Ozymandias mean anything to you?

ps. Scrolls.

"I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

So yes. That name does mean something to me.
I think it is quite fitting, really.


@ Chosen: I'd respond, but I have no intention of turning this into a flame war, and you're taking and making this far too personal.

Solo
2008-05-12, 06:39 PM
Very well, I await your analysis of my sorcerer's spell list. Please tell me where I went wrong, as all indications so far seem to indicate that it is a very good general spell list, and I believe a wizard preparing spells along that line would be able to be "batman" without necessarily having detailed knowledge of his next challenge.

"Batman", after all, relies on spells and combos that are pretty much universally applicable.

Foeofthelance
2008-05-12, 06:40 PM
I think part of the problem is that when expounding on virtues of the Batman wizard, too many people tend to neglect the rest of the party, or worse, demean it entirely. Which isn't entirely fair.

First, wizards only have so many spells per day. I believe the upper limit is around six, maybe seven or eight for high intelligence. (Er, per spell level I mean.) Those spells have to be prepared at the beginning of the day, which is a huge handicap. Either the wizard takes a day spamming Divination spells to determine what spells he needs for the next day, or he takes a random guess at what he might need, falls back on the more proven ones, or spread them out over a wide range of things, generally taking only one or two of each spell with him. Scrolls help in this a little bit, but are time consuming, expensive, and again, need to be thought out ahead of time.

So the wizard prepares his spells, and knowing what to has loaded on a variety of save or suck/die spells. We'll assume a level 7ish wizard, as the higher level spells are basically "I win" buttons for a wizard. Not entirely fair, but meh.

Combat is engaged, and the Wizard slings off a few spells. First two get saved against on decent rolls, the third is a Hold Person that sticks. Congratulations, the BBEG is frozen for the next 42 seconds! What're you going to do, Coup with your dagger? Or let the fighter, who power attacks for full while couping with that monster of a greatsword, do it? Of course, the only reason you managed to make it that far was because rogue spotted and disarmed that rather nasty posion trap back there. Which is important, because you're cleric blew through his healing spells after that incident with the ninjas in the room before this one.

Yeah, Batman is good and all, but even he needs the Justice League everyonce in a while. You know, the one that tends to include heavy hitters such as Superman (Fighter), Flash (Rogue), and J'onn J'onzz (Cleric)? Oh, and of course the blasters* (Green Lantern)




*I would like to note that I consider the Orb spells from Conjuring to be blaster spells, just like the ones out of evocation. Sure, they're not from the normal blaster oriented school, but they serve the same purpose.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-12, 06:48 PM
Yeah, Batman is good and all, but even he needs the Justice League everyonce in a while. You know, the one that tends to include heavy hitters such as Superman (Fighter), Flash (Rogue), and J'onn J'onzz (Cleric)? Oh, and of course the blasters* (Green Lantern)Superman is a DMPC Paladin who ignores the rules to be awesome, Flash is a Monk(and about as effective as one), J'onn J'onzz is a Psion, and GL is a FS Conjurer. Batman is the most effective of any of them.

AmberVael
2008-05-12, 06:56 PM
Very well, I await your analysis of my sorcerer's spell list. Please tell me where I went wrong, as all indications so far seem to indicate that it is a very good general spell list, and I believe a wizard preparing spells along that line would be able to be "batman" without necessarily having detailed knowledge of his next challenge.

"Batman", after all, relies on spells and combos that are pretty much universally applicable.

There isn't anything wrong with the spell list. It's quite a good selection, and overall it'll be effective.
However-
My argument is that such things are overrated, overemphasized, and taken to the point of being a holy doctrine of what a spellcaster is. Sure save/suck is good, sure you can use buffing well, yes there is a time and a place for utility and battlefield control. But sometimes it just isn't going to work, and wizards have a lot less versatility in the course of a single day than people give them credit for (one of the things that Ozymandias, being a sorcerer, is able to ignore).
When you only have six spells slots each level, it's difficult to prepare the necessary protections for yourself, a couple of save or suck (with differing saves), two battlefield control, and then have buffing, AND utility spells. You're going to have choose one area and be good at that, or suffer overall.

Also, just as there is a place of every other kind of casting, there is a place for blasting- there is a place for dealing damage as a wizard (even if it is smaller than the damage done by a fighter or barbarian) and you can be effective using it at the right times. People have taken the derision for blasters too far, and rarely point to damage dealing as a good option anymore. Fireball has gone from explosive to barbecue special, and for whatever reason, Disintegrate is considered save or suck- despite only being able to deal damage, involving no save, and being a ray.

Sure, a pure blaster will encounter problems and things that she can't solve by blowing up, but that's a problem every class, every build will face at some point, and frankly blasters are underrated merely because the lack of thought the community has put into them and their use. They don't require massive amounts of sources and add ons to be effective- yes they will get better if you give them more, but so will any class.

monty
2008-05-12, 07:00 PM
Disintegrate is considered save or suck- despite only being able to deal damage, involving no save, and being a ray.

Since when does Disintegrate not have a save?

Solo
2008-05-12, 07:02 PM
Sure, a pure blaster will encounter problems and things that she can't solve by blowing up, but that's a problem every class, every build will face at some point

I personally find blasting to be less efficient, though, as they encounter problems more frequently than other kinds of builds.


Disintegrate is considered save or suck- despite only being able to deal damage, involving no save, and being a ray.
Requires a fortitude save for half damage.

AmberVael
2008-05-12, 07:02 PM
D'oh. I phrased and said that wrongly, as normal. >.<
Basically what I mean is that it is not the stereotypical save/suck spell, because it deals damage, and if you make your save, it does damage, just like any other blaster spell will do. It's not a save based spell as they are defined here.

^: And actually, it isn't 1/2 damage, it's for 5d6 damage, always, no matter your level. See, I'm not the only person to make mistakes!

Solo
2008-05-12, 07:06 PM
D'oh. I phrased and said that wrongly, as normal. >.<
Basically what I mean is that it is not the stereotypical save/suck spell, because it deals damage, and if you make your save, it does damage, just like any other blaster spell will do. It's not a save based spell as they are defined here.

^: And actually, it isn't 1/2 damage, it's for 5d6 damage, always, no matter your level. See, I'm not the only person to make mistakes!

To be fair, it also doubles as a utility spell for removing objects/obstacles.

AmberVael
2008-05-12, 07:08 PM
To be fair, it also doubles as a utility spell for removing objects/obstacles.

You could say that about a lot of blaster spells though. Some of them might just be a bit more... messy.
>.>
<.<

Jack_Simth
2008-05-12, 07:16 PM
You could say that about a lot of blaster spells though. Some of them might just be a bit more... messy.
>.>
<.<

... and take more work. Disintegrate is a single spell that'll get rid of a ten-foot cube of matter for you (well ... Transmute it into dust, anyway) while direct-damage spells have to deal with hardness and HP. That six-inch thick Iron Door (Hardness 10, 180 hit points) is gone with one casting of Disintegrate at minimum caster level. To get through it with, say, Maximized Fireball (at caster level 11) you're eating it's hit points... probably at half damage, and after hardness. You're doing 20 or 25 damage per spell - it'll take a while.

AmberVael
2008-05-12, 07:21 PM
Well you'll be wanting to use acid or sonic, sure, and yeah, disintegrate will be better for destroying objects in the end.
But what's more awesome- making the door wink away and crumble into dust, or super heating it and melting it into a little puddle? Making it just go 'pop,' or unleashing such horrifically devastating sounds that it shatters from the resonance?
I'll take awesome over effective any day. :smallwink:

Solo
2008-05-12, 07:23 PM
Well you'll be wanting to use acid or sonic, sure, and yeah, disintegrate will be better for destroying objects in the end.
But what's more awesome- making the door wink away and crumble into dust, or super heating it and melting it into a little puddle? Making it just go 'pop,' or unleashing such horrifically devastating sounds that it shatters from the resonance?
I'll take awesome over effective any day. :smallwink:

You can reflavor Disintegrate, you know.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-12, 07:24 PM
Well you'll be wanting to use acid or sonic, sure, and yeah, disintegrate will be better for destroying objects in the end.
But what's more awesome- making the door wink away and crumble into dust, or super heating it and melting it into a little puddle? Making it just go 'pop,' or unleashing such horrifically devastating sounds that it shatters from the resonance?
I'll take awesome over effective any day. :smallwink:
Then you'll want a reserve feat... because otherwise you're liable to run out of spells before it runs out of HP.

