PDA

View Full Version : Why are wizards broken?



purplearcanist
2008-05-29, 06:17 PM
Please, my friend needs to know why wizards are broken. Can you please give some good arguments?

purplearcanist
2008-05-29, 06:18 PM
By the way, this is for D&D version 3.5

MeklorIlavator
2008-05-29, 06:28 PM
The argument really boils down to the fact that with little effort a Wizard can prepare a list that will allow him to disable an enemy, or at least make it useless. This means that an intelligently played Wizard will "win", barring certain unforeseen circumstances(ridiculously long endurance runs, monsters created specifically to defeat the wizard using DM fait), thus leading to their overpowered status.

Really, this pertains to all full casters(to a degree), especially to the big 3 in core(Cleric, Wizard, Druid) or the big four outside it(Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Artificer). The only difference is that the Cleric and Druid simply supplant the Melee's role in the party with a minimum of effort and thus make such classes pointless to play from the mechanical view.

NoDot
2008-05-29, 06:45 PM
Go look at the spell Color Spray. It's a first level Illusion spell. Creatures with low Hit Dice really are in bad shape after getting hit with it and failing their save, no?

A first level Wizard should have 18 INT for +4 to the DC. As Color Spray is level one, the final DC from just that is 15. Look through the MM for how many creatures have a Will Save above zero. Hint:they're hard to find. (Someone else can pull up the percentages.) That means they need to roll a 15 or better on the d20 of effectively have lost the battle.

Oh, and Color Spray is a cone effect.

Also look up Sleep; the DC is the same.

And then there are other such Save-or-Die spells in the PHB.

(Other fun things to do at level one include casting Mage Armour on yourself and wading into melee with your Quarterstaff and beating the snot out of the enemy despite your Hit Die.)

de-trick
2008-05-29, 06:52 PM
logic ninja had a phrase for a wizard what was it...ohyah it was BATMAN (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19085)

InkEyes
2008-05-29, 07:27 PM
Wizards can learn any spell on their spell list. A wizard is Batman, with a day's prep time they can be ready for any situation. They also get more bonus feats than other spellcasters.

Solo
2008-05-29, 07:33 PM
Please, my friend needs to know why wizards are broken. Can you please give some good arguments?

1. Read Solo's Sorcerer Guide.
2. Consider how hard it would be for a Fighter to beat a well made sorcerer.
3. Keep in mind that sorcerers are weaker than wizards due to lack of stratigic flexibility.
4. ???
5. Profit.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-29, 07:34 PM
We'll play it like Hangman...

S_LID F_G

...

Any guesses?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 07:35 PM
We'll play it like Hangman...

S_LID F_G

...

Any guesses?

Oneupmanship:

Pink Tentacles.

And I'm the "Rabid Solid Fog fanboi" In the Playground.

UserClone
2008-05-29, 07:54 PM
We'll play it like Hangman...

S_LID F_G

...

Any guesses?

...timestop?

Scintillatus
2008-05-29, 07:57 PM
Actually, it's Celerity.

Turcano
2008-05-29, 08:11 PM
We'll play it like Hangman...

S_LID F_G

...

Any guesses?

Ooh! Ooh! Is it split ray enervation?

Xyk
2008-05-29, 08:18 PM
We'll play it like Hangman...

S_LID F_G

...

Any guesses?

Solid Fig?

Anyone can obtain solid figs, they're like 2cp!:smallbiggrin:

Quellian-dyrae
2008-05-29, 08:27 PM
Wizards aren't broken. Oh sure, certain spells are broken, but hey, so are certain feats. In and of themselves though, wizards are at precisely the proper level of ability for a high fantasy game.

It's just that most of the other classes in the game are underpowered.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 08:28 PM
Wizards aren't broken. Oh sure, certain spells are broken, but hey, so are certain feats. In and of themselves though, wizards are at precisely the proper level of ability for a high fantasy game.

It's just that most of the other classes in the game are underpowered.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You defeated yourself with your own words!

Thanks, I needed the laughs.

monty
2008-05-29, 08:29 PM
We'll play it like Hangman...

S_LID F_G

...

Any guesses?

I know! Is it Magic Missile? Wait, no, that doesn't fit. Fireball? Nope.

Wait, I have it...Polymorph. There we go.

Armads
2008-05-29, 08:36 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You defeated yourself with your own words!

Thanks, I needed the laughs.

I think he's being sarcastic.



We'll play it like Hangman...

S_LID F_G

...

Any guesses?

ooh! i know! Gate!

SamTheCleric
2008-05-29, 08:37 PM
You guys are the worst hangman players ever..

It's FORESIGHT! :smallbiggrin:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 08:39 PM
I think he's being sarcastic.



ooh! i know! Gate!

I dunno, sarcasm is usually MUCH more subtle, and doesn't kill itself with a contradiction, at least not so apparently.

Quellian-dyrae
2008-05-29, 08:42 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You defeated yourself with your own words!

Thanks, I needed the laughs.

::Shrugs::Wizards have a wide variety of options that can be applied for both detailed character building, strategic daily preparation, and tactical combat options. They are powerful enough that you don't have to suspend disbelief in the slightest when they bring down a giant, demon, or dragon. They are highly useful to the party in both combat and a variety of non-combat encounters. Their abilities are easily re-fluffed to fit virtually any descriptive role, with eight such roles (in the form of specialist wizards) provided right out of the box, but they also have a long-standing and popular archetype for players to base them on.

In my opinion, that is exactly what all characters in a high-fantasy setting should be. 'Course, I like high-power games.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 08:56 PM
::Shrugs::Wizards have a wide variety of options that can be applied for both detailed character building, strategic daily preparation, and tactical combat options. They are powerful enough that you don't have to suspend disbelief in the slightest when they bring down a giant, demon, or dragon. They are highly useful to the party in both combat and a variety of non-combat encounters. Their abilities are easily re-fluffed to fit virtually any descriptive role, with eight such roles (in the form of specialist wizards) provided right out of the box, but they also have a long-standing and popular archetype for players to base them on.

In my opinion, that is exactly what all characters in a high-fantasy setting should be. 'Course, I like high-power games.

I support that. It's just that claiming wizards are not overpowered is like saying the ocean is made of crystal metamphetamines. In other words, bollocks. See, we have to stick to the present to discuss things, not the ideal future.

Speaking of which, I think that wizard is too high a power standard. I'm more on the level of factotum, Binder, ToB, or favored soul.

Quellian-dyrae
2008-05-29, 09:04 PM
I support that. It's just that claiming wizards are not overpowered is like saying the ocean is made of crystal metamphetamines. In other words, bollocks. See, we have to stick to the present to discuss things, not the ideal future.

Speaking of which, I think that wizard is too high a power standard. I'm more on the level of factotum, Binder, ToB, or favored soul.

Well, I was being somewhat flippant there. Saying wizard's are of correct power while most of the other classes are underpowered was, I felt, equivalent to saying that wizards are indeed too powerful in comparison to the other classes, while still making the point I wanted to make.

As far as whether or not that is actually the "correct" power...to each their own.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-05-29, 09:07 PM
While I whole-heartedly agree that a wizard decked to the teeth with the various spells already mentioned is op, what about the blaster caster?

Usually when I play a wizard, I don't play him to put people to sleep, I play him to blow the crap out of stuff. :smallbiggrin:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-29, 09:08 PM
While I whole-heartedly agree that a wizard decked to the teeth with the various spells already mentioned is op, what about the blaster caster?

Usually when I play a wizard, I don't play him to put people to sleep, I play him to blow the crap out of stuff. :smallbiggrin:

It ranks low with the unoptimized fighter and the swashbuckler. Not BAD, per se, but it pulls it's weight barely.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-29, 09:12 PM
It ranks low with the unoptimized fighter and the swashbuckler. Not BAD, per se, but it pulls it's weight barely.

Unless its one of my blaster wizards.

Solo
2008-05-29, 09:12 PM
While I whole-heartedly agree that a wizard decked to the teeth with the various spells already mentioned is op, what about the blaster caster?

Usually when I play a wizard, I don't play him to put people to sleep, I play him to blow the crap out of stuff. :smallbiggrin:

Rayman's character sheet was lost recently, but it consisted of things like Avasculate, Blackfire, Disintigrate, Unicorn Arrow, Enervation, and Orb of Force, with a liberal dosage of metamagic.

monty
2008-05-29, 09:17 PM
It ranks low with the unoptimized fighter and the swashbuckler. Not BAD, per se, but it pulls it's weight barely.

Unless you're playing an Incantatrix blaster, in which case you can shoot out quickened still silent heightened fortified maximized empowered admixed chained twinned split ray whatevers and kill everything very quickly.

Of course, if you optimize anything well enough it breaks.

Pie Guy
2008-05-29, 09:19 PM
We'll play it like Hangman...

S_LID F_G

...

Any guesses?

Prestidigitation!
Super-Spell-That-Makes-You-Invincible!
Meteor Swarm!
Beating-joke-to-death Spellish-thing!

Turcano
2008-05-29, 09:23 PM
Meteor swarm? Where have you been?

Torger
2008-05-29, 09:30 PM
See, personally, I think that this is bunk, but holding that opinion verges on a bannable offense for trolling around these parts.

Sure, a Wizard with 48 hours notice can totally own a solo fighter who's more or less unawares. However, the average Wizard wandering around for the day has a pile of different spells prepared - divinations, movement spells, etc.

Personally, I think that casters need some kind of ability to utilize at each level such that they always have something to do. Otherwise, you run into Neverwinter Nights syndrome. "Ok, that's one encounter down, let's go." "Nope. It's rest time." "What the hell?!? We just got here. That should have taken 1/6th of your resources." "Yeah, the upper 1/6th. We either take a nap, or I'm poor archery support."

And this is the point where I'm informed that I'm "Playing the game wrong with a bunch of morons who clearly don't understand the rules and the intent of making the BEST CHARACTER EVAR!!!"

Jack_Simth
2008-05-29, 09:32 PM
While I whole-heartedly agree that a wizard decked to the teeth with the various spells already mentioned is op, what about the blaster caster?

Usually when I play a wizard, I don't play him to put people to sleep, I play him to blow the crap out of stuff. :smallbiggrin:
Rumor has it that a blaster wizard was used in playtesting. Generally, he's not going to outshine the Fighter noticeably (unless he also plays the role of Batman to the hilt, too).

See, personally, I think that this is bunk, but holding that opinion verges on a bannable offense for trolling around these parts.

Sure, a Wizard with 48 hours notice can totally own a solo fighter who's more or less unawares. However, the average Wizard wandering around for the day has a pile of different spells prepared - divinations, movement spells, etc.

Personally, I think that casters need some kind of ability to utilize at each level such that they always have something to do. Otherwise, you run into Neverwinter Nights syndrome. "Ok, that's one encounter down, let's go." "Nope. It's rest time." "What the hell?!? We just got here. That should have taken 1/6th of your resources." "Yeah, the upper 1/6th. We either take a nap, or I'm poor archery support."

And this is the point where I'm informed that I'm "Playing the game wrong with a bunch of morons who clearly don't understand the rules and the intent of making the BEST CHARACTER EVAR!!!"

... If your 3.5 D&D Wizard is running out of spell slots on the first encounter, then one of the following is true:
1) You're playing a Wizard at low levels (where they aren't all that grand to begin with).
2) You're wasting resources (spamming high-level spells when lower-level ones will do, or selecting spells that are only occasionally applicable)
3) You're not properly pushing Int like you should.

Seriously - a specialist Wizard who is pushing Intelligence will generally have three (odd levels) or four (even levels) of his highest level spell slot. If you're spending more than one of those on a given fight, it'd better be a fight that's above your effective party level, or you've got a resource expenditure problem.

quiet1mi
2008-05-29, 09:39 PM
they can do everything that any class specializes in... but better

for any warrior type class they have tesner's transformation,magic weapon,"animal buffs"(bull's strength etc...), mage armor,shield or just summoning a monster for the duration of a fight

for the expert type, they have invisibility, silence,knock,summon monster for activating traps,fly and if they really need to teleport

for the divine guardian, they may not be able to heal but they can prevent the enemy from dealing damage with, save or die spells (disintegrate), save or suck spells (sleep,deep slumber) and battlefield control (web and grease) and for projectiles (wind wall, protection from arrows).The casting of one of the spells will save the party more Hp than most clerics can heal with three cure ____ wounds spells)

sorcerers may have more spells per day but wizards can afford to take situational spells such as the ones mentioned above.(and at latter levels this becomes less of an issue with a 4 encounter day schedule)

in conclusion the wizard is the ultimate generalist in the fact that a party of 4 wizards will be able to do anything, because they can coordinate spells and share the spells they collect from gaining levels...

the only weakness is that if and only if they are caught with their pants down and face a threat they were not prepared for... then their only option is really just running away... (you can argue this applies to everything)

monty
2008-05-29, 10:04 PM
(you can argue this applies to everything)