AmberVael
2008-05-12, 07:30 PM
Then you'll want a reserve feat... because otherwise you're liable to run out of spells before it runs out of HP.

Hush! You will not erode the grandeur of this idea with mere facts! Reality will shift itself to accommodate its pure awesomeness.
...though I do have to wonder how many 6 inch iron doors you run across. oO

Chronos
2008-05-12, 07:35 PM
I think part of the reason this discussion is going on so long is that not everyone agrees what we're discussing. First, the definitions: What is blasting? If it's just "doing hit point damage", then the Frenzied Berserker is a blaster. If it's "doing damage at a distance", then we can replace the sword with a bow. If it's "doing damage to a bunch of things at once", then neither the übercharger nor orbs are blasting, but a Supreme Cleaver or Dervish is. We could say that blasting is "doing damage via magic", but why does that warrant a different category?

Second, there's what question we're trying to answer. We could ask "Is blasting the best choice of tactics for a wizard?", or we could ask "is a wizard the best choice of classes for blasting?". Alternately, we could ask either of the same pair of questions, with sorcerer substituted for wizard.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-12, 07:36 PM
Hush! You will not erode the grandeur of this idea with mere facts! Reality will shift itself to accommodate its pure awesomeness.
...though I do have to wonder how many 6 inch iron doors you run across. oO
Okay, granted, they're usually called "walls", they're usually made of stone, and they're usually five-feet thick (900 hp)...

but there's nothing quite like getting a surprise round because they were waiting at the door which you ignored in favor of busting through a wall....

AmberVael
2008-05-12, 07:38 PM
^^: The other part of the problem probably has something to do with me quoting tons of things incorrectly, making my complaints sound ten times bigger than they actually are, and exaggerating my points.
So I think I'll drop out of the argument and ignore my urges to keep posting them.

^: I really need to use that idea sometime.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-12, 07:39 PM
But sometimes it just isn't going to work, and wizards have a lot less versatility in the course of a single day than people give them credit for (one of the things that Ozymandias, being a sorcerer, is able to ignore).

And my argument is that you are wrong about that. And Wizads in fact have more then enough versatility, and in fact, more the Sorcerers.


When you only have six spells slots each level, it's difficult to prepare the necessary protections for yourself, a couple of save or suck (with differing saves), two battlefield control, and then have buffing, AND utility spells. You're going to have choose one area and be good at that, or suffer overall.

6-9 spells per level, and no you don't have to choose where to be ineffective because you can prepare all the buffs you need, all the save-or-Xs you need, and all the no save just loses you need. All in one day, that target everything.


Disintegrate is considered save or suck- despite only being able to deal damage, involving no save, and being a ray.

I'm pretty sure the reason Disintegrate is considered a save or die is because touch attacks are pathetically easy, and then they make a save, which if they succeed they take 5d6 damage, average 17.5, which wasn't worth it at level 5 from a 3rd level slot, much less at level 13 from a 7th level slot. And if they fail the save? 26d6 min, up to 40d6, thats 91 to 140, which by the way is more damage then the HP of the enemies you are likely to target with it (intelligent undead and constructs with abilities other then hitting hard, since if that's all they have you just ignore them.)


They don't require massive amounts of sources and add ons to be effective- yes they will get better if you give them more, but so will any class.

Depends on your definition of effective. Certainly Core only they are much less effective the Batman.

Solo
2008-05-12, 07:42 PM
I think Blasting should be defined as doing hit point damage via spells.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-12, 07:51 PM
^: I really need to use that idea sometime.You pretty much need Disintegrate to pull it off properly, though - gradually reducing the wall to rubble alerts them to the tactic.

Oh - and don't forget to cast Invisibility on a door some time... it's loads of laughs.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-12, 07:56 PM
Those spells have to be prepared at the beginning of the day, which is a huge handicap. Either the wizard takes a day spamming Divination spells to determine what spells he needs for the next day, or he takes a random guess at what he might need, falls back on the more proven ones, or spread them out over a wide range of things.

Actually, he always spreads it out over a wide range of things, because that's what makes him so great. He can prepare a spell list that is really really awesome, and that he can use to beat every single encounter that day. Or he can have a few separate spell lists that are geared slightly in one direction or another, but any one of which could allow him to face 4 CR his level encounters a day and win with anything approaching a decent party.

People like to talk about the handicap of preparing spells before hand, but never in my whole career of playing Wizards has that ever been a problem for me.


So the wizard prepares his spells, and knowing what to has loaded on a variety of save or suck/die spells. We'll assume a level 7ish wizard, as the higher level spells are basically "I win" buttons for a wizard. Not entirely fair, but meh.

Combat is engaged, and the Wizard slings off a few spells. First two get saved against on decent rolls, the third is a Hold Person that sticks. Congratulations, the BBEG is frozen for the next 42 seconds!

While I'm all for countering the arguments that everyone else is useless, your example leaves much to be desired, because generally speaking, it takes one round to disable or seriously cripple the opposing forces, and if the BBEG has minions or The Dragon you are usually better off having the Wizard instantly take them/it out of the fight, while everyone else deals with the BBEG for a round, though if it's just the BBEG, fire away.

Also, not pick on your example too much, but any Wizard using 7th level spells who uses a Hold Person against the BBEG is incredibly dumb, and any BBEG that fails his save is going to succeed the next round, not to mention the much better things to do if he isn't mind immune.

Solo
2008-05-12, 07:56 PM
You pretty much need Disintegrate to pull it off properly, though - gradually reducing the wall to rubble alerts them to the tactic.



Reflavor Disintegrate to fire a ray of pure heat and melt your enemies into goo.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-12, 07:59 PM
Reflavor Disintegrate to fire a ray of pure heat and melt your enemies into goo.
Yes... but it's still essentially the same spell from a mechanics perspective.

Chronos
2008-05-12, 08:56 PM
I think Solo was suggesting the reflavor to satisfy Vael's standard of cool. Personally, I think that making things go "poof" with a wisp of smoke and a pile of dust is far cooler than nuking them into oblivion, but de gustibus non est disputandum.

holywhippet
2008-05-12, 10:38 PM
The blasters are weak argument kind of assumes that enemies will be scaled in strength according to the level of the party. Say your level 10 party runs into a 6 ogre barbarians. They have a decent number of hp but their will and reflex saves are pretty lousy. Ok, time for the save or die spells while the meatshields wail on them physically.

Now, what if instead of 6 ogre barbarians you ran into 60 kobold sorcerers - all level 1. Each of those guys has magic missile as a known spell. Most of your save or die spells aren't going to hurt that many opponents. However, spells like fireball will annihilate them en masse if they are closely packed enough.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-05-12, 10:45 PM
Now, what if instead of 6 ogre barbarians you ran into 60 kobold sorcerers - all level 1. Each of those guys has magic missile as a known spell. Most of your save or die spells aren't going to hurt that many opponents. However, spells like fireball will annihilate them en masse if they are closely packed enough.First off, what DM would run enemies that close together? That's just bad planning. Kobolds are supposed to be in narrow, twisty tunnels, hitting your party from cover with minimal risk to themselves. Plus, buffing is better than Fireball in that instance, just cast Shield. Or an AoE Fort save like Stinking Cloud or Black Tentacles, since it will have an 8+cl bonus on the check, and the Kobolds have -6. As long as your CL is over 6(which it has to be), they auto-fail the check, and are grappled and killed just for moving into the area.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-12, 11:15 PM
Now, what if instead of 6 ogre barbarians you ran into 60 kobold sorcerers - all level 1. Each of those guys has magic missile as a known spell. Most of your save or die spells aren't going to hurt that many opponents. However, spells like fireball will annihilate them en masse if they are closely packed enough.

Why would they be closely packed?

The thing to do if you encounter a completely ridiculous encounter like that is to cut off line of sight, ASAP. Throw up a Silent Image of a wall of smoke. Something like that.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-12, 11:15 PM
What sstoopidtallkid said.

Stinking Cloud or Black Tentacles does exactly what Fireball does, but more so.

Hell, use Glitterdust or Web for the same effect.

I mean, you cast Web, you have total cover. You set the web on fire, they take 1d6 damage for a couple rounds an die.

And the Area is the same as Fireball.

Solo
2008-05-12, 11:20 PM
Now, what if instead of 6 ogre barbarians you ran into 60 kobold sorcerers - all level 1. Each of those guys has magic missile as a known spell. Most of your save or die spells aren't going to hurt that many opponents. However, spells like fireball will annihilate them en masse if they are closely packed enough.

So blasting is only useful if you face a hoard of mooks.

This somehow proves that blasting is not weak? That it can only be useful in situations where you face under CR challenges?

Talic
2008-05-13, 12:42 AM
Wha? I never said the other classes didn't have their own things to do. Every class is supposed to have things nobody else can do. The wizard just has a lot more things only they can do, something you seemed to be denying right here:No. I didn't. I stated that if the encounters are made so that the wizard is the only one that can handle the situation, then the DM is a poor DM. I never said that wizards aren't capable of more. Just that if the DM is unable to give every player an opportunity to be useful, then the failing is the DM's. Ratheer than try to let you interpret what I mean (incorrectly), I suppose I shall have to explain it incredibly simply, so simply that a 5 year old could grasp it, so that there is no chance that anyone here (who are hopefully not 5 year olds) can misunderstand it in any way, unless it's willful ignorance. In that case, there will be no further point of dicussion.

Which is silly. If the DM is challenging the party like you say, the wizard will be faced with many more things that only they can do. The DM will be trying to give each person things only they can do.Wrong. Wrong. And again, I say wrong. You've read what I've said, and managed to completely misinterpret it. The DM isn't trying to give people things that they and only they can do. The DM is HOPEFULLY trying to create encounters where everyone can contribute, that reward creative thinking, and problem solving. On the part of all players, not just the wizard.
Of course, finding things that only the wizard can do is much, much easier, but them's the breaks. You seemed to be arguing that wizards ought to be redundant, which is silly.Again, the point isn't exclusivity. The point is making situations where everyone can contribute. And, if the wizard's job is to do everything that nobody else can do (your own words), and someone else can do it... Then it follows that it's not the wizard's job. The fighter's job isn't to do things that the wizard (or cleric) can't. There'd be nothing for him to do. Ever. The fighter's job is HP damage, crowd control, and the like. The rogue's job? Skill related abilities, opportunistic combat. The cleric's job? Heals, Buffs, Combat support. The Wizards? Anything that isn't listed above. The wizard is the pickup, the person who handles the situations others can't. There shouldn't be so many of those that the wizard is overworked, while the other classes twiddle their thumbs. That's either a bad DM, or a glory hog mage, who isn't doing what others can't, but is going nova on everything he CAN do. In that example, the player is acting in a manner that reduces the number 1 goal of the game. Fun. When that happens, it is the DM's responsibility to fix that. My personal favorite method, if an OOC chat doesn't work? Introducing challenges designed to emasculate the character until he understands that he's detracting from the game. Bear in mind, each class has a job. So does the DM. That job is to make sure everyone's having fun. When one player steps over those bounds, the DM should be using every RAW method at his disposal to correct the issue. If the player is still overstepping, then you find a new player. You are touting the ability of a wizard to make pink flowers appear in the air, without figuring out: a) what that accomplishes, and b) whether that goal can be accomplished by other means.


It was your oversimplistic example. It isn't my fault you said walking is as useful as teleport, is it?Could you point out the place where I said that teleport and walk are fuctionally identical in every way? Or perhaps the part where I said that walking and teleport are completely equivalent to one another in terms of usefulness? Or retract your statement, as it's nothing more than strawman, putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. Though, in about 90% of the time teleport will be used? Mundane is functionally identical, if more time consuming. Only when the time that you need to spend to get somewhere is critical to the objective is teleport more useful. The majority of the time? Time critical transportation is not a deciding factor in an encounter. So, yeah, highly situational, and completely unrealistic part? All you, buddy.

Yeah. And then the next day another challenge arrives, and the wizard can come up with something completely different, while the Berzerker can... charge and pounce at it again. Why do you object to the fairly obvious assertion that the wizard is 'filling the gaps' on the Berzerker's fairly limited skillset? Not every situation can be dealt with using a charge and a pounce, and in that case, the Berzerker is fairly useless (most non-combat challenges fall into that category, of course.) Whereas making something that the wizard can't deal with requires, basically, a huge blatant 'NO WIZARDS HERE' sign using an AMF, and even that isn't reliable.So, the wizard does an empowered orb of fire on the white dragon, vs the barbarian hitting it and killing it. Then the wizard does a disintigrate on the vampire, versus the barbarian hitting it and killing it. Then the wizard does a dominate monster on the hill giant, versus the barbarian hitting and killing it.

You know what happened above? In all 3 situations, the wizard used a different means. He accomplished the same end. In all three situations, the barbarian used the same means. He accomplished the same end. In the above examples? They are functionally identical in terms of usefulness. Bottom line? This is not an area where the wizard's versatility is so beneficial. It is something the barbarian can do too. Now, when the party needs to dive to the ocean floor? There is nothing in the barbarian arsenal that can replicate water breathing. When the enemy is invisible? See invisibility is rather difficult to duplicate. When there are 6 enemies? There is nothing a barbarian can do to mitigate the numbers as effectively as a Wall of Force. THAT is where the wizard shines. At doing things the barbarian can't. Not trying to find 30 different ways to do the exact same thing the barbarian can do with a freakin stick. Though I will say that non-combat challenges, such as traps, RP issues, and the like, should still offer the barbarian ways to contribute, even if it's in a different way. Too many people have the mentality that the player playing the barbarian can take a nap during the RP time. The barbarian should be useless about as often as the wizard, and about as often as the rogue, and about as often as the cleric. Which is to say, rarely.

Though, if you need an AMF to deal with a wizard, then you're dealing with wizards wrong.
If you put a wizard and a berzerker in a party together, the wizard is going to be left filling the gaps on all the things the berzerker can't do. Yeah, in theory everyone is supposed to be contributing their own things, but with the list of things the wizard can do so absurdly wide and the list of things the barbarian can do painfully narrow, it's kinda hard to avoid that conclusion.Look at all the spells in core. about 75% of them are devoted to doing the exact. same. thing. Just a slightly different way. Whether it's lightning bolt, or fireball, you're still hitting for 35 average damage at level 10, reflex save for half. If the barbarian is built for crowd control? The wiz can focus on buffs, incorporeal foes, and utility. Damage is covered. If the wizard has so many things he needs to focus on, why on earth would he want to waste a single spell slot on something that can be accomplished by hitting it with a stick? Why? Please, enlighten me, because I fail to see it.


Their basic role is to do damage at range. They take up essentially the same slot in a party, and for the most part a challenge intended for one will work just as well for the other, barring a few things that specifically negate one sort of attack (and even then, magical arrows or those of the correct material / instant conjuration spells will usually put them back on par with each other.) The caster does have the ability to hit multiple enemies in an area, but that's just not a big deal -- it's fairly difficult to make a situation where you have to do that, while still having it be a challenge to a cleaving barbarian, say. Ranged touch does not equal ranged attack. If your wizards are limited to taking up the same party slot as an archer, then there's 1 of two things possible: 1) Wizard is doing ranged damage much better, or 2) The wizard is woefully improperly created.


Well, assuming you mean via Hallow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/hallow.htm) -- the usual way to get a long term dimensional anchor on an area -- the wizard has several options. They can use a maximized Time Stop, walk in, grab the item, and walk out. Or, within that time stop, they can always, you know, dispel the Hallow. They can Gate in something to grab the item for them. They can use magic to dig away the floor under the area (causing it to fall out of the area protected by dimensional anchor), then teleport in and grab the item out of the ruins. If we really want to go there, they can carefully-position themselves and take out the dimensional anchor with a Disjunction (which should never fail to do so, per RAW), although they'd probably want to make sure they don't hit the item they're aiming for... Nope. Time stop renders the item out of time. Can't affect it. Or while they're digging, they're in an entirely different fight with Guardian XXX of this item. In any case, teleport isn't getting you the "One item you need to win the fight." Teleport is one step in the process, which, incidentally, means that the level 17 wizard has just used several high level spells to go for the item. And? often as not, the item was moved, or protected from scrying, or is shielded in some way to prevent the wizard from knowing where it's at. You can't TP anywhere if you don't know where you're going.