Not really. Surprised fighter starts poking things with his sharp object of choice; surprised rogue starts poking them from the other side with his sharp object of choice; surprised cleric goes CoDzilla and starts whacking stuff with his blunt object of choice; surprised wizard starts tossing out death rays and save-or-sucks.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-29, 10:23 PM
they can do everything that any class specializes in... but better

for any warrior type class they have tesner's transformation,magic weapon,"animal buffs"(bull's strength etc...), mage armor,shield or just summoning a monster for the duration of a fight

for the expert type, they have invisibility, silence,knock,summon monster for activating traps,fly and if they really need to teleport

for the divine guardian, they may not be able to heal but they can prevent the enemy from dealing damage with, save or die spells (disintegrate), save or suck spells (sleep,deep slumber) and battlefield control (web and grease) and for projectiles (wind wall, protection from arrows).The casting of one of the spells will save the party more Hp than most clerics can heal with three cure ____ wounds spells)

sorcerers may have more spells per day but wizards can afford to take situational spells such as the ones mentioned above.(and at latter levels this becomes less of an issue with a 4 encounter day schedule)

in conclusion the wizard is the ultimate generalist in the fact that a party of 4 wizards will be able to do anything, because they can coordinate spells and share the spells they collect from gaining levels...

the only weakness is that if and only if they are caught with their pants down and face a threat they were not prepared for... then their only option is really just running away... (you can argue this applies to everything)

There are ways around the weaknesses - there's this nifty feat in Complete Mage (Alacritous Cogitation - I'm misspelling that, sorry) that lets you leave a spell slot blank, and prepare + cast it as a full-round action later on. No requirements, so you can do this at 1st level. It's been errated so that it's only 1 round or less casting times... but this does mean you can technically get Sleep or a Summon Monster off in the first round of combat, rather than having to wait for Round 2. Take the feat, leave a spell slot of your highest level open, and as long as it's in your spellbook, it's available (once per day) in the middle of a battle.

Ignoring that, though, a well-built spell list includes a few things that are never useless - Glitterdust, Web, and Stinking Cloud all pretty much put multiple opponents out of the fight (Will save or be blinded, Reflex save or be stuck (and even if you save, you suck, due to Entanglement), and Fort save or be Nauseated (which precludes attacking) respectively; all are Conjouration(Creation) area effects, with no SR); decent buffs (Haste and Polymorph, especially) are also good for when you face an opponent you can't touch directly.

As for Healing, well, you have to go non-Core to do it well, but the Evil combo of Vampiric Blade (Magic Item Compendium) + The elemental Summoning Reserve Feat (Complete Mage) limitless sacrificial minions = unlimited out of combat HP healing. Likewise, a party of Warforged Wizards can use the Repair line for healing (both from Eberron). Core, Limited Wish can duplicate Heal by way of the Adept Spell list (Heal is a 5th level Divine spell for Adepts - in range of Limited Wish, provided you haven't banned Conjuration).


Not really. Surprised fighter starts poking things with his sharp object of choice; surprised rogue starts poking them from the other side with his sharp object of choice; surprised cleric goes CoDzilla and starts whacking stuff with his blunt object of choice; surprised wizard starts tossing out death rays and save-or-sucks.
And if you find something that happens to be immune to all his save or sucks, he keeps a few combat control and buff spells handy for everyone else.

Occasional Sage
2008-05-29, 11:49 PM
Two questions.

First, for the OP: was this a serious question, or a sharp stick with which to poke people?

Second, for those who have digested 4e: does this problem get sufficiently addressed?

Aquillion
2008-05-30, 01:23 AM
Two questions.

First, for the OP: was this a serious question, or a sharp stick with which to poke people?

Second, for those who have digested 4e: does this problem get sufficiently addressed?


Second, for those who have digested 4e: does this problem get sufficiently addressed?Oh hell yes. Wizards lost something in the area of 90% of their core spells, some of which went to other classes, some of which became rituals (which have a casting time measured in minutes, always cost gold to cast, and are technically available to any class), and some of which were removed completely. Even the abilities that the wizard kept had their levels raised and were massively nerfed -- Wall of Ice can be easily beaten down by a determined opponent, say, and you get it at level 15 (and it's the only solid wall you get now, I think.) You get Disintegrate at level 19, and it doesn't do that great damage or have any special ability to change terrain. You get the ability to fly for 5 minutes at level 16, and it requires sort of the equivilent of concentration the entire time (it uses up all your minor actions just to keep it from ending, anyway -- you can cast other spells, but can't really maintain anything else while you're doing it.) Even account for the fact that the game goes to level 30 now, those put flying and walls much later in your progression, and makes them massively weaker.

And on top of that, the power system massively nerfs wizards -- by level 20, you have four daily attack powers, five daily utility powers, and four encounter powers. (Just like everyone else, mind you.) There are some very limited ways to reuse these when you're higher level, but you don't get many more past 20, and most of the good spells are daily... wizards look more tightly tied to daily abilities than anyone else, which, I reiterate, they get four of at the highest level.

It is sort of like forcing a wizard to memorize only their highest-level spells (which are somewhat nerfed), and giving them a handful of very low-level spells -- not the really good ones, things like Magic Missile -- they can use frequently to make up for it.

Even within the role they've given the wizard, 'controlling' is a much weaker strategy -- debuffs either have to be maintained with your minor actions or can be saved to end (and remember, there's no 'spell DC' now, you just roll D20 against their save, so that usually won't last long.)

Basically wizards are mostly area-effect blasters with a few very weak debuffs now... historically, that hasn't been a hugely powerful build. WotC has basically introduced minions to give these new wizards something to do.

Overall, it seems like it should tone their power down immensely, at least as long as rituals don't get out of hand (and if they do, anyone can get them.) I can see inexpensive ritual buffs as being a problem if they ever appear, but otherwise it's hard to imagine 4th edition wizards being particularly more powerful than anyone else.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-30, 01:28 AM
Wall of Ice is actually really, really good. You can surround someone with it. An opponent might get through in two or three rounds by hitting it two or three times.

Wanna add up the damage he takes in the meantime? (12d6+3*INT, if he breaks through on the third round. Now add the cold vulnerability feat...)

Talic
2008-05-30, 01:32 AM
Wizards are broken because they have UMD.

They get the best benefit from spells such as Divine Power, owing to getting the largest boost available from any class. This synergizes exceptionally well with their ranged touch attack spells.

Through UMD, they gain access to healing, and superior cleric buffs, making their array of spells unstoppable.

Crow
2008-05-30, 01:35 AM
Wizards aren't broken. They function excellently in their chosen role, and the roles of every other class. That's not broken, people. That's perfection.

Eldariel
2008-05-30, 01:39 AM
Wizards aren't broken, they're simply in the wrong game.

Aquillion
2008-05-30, 01:46 AM
Wizards aren't broken, they're simply in the wrong game.Wrong. Wizards aren't broken, and what are all these fighters, monks, and other useless classes doing in their game?

Talic
2008-05-30, 01:48 AM
All I have to say, is that it's not Fighters of the Coast, or Clerics of the Coast.

Eldariel
2008-05-30, 01:53 AM
The name of the game is Dungeons & Dragons. Therefore, players should be Dragons delving into Dungeons, not some damn Wizards.

Sebastian
2008-05-30, 01:54 AM
My two cents:

Wizards (and casters in general) in 3.5 are broken because WotC totally messed when they converted from 2nd edition.
In 2nd edition wizards were indoubtely powerful, but hhad some serious limitation, they needed a long time to recover their spells, they could not cast if they received any damage during a round, spells needed rare components or had some serious aftereffect and so on. When they created 3.e they not only give caster more powers (more spells, the ability to cast two spells in a round, easier magic item creations, etc) but they nerfed all the wizard limitations, too, a caster can recover all his spels in 8 hours, or even less, with concentration he can easily cast even while in melee, components are easily ignored, so easily that many masters just house rule them away, and spells were child-proofed (i.e Fly with built in magical parachute) etc. Of course to try to fix that they put out the Big Spells Nerf of 3.5 when many spells where redesigned so that in the end they would be useful only when in combat, if even, but that was not enough to do it

Consider also that many dungeon masters never play to the few casters weaknesses, like wizards dependency on his spellbook, because consider it unfair and you have an idea of what I think is the problem.

tyckspoon
2008-05-30, 01:57 AM
The name of the game is Dungeons & Dragons. Therefore, players should be Dragons delving into Dungeons, not some damn Wizards.

You're supposed to be the owner of the Dungeon. Your high-level goal is to attract a sufficiently impressive Dragon to dwell in your Dungeon, thus guaranteeing your Dungeon's fame and a steady supply of wealthy adventurers to kill and loot. I have no idea where this perverse idea of playing the adventurers themselves came from.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-30, 02:08 AM
The real explanation, in the end, is this:

Wizards are nerds.

D&D is a game by nerds for nerds.

Rion
2008-05-30, 02:10 AM
You're supposed to be the owner of the Dungeon. Your high-level goal is to attract a sufficiently impressive Dragon to dwell in your Dungeon, thus guaranteeing your Dungeon's fame and a steady supply of wealthy adventurers to kill and loot. I have no idea where this perverse idea of playing the adventurers themselves came from.

Am I the only one thinking this would actually be a pretty cool game?



Consider also that many dungeon masters never play to the few casters weaknesses, like wizards dependency on his spellbook, because consider it unfair and you have an idea of what I think is the problem.

I think it's considered unfair because if you take away their spellbook they can't do anything. So either they overshadow everyone else, or they are more useless than non-optimised monk.

Frosty
2008-05-30, 02:12 AM
Am I the only one thinking this would actually be a pretty cool game?.

Something like that already came out. Heck, its sequel came out too.

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-30, 02:12 AM
Sebastian, wouldn't taking longer to recover spells potentially be more of a problem for the rest of the party then for a full caster? I'm just wondering due to how the other party members would need to guard the casters while the recover their spells*. I can also see how not being able to cast if any damage is taken would be a problem for everyone else to a degree due to the healers needing to be on the frontlines due to their Cure spells having Touch range. What sort of expensive componants were needed, and what were the side-effects like?

*I know storing spells took much longer in the 1st Edition. Was the 2nd Edition like that as well?

EDIT: The game was Dungeon Keeper, right? I'll check in a minute.

Rion
2008-05-30, 02:15 AM
You mean Dungeon Keeper? Sadly my computer can't run that game.

tyckspoon
2008-05-30, 02:25 AM
What sort of expensive componants were needed, and what were the side-effects like?

*I know storing spells took much longer in the 1st Edition. Was the 2nd Edition like that as well?


Yeah, 2nd had the extended memorization times as well. I think it took ten minutes/spell level/spell, so a high-level caster who had burnt all or most of his slots could spend days refreshing if he wanted to get back up to 100% capacity. That didn't stop magic-users from completely dominating things if they wanted to nova, but it did somewhat discourage the practice of doing so.

I don't remember very many of the unusual spell components, but the side-effects tend to stick in your memory.. the biggest one was the System Shock rule. That was a Con-based check that you rolled pretty much any time a major change was made to your body. You rolled one if you died and got Raised (yeah, that's right. Coming back from the dead could kill you,) you rolled one if you got Polymorphed.. I don't remember if Haste caused one or not, but it *did* age you. So humans and other short-lived races tended not to use it at all if they could help it. A lot of Transmutation spells that are considered standard buffs now were either dangerous or expensive to use. One of the only remnants of that kind of thing now is Stone To Flesh's save to survive restoration. It's an odd little anachronism, considering how just about every other spell was made much safer.

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-30, 02:30 AM
Thanks for telling me. Isn't making buffs dangerous more of a problem for warriors then the casters themselves? Also, how much did Haste age you? I'd forgotten about system shock (that makes sense to a degree, but I don't personally like the idea, especially with Raise Dead spells due to how those spells are expensive anyway). In regards to memorising spells, I'd have probably designed it so that it takes as long to memorise the spells as it does to decide which nes you're going to store (that's mainly because I'm impatient, and waiting ages would be annoying for the other characters).

Solo
2008-05-30, 02:31 AM
See, personally, I think that this is bunk, but holding that opinion verges on a bannable offense for trolling around these parts.

Sure, a Wizard with 48 hours notice can totally own a solo fighter who's more or less unawares. However, the average Wizard wandering around for the day has a pile of different spells prepared - divinations, movement spells, etc.

A properly prepared generic spell list will be able to handle a wide variety of situations.

This is what keeps sorcerers playable.



Personally, I think that casters need some kind of ability to utilize at each level such that they always have something to do. Otherwise, you run into Neverwinter Nights syndrome. "Ok, that's one encounter down, let's go." "Nope. It's rest time." "What the hell?!? We just got here. That should have taken 1/6th of your resources." "Yeah, the upper 1/6th. We either take a nap, or I'm poor archery support."
You mean, like scrolls and wands?



And this is the point where I'm informed that I'm "Playing the game wrong with a bunch of morons who clearly don't understand the rules and the intent of making the BEST CHARACTER EVAR!!!"

Tengu
2008-05-30, 02:38 AM
We'll play it like Hangman...

S_LID F_G

...

Any guesses?

Solid Snake is not gay! He and Otacon are just very good friends!

Moak
2008-05-30, 02:40 AM
The name of the game is Dungeons & Dragons. Therefore, players should be Dragons delving into Dungeons, not some damn Wizards.

You win my day :smallbiggrin:


Take away the spellbook isn't that big issue for an high level wizard..and you know,the real real problems comes from them...

At lower level I fear a lot more Druids...

At any level,I fear more Artificier. Why play a blaster mage when exist artificiers?