Basically, it has limitations. And the number one mistake that most people who play wizards make is, "I can cast x, so I win." That's not true. The teleport to get the item is never just a teleport. First, it's locating the item. The difficulty of this is directly influenced by how important the item is. If it's the one item needed, most likely, it'll be somewhat well protected, especially since now the DM has any effect up to 9th level at his disposal to shield it, if he's going against wizards capable of time stop.

Oh, and you've still not shown a commonplace encounter where nothing that the fighter, rogue, or claric could hope to do at level 17 can be solved with a single item, obtained easily through use of nothing but a teleport spell. All the 9th level examples only serve to illustrate the point more for my argument.

Obviously, the DM you are talking about is going to fiat those into not working -- the dragon is suddenly wearing the item (which is likely to look, ah, a bit silly in most cases), the Hallow mysteriously can't be dispelled (or disjunctioned, somehow...), the floor is undiggable with magic, whatever. So I'll respond to your real point. Doesn't need fiat. Though, if the DM doesn't provide measures for your "kryptonite" to be protected, again, not doing his job. More and more, this hypothetical fight you're suggesting is sounding more and more like a BBEG fight, which has as much relevance to the vast majority of the encounters as a a rabbit with a pancake on its head.

It's still so highly situational as to be completely irrelevant.

I will grant that an OberoniDM is perhaps the wrong word for your argument, but it comes down to the same thing -- yes, a good DM can create challenges for everyone, and in that happy situation there's no difference between the effectiveness or usefulness of characters, because the DM, in charge of the world, is going to see to it that everyone gets their fair share. At that point, many of the questions asked by this thread are moot.I'm glad that you'll grant it, because it's true. The DM's job is to mediate the rules, tell a story, and ensure that everyone has fun. If he allows for a single player to dominate the game, then he has failed at his job. D&D gives a DM limitless power within the confines of the game to accomplish those three tasks. It's really not that hard to do. It's not requiring a perfect DM who changes rules to balance things. It's just designing encounters to allow everyone to have fun, rather than let one jerkish player to walk on him.

But even then, unless the DM is actively working to suppress the wizard, the bulk of the wizard's spells are going to be doing the things that nobody else can do.Such as?

In fact, your argument practically guarentees it -- after all, the DM is going to have to preserve monsters for the Barbarian to leap-attack pounce at, since that's the Barbarian's only real talent. The only way to keep the wizard busy with anything, therefore, is to give them things that nobody else can do -- that way, the wizard gets to teleport the party around or dispel things in their way or whatever else keeps them happy, without necessarily overshadowing anyone else.The only way to make the wizard's teleport important is to make the time it takes to reach the location important. I still fail to see where the barbarian is prevented from doing anything else because he's best at hitting things. Though yes, if there is a barbarian in the party, hopefully the DM is "tossing a bone" his way with an actual combat every now and again. :smallamused: Even though, I can, off the top of my head, provide 2 builds for barbarian that can do more than leap attack pounce, as that entire combo really only requires 1 level 1 class feature, and 1 feat. Not that hard to throw in crowd control through selection of feats and weapons. Not hard to throw in a lot of things with a bit of feat selection. Stand still, reach weapons, reach feats, and bam, 30 foot reach mobility contoller too. But, you're right. Barbarians can't do anything but pounce. Sigh.

Why would you object to having the bulk of the wizard's spells devoted to things nobody else can do? The problem comes when the wizard is devoting their spells to things other people can do, because that's when you risk people feeling overshadowed or redundant.I wouldn't. However, you've yet to provide a single cogent example of a situation this is true, which underlines a lack of experience with the issue. So much so, that I've even provided examples FOR you, above.

When a wizard devotes spells to doing things that others can do easily, then the wizard is doing a disservice to the party, and to the players. In effect, he's wasting his potential, and his teammate's.

Triaxx
2008-05-13, 10:30 AM
Someone mentioned a fight with 60 kobold sorcerors rather than six orc barbarians. Even then a simple great cleaver is capable of flattening most of the encounter. A DM who wants to give the advantage to the blaster over the SoS isn't going to make it so easy.

A bunch of Kobold's are as vulnerable to SoS's as they are to Blasters if they're in a group. Split up with the application of sculpt spell?

Blaster: Sculpted Fireball= one square for each kobold.
DM: 35 damage a piece.

SoS: Sculpted Stinking Cloud/Web= one square per kobold.
DM: Each kobold moves one square out of the effect.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-13, 10:37 AM
SoS: Sculpted Stinking Cloud/Web= one square per kobold.
DM: Each kobold moves one square out of the effect.

Except of course they are still all Nauseated and can't take any standard actions. And of course if it's Web, not a single one can make the Str check to move even 5ft, so they all sit there while you burn the web.

Furthermore, SCULPT SPELL DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! You get four ten foots cubes, which is better but not significantly so then an AoE burst. It's mostly just good for avoiding allies and rounding corners, if they are seriously spread out it won't help that much.

valadil
2008-05-13, 12:00 PM
After 5 pages of this, I still maintain that having a blast spell lying around for finishing off weakened enemies before they get an action is not a bad idea. I'd rather kill someone with a level 2 scorching ray than a level 7 finger of death if I know that the ray's damage is enough to kill. I'm also happy to let the fighter take care of a wounded enemy, but if the enemy goes before my fighter I'd just as soon deny the enemy his turn. Even as a sorcerer I feel I can dedicate one or two slots to blast spells (preferably Melf's Unicorn Arrow or Wings of Flurry).

holywhippet
2008-05-13, 06:30 PM
Someone mentioned a fight with 60 kobold sorcerors rather than six orc barbarians. Even then a simple great cleaver is capable of flattening most of the encounter. A DM who wants to give the advantage to the blaster over the SoS isn't going to make it so easy.


Great cleave only works when your target is within whacking range. For a non-reach weapon you can take down at most 8 enemies this way. That's only if they choose to surround you - unneccessary since they are spellcasters. Even if you take out 8 in the first round, the other 52 are going to annihilate you with those magic missiles spells.

Someone suggested using the shield spell. Problem is, shield only blocks magic missiles from in front. If the kobolds surround you then you are going to get pounded regardless.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-13, 06:47 PM
Great cleave only works when your target is within whacking range. For a non-reach weapon you can take down at most 8 enemies this way. That's only if they choose to surround you - unneccessary since they are spellcasters. Even if you take out 8 in the first round, the other 52 are going to annihilate you with those magic missiles spells.

Someone suggested using the shield spell. Problem is, shield only blocks magic missiles from in front. If the kobolds surround you then you are going to get pounded regardless.
Let's see...

1) D&D doesn't have facing rules unless you're flying (and even then, it's just about what direction you're going). The little issue that the spell says the shield "hovers in front of you" isn't mechanically supported in the rules.
2) "It negates magic missile attacks directed at you." is a completely separate sentence from the one that says the disk hovers in front of you.

A DM might decide that the Shield spell only prevents Magic Missles from people inside a particular arc of the map... but it's a house-rule to do so.

Edit:
Oh, yeah - let's hit the Cleave comment, too.
While yes, they do have to be in range, it's not too hard to get a range that's in line with Fireball's radius. Give the fighter a way to attack both up close and at range (there's a number of ways to do this - the Spiked Chain is the classic, but armor spikes or the Improved Unarmed Strike feat do this as well - and that's just core. Non-Core, there's things like Short Haft) and a potion of Enlarge Person, and he takes up a 10x10 area, and threatens anything within 20 feet of that. Equivalent to a 30-foot burst. Fireball is a 20 foot radius spread. Close enough.

Chronicled
2008-05-13, 06:58 PM
Someone suggested using the shield spell. Problem is, shield only blocks magic missiles from in front. If the kobolds surround you then you are going to get pounded regardless.

I believe that this was true in 3.0, but it was one of the things changed with 3.5's appearance.

Foeofthelance
2008-05-13, 07:01 PM
Also, not pick on your example too much, but any Wizard using 7th level spells who uses a Hold Person against the BBEG is incredibly dumb, and any BBEG that fails his save is going to succeed the next round, not to mention the much better things to do if he isn't mind immune.