Shadowdweller
2008-05-30, 02:46 AM
My two cents:

Wizards (and casters in general) in 3.5 are broken because WotC totally messed when they converted from 2nd edition.
In 2nd edition wizards were indoubtely powerful, but hhad some serious limitation, they needed a long time to recover their spells, they could not cast if they received any damage during a round, spells needed rare components or had some serious aftereffect and so on. When they created 3.e they not only give caster more powers (more spells, the ability to cast two spells in a round, easier magic item creations, etc) but they nerfed all the wizard limitations, too, a caster can recover all his spels in 8 hours, or even less, with concentration he can easily cast even while in melee, components are easily ignored, so easily that many masters just house rule them away, and spells were child-proofed (i.e Fly with built in magical parachute) etc. Of course to try to fix that they put out the Big Spells Nerf of 3.5 when many spells where redesigned so that in the end they would be useful only when in combat, if even, but that was not enough to do it

QFT.

Another one that hasn't been mentioned yet: Spells and weapons had initiative consequences. Weapons were generally faster (or maybe just particular weapons?), giving warrior-types an increased lethality and ability to disrupt spellcasting. Even so, IMX, casters were still quite playable. Part of the fun was trying to set up situations so as to get around these limitations.

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-30, 02:49 AM
I remember 1 person mentioning in a "Balancing Sorcerers" thread that Wizards needed Full Round actions to cast most spells in the 2nd Edition. That would be a good house rule for the 3.5 Edition.

Shadowdweller
2008-05-30, 02:54 AM
Also, how much did Haste age you?

One year per casting, IIRC. Small enough to be usable occasionally, but large enough to where you didn't want to cast it three times per adventuring day.


I'd forgotten about system shock (that makes sense to a degree, but I don't personally like the idea, especially with Raise Dead spells due to how those spells are expensive anyway).
It's been quite a while, but I'm relatively certain that the component cost was a fair bit less in those days.


In regards to memorising spells, I'd have probably designed it so that it takes as long to memorise the spells as it does to decide which nes you're going to store (that's mainly because I'm impatient, and waiting ages would be annoying for the other characters).
Even where you wouldn't actually be waiting in real life? That said both 1e and 2e DID have plenty of minutiae that bogged down gameplay considerably.

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-30, 02:59 AM
Thanks for explaining (I see what you mean about Haste). I know you wouldn't be waiting in real life (I was thinking about the wasted in-game time because of how long it could take to memorise spells). I'll check the spell componant cost in a minute (I just remembered 1 website which could be useful here).

tyckspoon
2008-05-30, 03:06 AM
I remember 1 person mentioning in a "Balancing Sorcerers" thread that Wizards needed Full Round actions to cast most spells in the 2nd Edition. That would be a good house rule for the 3.5 Edition.

That's not entirely accurate, not least because the game concept of 'Full Round Action' didn't exist, but I suppose it's a reasonable analogue. 2nd edition had your initiative roll which determined when you would start acting, and then that was modified by the action you decided to take to determine when you had actually completed the act. Two of the most common modifiers were weapon speed and casting time, with light weapons and basic blasting spells usually having low modifiers while big weapons and more complicated spells had higher ones. That gave enemies a lot more time to interrupt your casting (and penalized two-handed fighting a bit.. I don't remember if great-whatevers had much real benefit, actually.) Changing that was one part of what made blasting weaker in 3.x (along with increased HP while blasting damage caps stayed the same and the change to the save system); when it was just as quick and safe to throw out a save-or-die as a lightning bolt, the death spell became more attractive.

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-30, 03:29 AM
Thanks for explaining how it worked. It would be more complicated, but it would be fairer (it sounds a lot like the combat systems used in the Grandia games and Final Fantasy 10). I was using http://www.rpgrealm.com/features/download/home.html as an information source, but it doesn't seem to detail the actual spells anywhere (the "Tome of Magic" file is mainly a list of spells without any effects or descriptions).

Artemician
2008-05-30, 03:41 AM
See, personally, I think that this is bunk, but holding that opinion verges on a bannable offense for trolling around these parts.

Sure, a Wizard with 48 hours notice can totally own a solo fighter who's more or less unawares. However, the average Wizard wandering around for the day has a pile of different spells prepared - divinations, movement spells, etc.

Personally, I think that casters need some kind of ability to utilize at each level such that they always have something to do. Otherwise, you run into Neverwinter Nights syndrome. "Ok, that's one encounter down, let's go." "Nope. It's rest time." "What the hell?!? We just got here. That should have taken 1/6th of your resources." "Yeah, the upper 1/6th. We either take a nap, or I'm poor archery support."

And this is the point where I'm informed that I'm "Playing the game wrong with a bunch of morons who clearly don't understand the rules and the intent of making the BEST CHARACTER EVAR!!!"

Rawr.

Your post boils down to two points:

1) That Wizards don't have enough spells to prepare a generalized spell list for when they don't know what they're going to face
2) That somehow, optimizing always has to be taken to the extreme of munchkinery.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-30, 03:41 AM
And yes, Haste DID cause system shock, because of the aging. That was clarified in some splatbook or other, and soon after that, people stopped using haste to *buff* and started using Haste to *kill enemies*.

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-30, 03:46 AM
That sounds worrying. Could Slow be used to stop people from ageing, or is that idea impractical due to system shock?

Reel On, Love
2008-05-30, 03:51 AM
That sounds worrying. Could Slow be used to stop people from ageing, or is that idea impractical due to system shock?

Slow didn't stop people from aging.

Edit: 2E Slow:
Range: 90 yards + 10/level
Duration: 3 rounds + 1/level
Components: V, S, M; Casting Time: 3
Area of Effect: 40-foot cube, Saving Throw: Neg.
1 creature/level.

Negates Haste but then has no other effect; makes creatures move and attack at half their normal rates, gives +4 AC penalty and -4 Attack penalty, and negates all Dexterity combat bonuses. Saving throws against the spell suffer a -4 penalty.

Slow was pretty damn hardcore.

ETA: just for reference, a level 5-6 human Fighter type had a Save vs. Spell of 14 (which means he needs to roll a 14 or higher). The -4 penalty makes that 18.

Monsters would save as a warrior (mostly) of their Hit Dice in level.

A level 17+ warrior has a Save vs. Spell of 6, which with the -4 penalty would be 10, meaning you'd have a 45% chance of landing a Slow even on a level 17+ warrior or 17+ HD monster.

Of course, monsters might have magic resistance, and the warriors might have some save increases (magic item, wisdom). Still, not half bad.

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-30, 03:59 AM
That is pretty powerful. Did you copy that information off a different website? If you did, please could I have the link?

Reel On, Love
2008-05-30, 04:02 AM
That is pretty powerful. Did you copy that information off a different website? If you did, please could I have the link?

Sorry, I looked up the info in a PDF.
I've edited in info about enemy saves, just for comparison's sake.

For the record, I played a (fighter/)wizard in a 2E campaign, and I had pretty great success with "Batman" tactics--Glitterdust, Slow, etc. Warrior saves vs. spell weren't all they're cracked up to be!

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-30, 04:15 AM
Thanks for the additional information. It sounds as though some things haven't changed much. (Multi-classes were like Gestalt builds, weren't they?)

Pauwel
2008-05-30, 04:40 AM
Solid Snake is not gay! He and Otacon are just very good friends!

Argh! You stole my joke!
Damn you!

nagora
2008-05-30, 04:48 AM
Please, my friend needs to know why wizards are broken. Can you please give some good arguments?

High level wizards are unstoppable; it is very easy to become very high-level in 3ed. Put the two together and stand well back.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-30, 04:49 AM
High level wizards are unstoppable; it is very easy to become very high-level in 3ed. Put the two together and stand well back.

Yeah! You can get to level 20 in, like, a day, if you grind enough mobs!

Solo
2008-05-30, 04:53 AM
High level wizards are unstoppable; it is very easy to become very high-level in 3ed. Put the two together and stand well back.

Maybe if you spawn camped sewer trolls.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-30, 07:46 AM
And yes, Haste DID cause system shock, because of the aging. That was clarified in some splatbook or other, and soon after that, people stopped using haste to *buff* and started using Haste to *kill enemies*.
No it didn't. It is completely silly to expect the 2E Haste spell, either as worded OR as intended, to have a chance of killing people. That certainly isn't what it says in my 2E book - and even if it did, my DM would have vetoed it. I have heard precisely one person ever claim that it did, which would be you. While I'm sure that some people started using haste to kill people, I see no evidence whatsoever that this happened with most, or even with many groups.

But yeah, many spells had intentional drawbacks to them, such as haste's aging (which was ok as long as you're an elf or a dwarf, but nasty otherwise), and the fact that a dispelled fly spell potentially dealt a lot of falling damage. Also, the Shout spell would deafen you if you cast it more than once per day. Actually I think many of these are flavorful, but some are irrleevant or overdone.


Wizards (and casters in general) in 3.5 are broken because WotC totally messed when they converted from 2nd edition.
I completely agree with what you say. It appears that WOTC has embraced the philosophy that "powers may never have drawbacks". 4E takes this further than 3.5, even.



I don't remember very many of the unusual spell components,
I don't recall the material component rules having changed much between 2E and 3E, and I do recall soundly ignoring them even back then. One that sticks to mind is the old Fool's Gold spell, an illuson that makes things look like gold, and that had a material component more costly than the fake gold it produced...


You rolled one if you died and got Raised (yeah, that's right. Coming back from the dead could kill you,)
To be exact, that was the Resurrection Survival roll, which for reasons I don't understand was a separate percentage on the same table as system shock, that IIRC boiled down roughly to "system shock + 5%". As I recall, polymorph self was a temporary effect and thus safe, whereas polymorph other (changing people into frogs) had a chance of killing them.


Am I the only one thinking this would actually be a pretty cool game?
No :smallsmile: I ran a short campaign like this once, where the players had to defend a dungeon from attack. It was fun.


2nd edition had your initiative roll which determined when you would start acting, and then that was modified by the action you decided to take to determine when you had actually completed the act. Two of the most common modifiers were weapon speed and casting time, with light weapons and basic blasting spells usually having low modifiers while big weapons and more complicated spells had higher ones.
As I recall, most spells had an initiative modifier equal to their spell level, with a few exceptions (Dimension Door and all Power Words had +1). Weapons varied between +2 (dagger) to +6 or so (battle axe), but a +1 magical weapon also reduced its delay by 1, and so forth. Oh yeah, and it's worth mentioning that initiative was rolled on 1d10, not 1d20.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-30, 07:53 AM
No it didn't. It is completely silly to expect the 2E Haste spell, either as worded OR as intended, to have a chance of killing people. That certainly isn't what it says in my 2E book - and even if it did, my DM would have vetoed it. I have heard precisely one person ever claim that it did, which would be you. While I'm sure that some people started using haste to kill people, I see no evidence whatsoever that this happened with most, or even with many groups.
What I know is that a later book defined magical aging as one of the things that cause system shock. Thus, haste caused system shock.


But yeah, many spells had intentional drawbacks to them, such as
I completely agree with what you say. It appears that WOTC has embraced the philosophy that "powers may never have drawbacks". 4E takes this further than 3.5, even.
There's a Rogue power that lets you crit on a 17-20, but lets your enemies crit on a 19-20.

There's a Warlock power that involves taking damage to maintain it. There's a wizard PrC that lets you damage yourself to add damage to your spell, too.

Occasional Sage
2008-05-30, 09:24 AM
Thanks for the additional information. It sounds as though some things haven't changed much. (Multi-classes were like Gestalt builds, weren't they?)

Only kinda. You did advance in the two (or three, sometimes) classes simultaneously, but your XP was divided between them. Best case: you'd advance at 60% speed in each class, since everybody got a 10% XP bonus if their class's main attribute was high enough.

Man, I didn't know I still had this stuff in my brain :smalleek: I haven't looked at a 2e book since... 1990? Maybe '91, but still I didn't realize my brain was such a packrat!

Kurald Galain
2008-05-30, 12:38 PM
What I know is that a later book defined magical aging as one of the things that cause system shock. Thus, haste caused system shock.
I would like to hear which book that is and what the context is. I believe it is talking about aging attacks, like a ghost's. Regardless, extra source books are always optional rules, and Occam's Razor clearly tells us that a spell to make your friends speed up is not intended to randomly kill them (given the level of actual killing spells, and its many implementations in D&D-based computer games, and other editions, and so forth).



There's a Warlock power that involves taking damage to maintain it. There's a wizard PrC that lets you damage yourself to add damage to your spell, too.
WOTC would't be WOTC if they didn't have an exception to everything. Yes, a handful of rarely-taken powers do have drawbacks. That doesn't change the fact that their overall design strategy is that powers in general don't, nor that they removed many such drawbacks (as mentioned above) from older-edition powers.

nagora
2008-05-30, 01:22 PM
Yeah! You can get to level 20 in, like, a day, if you grind enough mobs!

Assuming 1 session of about 4hrs per week, how many years of play does it normally take to be able to cast 9th level spells in 3ed? I'm sure WotC issued a memo-thing on this subject but I can't find it off-hand.

Mr. Friendly
2008-05-30, 02:01 PM
Assuming 1 session of about 4hrs per week, how many years of play does it normally take to be able to cast 9th level spells in 3ed? I'm sure WotC issued a memo-thing on this subject but I can't find it off-hand.