I said a level 7ish wizard, not a wizard who can cast level 7 spells. As in a wizard with 6-8 character levels. If the wizard is casting level 7 spells, he shouldn't be trying to paralyze anyone, unless its a mass group. By the time he's casting level 7 spells the Wizard should basically be sniping larger threats while the fighter deals with minions.

Which, to be fair, was my point to begin with. I know there's a complaint that the fighter becomes useless at higher levels, but I've never really seen it in any game I've played in or watched. At lower levels the fighter's endurance makes him key to the party's survival, as he can take the beating while the others aid, and has the largest damage output, at least at that point. Towards the end of the game the fighter takes a small step to the side, and while the wizard is off looking for the weakness in BBEG's armor, the fighter is off to the side soaking up damage from the Dragon, or singlehandedly holding off the minions swarm.

That is also why "Blaster" wizards tend to be frowned upon in comparison to the more Batman styled ones. The Blaster type is essentially trying to do the fighter's job (crowd control) without the necessary tools (High HP and decent AC). Worse, he can be making things worse for the fighter by introducing AoE spells into the combat zone. I think WotC has recognized this, and thats why they tend to put spells that emphasis the Batman role into the various books.

And don't try and tell me that the Wizard can solo "anything". Sure, the spell lists provide an option for just about anything, but only if the PC knows in advance. You yourself said that wizards will pick a varied spell list to memorize each day, simply because there is no guarentee that anyone spell will affect anyone target. And until you get to the real late stages, the most any wizard can cast is two spells a round, with one being very weak in comparison to the other. Unless the DM is being extremely kind and lining up individual CR appropriate challenges one right after the other, with no sort of cooperation between any bad guys, the Wizard is going to have to pick what he's going to do. And meanwhile the Bad Guys are trying to stop him.

Uncle Festy
2008-05-13, 07:24 PM
Blasters are weak because lightsabers are where it's at, baby. :smallbiggrin:

Can I sig that?

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-13, 09:15 PM
Which, to be fair, was my point to begin with. I know there's a complaint that the fighter becomes useless at higher levels, but I've never really seen it in any game I've played in or watched. At lower levels the fighter's endurance makes him key to the party's survival, as he can take the beating while the others aid, and has the largest damage output, at least at that point. Towards the end of the game the fighter takes a small step to the side, and while the wizard is off looking for the weakness in BBEG's armor, the fighter is off to the side soaking up damage from the Dragon, or singlehandedly holding off the minions swarm.

Who actually has swarms of minions? I would certainly never insult my players by actually using anything that pathetic.

And no, the Fighter can't handle the Dragon, the fighter would lose to the Dragon. The thing to do is have th fighter distract the BBEG for one round while the Wizard solos the Dragon in that round, then the whol party can turn attention to the BBEG.


And don't try and tell me that the Wizard can solo "anything". Sure, the spell lists provide an option for just about anything, but only if the PC knows in advance. You yourself said that wizards will pick a varied spell list to memorize each day, simply because there is no guarentee that anyone spell will affect anyone target. And until you get to the real late stages, the most any wizard can cast is two spells a round, with one being very weak in comparison to the other. Unless the DM is being extremely kind and lining up individual CR appropriate challenges one right after the other, with no sort of cooperation between any bad guys, the Wizard is going to have to pick what he's going to do. And meanwhile the Bad Guys are trying to stop him.

So let me get this straight:

As long as the Wizard faces what the DMG says a party of four should face, he can win by himself. But if he faces challenges that should technically TPK the whole party on his own, he needs help?

And this means Wizards can't solo? See to me it means the opposite.

According to the rules, a Wizard that faces an encounter of CR equal to his level has a 50% chance of winning and a 50% chance of losing. That's a single challenge.

So if he faces four a day he should theoretically have a 1/16th chance of actually killing all four. Yet in actual practice, he can do so quite well.

And lets get one thing clear: "You yourself said that wizards will pick a varied spell list to memorize each day, simply because there is no guarentee that anyone spell will affect anyone target." is not what I said.

No, I said they will prepare a varied spell list so that they always have some spells specifically designed to counter what they face, and about half their spells will not be perfect, but could easily defeat their enemies. An additional 1/4th of their spells might not actually work against this foe.

There is a 100% guarantee that any spell you cast will be very very useful against any target(s) you cast it on.

Cuddly
2008-05-13, 09:25 PM
I think part of the problem is that when expounding on virtues of the Batman wizard, too many people tend to neglect the rest of the party, or worse, demean it entirely. Which isn't entirely fair.

Actually, the entire Batman wizard is entirely dependent on other party members. Glitterdust really shines with a rogue in the party. Web works wonders when there's a fighter to make a full attack on it; or better yet, drag the creature to the ground so he can stab it with his glaive.

PS
CdG forces a fort save = 10 + damage dealt by weapon as if you had criticalled. No attack roll is necessary.

[edit]
It is possible to 'one-shot' some encounters. A reached shivering ray will be able to to take an unoptimized dragon you get the drop of equivalent CR. If you can find a way to break SR, you could potentially one-shot much higher dragons. Meta'd debuff rays like, enervate, enfeeblement, stupidity, or clumsiness will also one shot enemies.

Feeblemind can take care of intelligent creatures.

Some encounters you can simply fly past or hit with a debuff that lasts long enough for you to get by.

But most encounters, stinking cloud, web, gitterdust will only help debuff the enemy long enough for the rest of the party to do damage.

Chronos
2008-05-13, 11:31 PM
And no, the Fighter can't handle the Dragon, the fighter would lose to the Dragon. The thing to do is have th fighter distract the BBEG for one round while the Wizard solos the Dragon in that round, then the whol party can turn attention to the BBEG.I believe that "Dragon", as used here, is not meant to literally mean "large scaly reptile that breathes fire, very ill-tempered". I think it's meant in the TV Tropes sense, of "the villain's right-hand man". In which case, whether the fighter is better suited to occupying the BBEG or his dragon depends on what precisely the BBEG and dragon are.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-14, 12:27 AM
I believe that "Dragon", as used here, is not meant to literally mean "large scaly reptile that breathes fire, very ill-tempered". I think it's meant in the TV Tropes sense, of "the villain's right-hand man". In which case, whether the fighter is better suited to occupying the BBEG or his dragon depends on what precisely the BBEG and dragon are.

I am aware of that meaning. What I am saying is that you are better off having the Wizard one shot the Dragon, because then you have a single foe. As opposed to having the Fighter "Occupy" the Dragon, and have two less successful fights going simultaneously.

The same applies to hordes of minions as well, since the Wizard can negate them all with a single wall spell in most cases, and that's a lot better then sending the guy with the most HP with his attacks to slow down the minions for a few rounds, since it involves a smaller action commitment from the party, and a much smaller contribution of targets.

Frosty
2008-05-14, 12:37 AM
What CoV is trying to say is to cull the weak first to reduce the number of actions the other side can take. Actions = premium in combat.

Triaxx
2008-05-14, 06:45 AM
My DM says different. But Anyway, if it is web, they can still make Concentration checks to cast, so it's not much help.

Great Cleave is better still if combined with Overrun. Anyway, with an amulet of shield, activated before entering combat, I'm still safe.

---

Insult the players with hordes of minions? The same players who have probably been using summons as cannon fodder and flanking buddies?

My players find it insulting if the BBEG isn't surrounded by hordes. The more the better, plus his Dragon, and occasionally actual dragons. So my wizards and sorcerors had better be capable of dishing out enourmous amounts of damage.

Solo
2008-05-14, 06:54 AM
My players find it insulting if the BBEG isn't surrounded by hordes. The more the better, plus his Dragon, and occasionally actual dragons. So my wizards and sorcerors had better be capable of dishing out enourmous amounts of damage.

Wall of Force

Wizard: i cast Wall of Force
Horde: .... ok guys, let's break out the shovels and start digging. If all 10,000 of us use Aid Another on our leader for this digging check, we can be on the other side in one round.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-14, 07:34 AM
My DM says different. But Anyway, if it is web, they can still make Concentration checks to cast, so it's not much help.

Except that Web provides total cover when cast correctly, making whether or not they can cast somewhat pointless.


My players find it insulting if the BBEG isn't surrounded by hordes. The more the better, plus his Dragon, and occasionally actual dragons. So my wizards and sorcerors had better be capable of dishing out enourmous amounts of damage.

And my Players would cast Wall of X and all the Minions would become wasted space and time.

Triaxx
2008-05-14, 09:18 AM
Oooh, instant draconic kill-zone. Of course, Wall of Iron is even better.

Minion: Screw digging. Aid another for strength check.
PC's: *splattered under wall*

---

Web is a funny thing. Even total cover still gives MM only a 50/50 chance. 30 shots is enough to hurt badly unless you're a barbarian with arcane casting.

Frosty
2008-05-14, 10:15 AM
Doesn't total cover mean you don't even have Line of Effect anymore? If I'm ducking behind a counter and you can't see me, I have total cover against you and you can't target me directly.

lord_khaine
2008-05-14, 11:03 AM
And my Players would cast Wall of X and all the Minions would become wasted space and time.

but thats only in the cases where you actualy gives them the option of doing so, its not allways possible to seal off the minions with a wall of force.

Triaxx
2008-05-14, 11:12 AM
That's a rules interpretation. A tower shield provides total cover, but you can still attack them you're just aiming for the shield rather than them. I think web would work similarly. You'd be firing where they were, rather than at them directly.

Chronos
2008-05-14, 03:33 PM
Which is a rules interpretation, to say that total cover blocks line of effect, or to say that line of effect is necessary for a spell unless specified otherwise? Because both of those are pretty explicitly laid out in the rules.

You'd be firing where they were, rather than at them directly.How is this at all remotely useful, if your goal is to hit them? And how is it relevant anyway? The wizard who casts Web didn't move, he just put something in your way. If you aim for the place where he was (and still is), you'll just hit a strand of web.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-14, 03:41 PM
Oooh, instant draconic kill-zone. Of course, Wall of Iron is even better.

Minion: Screw digging. Aid another for strength check.
PC's: *splattered under wall*

---

Web is a funny thing. Even total cover still gives MM only a 50/50 chance. 30 shots is enough to hurt badly unless you're a barbarian with arcane casting.

You're confusing Total Cover and Total Concealment.

Total Cover is for when you're behind a barrier, such as a wall. It denies line of effect (except for special cases, such as the Tower Shield), and you can't attack someone through it.

Total Concealment is for when your opponent simply can't see you. If you blind the Wizard, you've got Total Concealment against him when he attacks you. If he knows what square you're in, he can zap at you with touch, ranged touch, melee, or ranged attacks (such as Shocking Grasp, Scorching Ray, a dagger, or a light crossbow) although such attacks suffer a 50% miss chance. If he knows what square you're in, he can use area effect spells (such as Burning Hands or Glitterdust) with no particular issue. He cannot use Targetted spells (such as Reduce Person or Hideous Laughter) on you at all.

Generally, if you have Total Cover, you also have Total Concealment (but not always - for instance, a Wall of Force gives you an invisible wall, which provides Total Cover but no Concealment at all).

Foeofthelance
2008-05-14, 06:32 PM
I am aware of that meaning. What I am saying is that you are better off having the Wizard one shot the Dragon, because then you have a single foe. As opposed to having the Fighter "Occupy" the Dragon, and have two less successful fights going simultaneously.

The same applies to hordes of minions as well, since the Wizard can negate them all with a single wall spell in most cases, and that's a lot better then sending the guy with the most HP with his attacks to slow down the minions for a few rounds, since it involves a smaller action commitment from the party, and a much smaller contribution of targets.

I am quite aware that the wizard's spell lists provide an option for just about any situation. But you still haven't managed to eliminate the support role played by the rest of the party in anyway. From the collective posts, we'll assume the final encounter has 3 major threats. The first is the BBEG itself. The second is the Dragon. The third is the major horde. This basically leaves you three options, as you can only successively deal with one at a time.

Let's say you target the horde first, going with the "reduce actions" strategy. Fine, you throw up a wall. All of which, except Thorns and Force (working the PHB only at the moment), have HP, strength limits, and the like. Thorns isn't on the Wizard's spell list, so doesn't count. Force is unbreakable.

Have you really defeated the threat? No, you haven't. You've simply postponed it, as instead of attacking you they are instead breaching the wall. At which point, you have to do it again, which just repeats the cycle, until you're out of spells. Unless its a wall of force, at which point they just wait for it to go away, preparing to attack when its gone. Oh, and remember! Walls work both ways. If you are safe from them, they are safe from you as well.

Of course you could hit them with a Mass Hold spell, or a Stinking Cloud, or some variant of the AoE stop spell. Of course, there's absolutely no guarentee that they'll all fail their saves, and probably a good chance that some will do just the opposite. You've reduced the threat, but you still haven't negated it. Oh, and mean while the Dragon and BBEG are using the oppurtunity to attack. You didn't think they were going to be polite and just sit there waiting for their turn, did you? C'mon, they're bad guys! Everyone knows bad guys aren't polite!

And that's just option one! Let's pick the second option then: Going after the Dragon first. Well, its the Dragon. The right hand man of the main man himself. Probably a heckuva fight in his own right, the only reason he isn't in charge is that his boss is tougher. And you think you can what, just one shot him? We're not talking a fly on the wall, we're talking the guy the bad guys send when they have a mess to clean up. He's probably fought the party once or twice before and survived. Even if he hasn't, what makes you think he's such a pushover? And of course, while you are trying to stop him, the BBEG and his swarm of minions is acting. Still, only one of three threats (possibly) thwarted, with the other two still active.

I'd go into option 3 in detail, but it is essentially option 2 with more danger and a less likely chance of reward. After all, he is the BBEG, so you know he's gonna put up a fight one way or another. Heck, for all you know he has one of those handy Anti-magic rods, just to suck up those first few "I Win" spells you plan on throwing about. After all, if he's survived to get this far he has to have a few tricks up his sleeve.

Thinking about it, I know I'd be glad to have a few friends along with me. Maybe one or two who could take a beating and still keep going, or one who could get God to intervene on our side if things start getting a little rough. But you're a Batman wizard. You don't need any friends.

Ralfarius
2008-05-14, 06:44 PM
But you're a Batman wizard. You don't need any friends.
It's been said, a few times, by the proponents of the Batman, that one of the Batman's main functions is to make the enemy useless/helpless with a spell so that the other characters can go finish it off.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-14, 06:46 PM
It's been said, a few times, by the proponents of the Batman, that one of the Batman's main functions is to make the enemy useless/helpless with a spell so that the other characters can go finish it off.

You say "friends", I say "minions".

Chronos
2008-05-14, 06:47 PM
Have you really defeated the threat? No, you haven't. You've simply postponed it, as instead of attacking you they are instead breaching the wall. At which point, you have to do it again, which just repeats the cycle, until you're out of spells. Unless its a wall of force, at which point they just wait for it to go away, preparing to attack when its gone. Oh, and remember! Walls work both ways. If you are safe from them, they are safe from you as well.Right, you haven't actually defeated the mooks, just postponed the fight with them. But in the meantime, in the time they're chiseling through your wall (or stumbling through your Solid Fog, or whatever), you're fighting the BBEG and his dragon. Do it right, and you should be able to hold off the army for long enough to kill the big guys, at which point you can devote your full undivided attention to them. You can also choose your barrier and attack specifically in such a way that you can attack through it, while they (not knowing what specific tactic you prepared) can't prepare against it. For instance, you could place your Wall of Force a few inches above the ground, and then cast a Cloudkill to seep underneath it. Or you could use a Wall of Fire, and summon fire elementals to charge through it, or earth elementals to charge through a wall of stone. Or if it's something you can shape (like a wall of stone), you could just leave a small peephole in it, stay away from the peephole while you're fighting the main villain, and then when you're done, cast your AoE spell of choice through the hole.

Ralfarius
2008-05-14, 06:48 PM
You say "friends", I say "minions".
I never said they were your friends. :smallamused:

Foeofthelance
2008-05-14, 07:12 PM
It's been said, a few times, by the proponents of the Batman, that one of the Batman's main functions is to make the enemy useless/helpless with a spell so that the other characters can go finish it off.