That depends on how fast your group can get things done.

Going by the book of 3e, it's supposed to take, what, 14 encounters to level?

Assuming minimal storyline (World's largest dungeon sort of scenario) and that your group is on the ball....

I would average out at, say, 10 minutes per encounter, until 5th level. Then 20 minutes per encounter until 10th. Then 40 minutes per encounter until 15th. Then 80 minutes per encounter until 20th.

These numbers are, obviously, highly subjective and for the most part I am assuming a single monster or trap of equal level to the party. At higher level, more traps and monsters per encounter, but the total CR/EL is equivalent.

Going with that math gives us:

10*14*5 = 700 minutes to 5th level (12 hours = 0.5 days {rounding})
20*14*5 = 1400 minutes to 10th level (23 hours = 1 day {rounding})
40*14*5 = 2800 minutes to 15th level (47 hours = 2 days {rounding})
80*14*5 = 5600 minutes to 20th level (93 hours = 4 days {rounding})

So using those numbers to answer your question, I would say you could get 9th level spells (18th level) in 35 sessions; (at 4 hours per sessions), so that's 35 weeks, which is almost 9 months.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-30, 02:08 PM
Meanwhile, in games that don't have four encounters a day, that aren't high-combat every session, etc, it takes even longer.

Edea
2008-05-30, 02:20 PM
Mmm, I'm not sure you can really blanket statement level advancement in 3E like that, because the CR system and adjudicating XP for anything other than thwacking monsters was a bit of a haphazard experience. One game I played in, we started at 7th, and leveled once or twice a session due to story awards. We were up to the 9th level spell bracket in under a month.

nagora
2008-05-30, 03:15 PM
Meanwhile, in games that don't have four encounters a day, that aren't high-combat every session, etc, it takes even longer.

"Even longer"? Well, that's what I meant about high level being very quick to reach in btb 3ed compared to previous editions.

That's why so many people complain about wizards in 3ed. In 1ed, Magic Users were out of balance by the time they reached those sorts of levels, but most players and DMs only encountered the issues via NPCs, PCs simply never made it to levels like that in 1ed. Well, some have now, after twenty odd years of play, but groups that last that long are rare and I know of one 26 year campain where the two surviving original characters are in the low teens, level wise.

So, really the problem was always there to an extent but 9th level spell casters suddenly became much, much more common. On top of that, some key restrictions were removed from spell-casters, most notably the ability to disturb their spell-casting by causing damage to them.

This is not an inherent problem with levelling up so quickly, it is simply a problem that was missed in the inadequate playtesting done for 3ed.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-05-30, 04:31 PM
By the way, this is for D&D version 3.5

I can't really give a 3.5 specific answer, but in *general* Wizards are overpowered in 99% of games which put magic alongside non-magic, for the simple reason that more or less anything can be achieved "by magic". A fighter-type can achieve anything that you can reasonable achieve with a sword which, outside epic mythology and wuxia, is more or less limited to "kill man sized creatures relatively quickly". Wizards, on the other hand, can rain down fire on their enemies, teleport, fly, summon monsters to fight for them, and do anything else which anybody has ever thought it would be cool for a mage to be able to do.

Another way to look at it is that a mage has the power to directly edit the gameworld in a way that other characters can't. Casting a spell doesn't require a dice roll or a skill check, it just happens. Even if your enemy saves against your fireball, you've still filled the damned room with fire.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-30, 05:00 PM
Casting a spell doesn't require a dice roll or a skill check, it just happens.

Well, except in White Wolf (Mage/Aberrant/whatever). Or in GURPS. Or Warhammer FRP. Or Call of Ctulhu, and I seem to recall that in Shadowrun it also requires dice...


At any rate, I'm not convinced by the flat assertion that in almost all games, magic-users are more powerful than non-magic-users... and that is because in most systems other than D&D, magic either has a cost or drawback (e.g. White Wolf, Call of Ctulhu, MERP) or focuses primarily on lesser effects (e.g. GURPS, Amber DRP).

Sebastian
2008-05-30, 06:24 PM
I remember 1 person mentioning in a "Balancing Sorcerers" thread that Wizards needed Full Round actions to cast most spells in the 2nd Edition. That would be a good house rule for the 3.5 Edition.

Yes, that is another big difference, in 2e you cast one (1) spell for round, period. The nearest thing to casting two spells was Contingency, or Time Stop but not even the gods could effectively cast two spells for round.


But even without enter into details my point is simple, in 2e casters had limitiations, in 3e those limitations were either removed or nerfed near to nothing without replacing them with other, they didn't do the same for the other classes, at least not to the same degree. so if in 3e non casters were at power level 1 and casters were at power level 2, in 3e non casters are a PL 1 and casters are a PL 5, hence, casters in 3e are broken.

Sebastian
2008-05-30, 06:28 PM
It's been quite a while, but I'm relatively certain that the component cost was a fair bit less in those days.

Raise dead and resurrection in 2e had no material components, i.e. no diamonds or other expensive stuff. Of course there was a limit on how many times you could be raised. 1 for each point of CON to be precise. and you lose a permanent point of CON every time. and even if you find a way to raise your CON, which in 2e was harder, this number didn't increase. If you had 12 Con you can't be raised more than 12 times max, barring direct divine intervention (maybe)

Sebastian
2008-05-30, 06:48 PM
No it didn't. It is completely silly to expect the 2E Haste spell, either as worded OR as intended, to have a chance of killing people.
From a certain interpretation he is right, Haste provoke magical aging and magical aging ask for a system shock

from the PHB "System Shock states the percentage chance a character has to survive magical effects that reshape or age his body: petrification (and reversing petrification), polymorph, magical aging, etc. "

(this include even the casting of certain spells like I.e. resurrection which age the caster of 3 years, so casting resurrection can kill the caster. (which I think it is incredibly cool, but that is probably is just me. Things like that are why I love the old editions of D&D. :D
That said, If I heard the haste can kill you interpretation only very recently, I never thought about it before, and ifd I did probably I'd have ruled it out. Haste was nice, but not powerful enough to ask for that. (to not mention the "cast on an enemy and see him croak" effect.

edit: re-reading the spell it say that the aging is due to "sped-up metabolic processes". one could argue that is not real magical aging and so a system shock is not necessary (I know it is silly, but I find that I kinda miss these kind of weird rules discussions. :)

John Campbell
2008-05-30, 08:47 PM
Well, except in White Wolf (Mage/Aberrant/whatever). Or in GURPS. Or Warhammer FRP. Or Call of Ctulhu, and I seem to recall that in Shadowrun it also requires dice...