No, I know. But there also seem to be quite a few who think that being Batman = Solo Win. I was trying to point out why Batman needs his friends along.

Chronos, I'm not trying to say that the Wizard can't or shouldn't handle the mooks; just that for every action he takes against them is one less action not being taken by the others. Up until around level 17 or so, it really isn't very feasible for the wizard to be in two places at once. This is especially important with spells, as they are finite resource no matter how you cut it, and expanding on the amount carried tends to be expensive, especially since scrolls are one shot items. So each spell cast on the mooks isn't being cast on the Dragon or BBEG, and so on.

Oh, and Cuddly before I forget, On CdG, I think it's a little easier to survive an attempt being made with the wizard's staff or dagger than it is to survive the fighter going, "Well, can I PA for 20 since I can't miss anyway?" while wielding a +5 Greatsword of Slaughter.

Chronos
2008-05-14, 08:01 PM
Chronos, I'm not trying to say that the Wizard can't or shouldn't handle the mooks; just that for every action he takes against them is one less action not being taken by the others.I had taken it as understood that someone has to deal with the minions sooner or later, and that it would probably be a spellcaster. The question for this thread is how that spellcaster can most effectively deal with them: By blasting them, or by putting them under some sort of battlefield control until after the other threats are out of the way.


But there also seem to be quite a few who think that being Batman = Solo Win.Well, that's just patently ridiculous. Everyone knows that Solo wins with a sorcerer, not a wizard.

Ralfarius
2008-05-14, 09:05 PM
Well, that's just patently ridiculous. Everyone knows that Solo wins with a sorcerer, not a wizard.
*Facepalm*

Jack Mann
2008-05-14, 09:37 PM
No, Solo wins with the Millennium Falcon.

Triaxx
2008-05-15, 10:07 AM
Assuming it's the final battle, since both the Dragon and BBEG are present, the Batman starts tossing walls, possibly cutting off his fighters or flashing out with webs/massholds/solid fogs. For the Dragon, and BBEG, who are no doubt immune to such tricks, he's got to try and pick on the weak save. Of course he has to find it first.

The Blaster Timestops, and unleashes maximized fireballs, taking large parts of the minions down in a single set of actions. Or hammers at the Dragon with lighting, or picks on other weaknesses.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-15, 03:24 PM
Assuming it's the final battle, since both the Dragon and BBEG are present, the Batman starts tossing walls, possibly cutting off his fighters or flashing out with webs/massholds/solid fogs. For the Dragon, and BBEG, who are no doubt immune to such tricks, he's got to try and pick on the weak save. Of course he has to find it first.

The Blaster Timestops, and unleashes maximized fireballs, taking large parts of the minions down in a single set of actions. Or hammers at the Dragon with lighting, or picks on other weaknesses.
Do note: When you're in a Time Stop, Instant evocations are pointless. Delayed Blast Fireball can work, but a regular Fireball won't unless you've got Delay Spell, Repeat Spell, or similar that will make it take effect in a later round.

Triaxx
2008-05-15, 06:22 PM
I've always used the interpretation that instant Evo's stop being attached the instant the casting is complete, thus they don't begin to take effect until the Time Stop ends. So they are stopped the same as everything else. The casting still takes place in stopped time, but the spell exists outside of it. Thus casting three Lightning bolts persay, means as soon as the Stop ends you roll 30d6.

Irreverent Fool
2008-05-15, 06:42 PM
I've always used the interpretation that instant Evo's stop being attached the instant the casting is complete, thus they don't begin to take effect until the Time Stop ends. So they are stopped the same as everything else. The casting still takes place in stopped time, but the spell exists outside of it. Thus casting three Lightning bolts persay, means as soon as the Stop ends you roll 30d6.


While the time stop is in effect, other creatures are invulnerable to your attacks and spells; you cannot target such creatures with any attack or spell. A spell that affects an area and has a duration longer than the remaining duration of the time stop have their normal effects on other creatures once the time stop ends.

The fact that the spell description specifically points out that spells that affect areas and have a duration longer than the time stop will work pretty much negates that assumption. Your spells go off as normal relative to you: they don't freeze in mid air. Hence the classic Time Stop and Delayed Blast Fireball combination.

Roderick_BR
2008-05-15, 06:45 PM
That's a rules interpretation. A tower shield provides total cover, but you can still attack them you're just aiming for the shield rather than them. I think web would work similarly. You'd be firing where they were, rather than at them directly.
That's something that I've been wondering. A caster can target a tower shield to affect the character, but does it provide cover against area (non-targeted) spells, when used in "barrier-mode"? And it still works the same in 4e?

tyckspoon
2008-05-15, 07:17 PM
That's something that I've been wondering. A caster can target a tower shield to affect the character, but does it provide cover against area (non-targeted) spells, when used in "barrier-mode"? And it still works the same in 4e?

I think you'd have cover from Bursts and Emanations that originated from the right direction, since they specify that they don't affect things that have 'total cover from the point of origin'. Somebody could still potentially aim a fireball behind you, although the lack of facing in 3.5 technically makes that impossible. You would also still be subject to Spreads like the various Cloud and Fog spells. Nobody knows how this might go in 4E, since to the best of my knowledge none of the preview material has included a tower shield.

Woot Spitum
2008-05-15, 11:54 PM
After 5 pages of this, I still maintain that having a blast spell lying around for finishing off weakened enemies before they get an action is not a bad idea. I'd rather kill someone with a level 2 scorching ray than a level 7 finger of death if I know that the ray's damage is enough to kill. I'm also happy to let the fighter take care of a wounded enemy, but if the enemy goes before my fighter I'd just as soon deny the enemy his turn. Even as a sorcerer I feel I can dedicate one or two slots to blast spells (preferably Melf's Unicorn Arrow or Wings of Flurry).
This is what wands are for.

Triaxx
2008-05-16, 06:05 AM
We took that to mean only spells with a duration. So buffs can run out, but instant damage doesn't get bothered.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-16, 06:06 AM
I think you'd have cover from Bursts and Emanations that originated from the right direction, since they specify that they don't affect things that have 'total cover from the point of origin'. Somebody could still potentially aim a fireball behind you, although the lack of facing in 3.5 technically makes that impossible. You would also still be subject to Spreads like the various Cloud and Fog spells. Nobody knows how this might go in 4E, since to the best of my knowledge none of the preview material has included a tower shield.
Do note, though, that Spreads such as Fireball have the option of curling around Cover, although that does give a bonus on the save.

Griffin131
2008-05-16, 06:13 AM
We took that to mean only spells with a duration. So buffs can run out, but instant damage doesn't get bothered.

Lightning Bolt
Evocation [Electricity]
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 120 ft.
Area: 120-ft. line
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes

Lightning Bolt has a duration. Since Time Stop specifically calls out spells with a longer duration than is left being able to work after the Stop ends, and LB obviously doesn't, your interpretation is incorrect.

Roderick_BR
2008-05-16, 07:32 AM
I think you'd have cover from Bursts and Emanations that originated from the right direction, since they specify that they don't affect things that have 'total cover from the point of origin'. Somebody could still potentially aim a fireball behind you, although the lack of facing in 3.5 technically makes that impossible. You would also still be subject to Spreads like the various Cloud and Fog spells. Nobody knows how this might go in 4E, since to the best of my knowledge none of the preview material has included a tower shield.
Hmm... true, hard to rule where the tower is. Good point about the spreads.
No tower shield in 4E? I won't be able to use my "walking barricade" dwarf?:smalltongue:

kentma57
2008-05-16, 09:45 AM
Blasters can be good I played a pyro-maniac sorcerer one, so much killing.

Triaxx
2008-05-16, 06:31 PM
*sigh* Spells with a duration of greater than instantaneous.

Griffin131
2008-05-16, 10:06 PM
*sigh* Spells with a duration of greater than instantaneous.

But thats not what Time Stop says. So you're adding rules to it.

olelia
2008-05-16, 11:30 PM
Which he never said he was playing RAW. He said that his party uses that interpretation. Hes not adding on to the rules hes changing them. House ruling seems to be a common thing to do now on the forums.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-16, 11:45 PM
But thats not what Time Stop says. So you're adding rules to it.


A spell that affects an area and has a duration longer than the remaining duration of the time stop have their normal effects on other creatures once the time stop ends.
Instantaneous spells cast during a Time Stop have no effect. What's so hard about this?

Triaxx
2008-05-17, 08:17 AM
If it makes you feel better, my DM said so. In any case it's more fun this way.

---

Back to the topic at hand. A SoS casts a wall to block off the minions, potentially cutting off his own fighters so he can deal with the Dragon and BBEG.

The blaster can just fire a Quickened Maximised Fireball, and normal Fireball and deal with them now instead of AFTER he's unloaded on the BBEG.

Griffin131
2008-05-17, 08:18 AM
Which he never said he was playing RAW. He said that his party uses that interpretation. Hes not adding on to the rules hes changing them. House ruling seems to be a common thing to do now on the forums.

Using house rules to say that blasters arent weak is... not the best idea.

Griffin131
2008-05-17, 08:30 AM
If it makes you feel better, my DM said so. In any case it's more fun this way.
Right. But House Rules shouldnt be brought into a discussion about why blaster mages are weak. I could House Rule that Magic Missle did 10d10 damage per missle... that wouldn't be relevant in this discussion either.


Back to the topic at hand. A SoS casts a wall to block off the minions, potentially cutting off his own fighters so he can deal with the Dragon and BBEG.

The blaster can just fire a Quickened Maximised Fireball, and normal Fireball and deal with them now instead of AFTER he's unloaded on the BBEG.
And whats the difference? If you wall them, you pretty much have plenty of time to deal with the BBEG and the dragon, then decide how you want to pwn the minions.

Jack Mann
2008-05-17, 03:42 PM
Yeah, if you have to fix something, that's a pretty good indication that it's broken in some way.

Triaxx
2008-05-17, 08:40 PM
What I meant was that after defeating the Dragon and/or the BBEG, all the good spells have been wasted. The one or two castings of FoD. The Wail of the Banshee. Because those two aren't going to have such light saves that the won't shrug the first casting or two off, provided they even penetrate SR. The blaster just keeps piling on the damage. Horrid Wilting, Sunfire, even the aforementioned Delayed Blast Fireball. The SoS has to worry about Saves AND SR. The blaster just has to worry about SR.

Chronos
2008-05-17, 09:06 PM
The blaster has to worry about saves, too. Almost nothing will die to a blasting spell on a successful save, so every time your enemies make their saving throws, that's one more spell you have to throw at them. Nor does the non-blasting wizard always have to worry about saves, or indeed, about SR: There are spells which ignore one or both of those.

Worira
2008-05-17, 09:28 PM
Although to be fair, if your blaster has to worry about saves and SR...

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/wrong-mike.jpg

Triaxx
2008-05-18, 06:09 AM
Actually, done right it's possible to drop enough power to kill most BBEG's in one shot, regardless of saves. Delayed Maximized Fireballs, Delayed Disintegrate, and Horrid Wilting. Preferrably prefaced by a quickened Fireball.

It even rely's on Disintegrate coming up with a failed save.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 06:15 AM
Nonono.

It's Orb of X, Twinned, Maximized, and uh, a bunch of other stuff. Comes up with some ludicrous, arbitrarily high amount of damage. It's in a Tippy Build of something or other..

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-18, 06:22 AM
Nonono.

It's Orb of X, Twinned, Maximized, and uh, a bunch of other stuff. Comes up with some ludicrous, arbitrarily high amount of damage. It's in a Tippy Build of something or other..

Orb of Acid, Cold-Admixed, Twinned, Maximised - after that it tails off (whereas the above double the damage, empower only adds 50%, and quicken means burning through charges).

It's not actually that broken, really; I'm playing an Artificer on these boards who does just that, using metamagic item. You end up being like the Heavy from TF2; ridiculous damage (well, sorta; currently at 480/charge), but your 'IMMA CHARGIN' MAH WANDS' time takes a long while; you have to balance your damage output with contributions to the fight. Plus, you're only hitting one person at a time, meaning mid-level groups can be nasty (they are numerous enough so that you are only dropping one at a time, yet they are still individually nasty enough to cause you grief).

Tippy's strategy doesn't need that prep-time, nor expendable resources, though; he uses Arcane Thesis, etc.

Solo
2008-05-18, 06:28 AM
Actually, done right it's possible to drop enough power to kill most BBEG's in one shot, regardless of saves. Delayed Maximized Fireballs, Delayed Disintegrate, and Horrid Wilting. Preferrably prefaced by a quickened Fireball.

It even rely's on Disintegrate coming up with a failed save.

As a player, you don't know how many rounds you have for Time Stop: By RAW, the DM is supposed to roll behind the screen for.

Unless, of course, you have a Rod of Maximize Spell.

Triaxx
2008-05-18, 05:57 PM
I wasn't talking in a Time Stop. I got tired of arguing with Rules Lawyers over it.

---

It's similar to a Pokemon tactic of using Future Sight (Hits two turns later.), followed by Dig (Hits the following turn.). The enemy then gets hit with two attacks on the same turn of much greater power than the normal multi-hit attacks.

The strategy is similar. It's like a full attack for Wizards.

Love Rod of Maximise Spell, but I'd rather maximize Horrid Wilting than waste a charge on a Time Stop.

Granted, this is all using published materials. One of my campaigns contains a homebrew spell capable of pulling meteors out of the sky, for a maximum strike of 30d20 damage, in a 600' radius. Not intended for use against 'squishy' targets. IE smaller than a city, but terrifyingly effective as Anti-airship firepower. The campaign is significantly over powered though. We don't even SEE our BBEG's until level 15 or so, and don't fight them until 27-32.

Waspinator
2008-05-20, 04:45 PM
You know, if nothing else, the problem with blasting-oriented Wizards or Sorcerors really just comes down to the question of "Why not be a Psion instead?" Their blasting powers offer far greater flexibility and ability "out of the box" to scale than anything a Wizard can easily do.

Flickerdart
2008-05-20, 05:24 PM
You know, if nothing else, the problem with blasting-oriented Wizards or Sorcerors really just comes down to the question of "Why not be a Psion instead?" Their blasting powers offer far greater flexibility and ability "out of the box" to scale than anything a Wizard can easily do.
1) Because most DMs hate Psionics with a passion
2) There is no two, if Psionics are allowed, they're the better choice.

To confuse people, lug around a spellbook AND wear heavy armour. Plus maybe some other defining classes' features: box of chalk as per the Binder, etc. Take Telepath, max your Bluff and watch people's heads explode.

Waspinator
2008-05-20, 06:29 PM
I really don't get why some people hate Psionics so much. Is it simply because it isn't a core form of "magic"?

Reel On, Love
2008-05-20, 06:32 PM
You know, if nothing else, the problem with blasting-oriented Wizards or Sorcerors really just comes down to the question of "Why not be a Psion instead?" Their blasting powers offer far greater flexibility and ability "out of the box" to scale than anything a Wizard can easily do.

Psion scaling isn't free.

And frankly, noncore sorcerers make better blasters than Psions, thanks to free scaling, spells like Moonbow, Wings of Flurry, etc, and the monstrous multiple-spells-per-round granted by spells like Imbue Familiar with Spell Ability, Arcane Spellsurge, and the Arcane Fusion line.


Edit: people hate Psionics out of tradition, basically.

MeklorIlavator
2008-05-20, 06:39 PM
I really don't get why some people hate Psionics so much. Is it simply because it isn't a core form of "magic"?

This is all hearsay, but psioncs in earlier editions was either poorly implemented, horribly unbalanced, or both. At one point(2nd?) if you weren't psionc, you basically had no ability to defends yourself from psoincs, so they would walk all over you. Also, many may have played the newest rules under the belief that magic doesn't interact with psioncs and vice versa, which is discouraged by the manual, and also played under the belief that one could augment a power with more points than one's manifester level, breaking the system.

Waspinator
2008-05-20, 07:19 PM
Ah, that would do it. If you miss the rule about manifester level capping point usage, that would make psionics crazy. Dump all of your day's points into one blasting power and you could kill almost anything that you would be fighting that wasn't outright immune.

Also, psionic-magical transparency is usually very important. Personally, I don't entirely like it thematically, but that's outweighed by the mechanical benefit in this case. Makes using it alongside other types of magic a lot easier.