And not only does it require dice, if you're careless about how you allocate those dice (or just unlucky with your rolling), your own casting can damage you (damage that can't be magically healed, to boot), knock you out, or even kill you dead.


At any rate, I'm not convinced by the flat assertion that in almost all games, magic-users are more powerful than non-magic-users... and that is because in most systems other than D&D, magic either has a cost or drawback (e.g. White Wolf, Call of Ctulhu, MERP) or focuses primarily on lesser effects (e.g. GURPS, Amber DRP).

I'd say that the most powerful "class" in Shadowrun is probably the rigger, which is not quite totally incompatible with magic use, but is pretty close.

Siosilvar
2008-05-30, 08:58 PM
unsurprised wizard goes first and starts tossing out death rays and save-or-sucks.


This was on the second page; I fixed it.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-30, 09:00 PM
This was on the second page; I fixed it.

*sigh*

Go read the spell foresight. Primarily the part where you are never surprised.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-30, 09:00 PM
This was on the second page; I fixed it.

A wizard is never surprised. If he doesn't have Mindsight, he just uses Celerity, Solid Fogs you, and waits until the daze ends to kill you.

Or were you commenting on how wizards are really strong?

Jack_Simth
2008-05-30, 09:38 PM
*sigh*

Go read the spell foresight. Primarily the part where you are never surprised.
Do note: Not all wizards have access to 9th level spells. For most of a Wizard's career, it won't be available.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-30, 09:46 PM
Do note: Not all wizards have access to 9th level spells. For most of a Wizard's career, it won't be available.

Mindsight ain't so hard to obtain, though. And with it, it's nigh impossible to surprise you.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-30, 09:58 PM
Mindsight ain't so hard to obtain, though. And with it, it's nigh impossible to surprise you.You just have to be out of the 100 foot range of the telepathy granted by that one-level dip in Mindbender. Or arrange to be invisible to it (mind blank, perhaps). Of course, then you're not exactly sneaking up on a Wizard - you're sneaking up on a Wizard-X/Mindbender-1. If I play a Kobold Bard with Obtain Familiar (snake), pick up a Candle of Invocation and initiate the pun-pun loop, I can beat any Wizard that uses a lesser amount of cheese... but that says nothing at all about the balance of power between a Wizard and a Bard, just that cheese is unbalanced.

If we disallow particularly cheese-tended tactics (three-book builds, "dips" into PrC's, Manipulate Form, and so on) it's not nearly as hard for a rogue to sneak up on a Wizard until reasonably high levels (When Magnificent Mansion and Foresight come into play with that cheese-tastic spell Celerity).

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-30, 10:04 PM
You just have to be out of the 100 foot range of the telepathy granted by that one-level dip in Mindbender. Or arrange to be invisible to it (mind blank, perhaps). Of course, then you're not exactly sneaking up on a Wizard - you're sneaking up on a Wizard-X/Mindbender-1. If I play a Kobold Bard with Obtain Familiar (snake), pick up a Candle of Invocation and initiate the pun-pun loop, I can beat any Wizard that uses a lesser amount of cheese... but that says nothing at all about the balance of power between a Wizard and a Bard, just that cheese is unbalanced.

If we disallow particularly cheese-tended tactics (three-book builds, "dips" into PrC's, Manipulate Form, and so on) it's not nearly as hard for a rogue to sneak up on a Wizard until reasonably high levels (When Magnificent Mansion and Foresight come into play with that cheese-tastic spell Celerity).

I sure hope you have a move speed of 50' or higher and can get through multiple defenses, because making something useful while at more than 100' away is pretty complicated for non casters.

And you DO know that Mindblank is a level 8 spell, right? So if you dismiss foresight, you should dismiss Mind Blank too.

PaladinBoy
2008-05-30, 10:26 PM
I wouldn't call wizards broken...... at low levels.

Once they get solid fog and some of the other good no-save spells, then they become tougher to kill. Not quite impossible yet; you just have to get close enough and kill the wizard in one turn. If you're lucky and you have a surprise round, you might have one and a half. After that, it's a safe bet that the wizard will be able to do something to you that will preclude a response.

After level 15, when foresight enters the game, the wizard becomes pretty much impossible to kill. You can't surprise him any more. In fact, you can't even act, because the not at all surprised wizard has already activated celerity and any one of the various save-or-dies, solid fog, perhaps teleport if he/she isn't confident.

All of these things do have conditional modifiers. My party wouldn't care about solid fog because we have two people that have gust of wind as a spell-like ability. There are ways to counter these spells, after all. Unfortunately, most of them don't work too well if the wizard simply picks a different spell. I can't decide to have a different spell-like ability the way a wizard can prepare a different spell.

And most of the countermeasures that work against the post-8th level spells group require either a ridiculous expenditure of WBL on magic items or another wizard (or full caster). That kinda defeats the purpose.

Patashu
2008-05-30, 10:27 PM
Consider also that many dungeon masters never play to the few casters weaknesses, like wizards dependency on his spellbook, because consider it unfair and you have an idea of what I think is the problem.
I think the problem with wizards being vulnerable to spellbook loss is the utter binary nature of it. Either you're totting all your spells or, oops, you can't do ANYTHING meaningful. It's equivalent to having the occasional battle in a dead magic field; wizard either owns or is useless, no middle ground.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-30, 11:03 PM
I sure hope you have a move speed of 50' or higher and can get through multiple defenses, because making something useful while at more than 100' away is pretty complicated for non casters.

And you DO know that Mindblank is a level 8 spell, right? So if you dismiss foresight, you should dismiss Mind Blank too.

And you totally ignore the mention of dips in PrC's tends towards cheese, that multiple source builds tend towards cheese, that or that it's no longer properly a Wizard when you're doing that, and that in such cases it's the cheese that's broken, not necessarily the thing you're putting it on. No, you just focus on the tactics for getting around the particular bit, and the 9th level spells thing. And on the 9th level spells point, you up the ante by discounting 8th level spells... which, done repeatedly, slowly backs the Wizard down to the point where he's classically the weakest. Amusing.

Still, though, it's not all that hard. A Monk with a race with a base land speed of 30 feet has a move of 50 at 6th level (incidentally, the same level when you get the Telepathy from a 1-level dip into Mindbender, and have an available feat slot for taking Mindsight). Boots of Haste will get any PHB's race up to at least 50 feet (due to the 30 foot enhancement). A mundane composite Longbow has a range increment of 110 feet, and the Ranger holding it has the stealthy skills available to get within that range. It's generally possible to convince mindless critters to go in a particular direction - and they have a habit of attacking anything along their path. Have fun waking up to a spider swarm. Dispel Magic has a minimum range of 150 feet (and the question is how Wizards are broken, not necessarily spellcasters in general, so this isn't an invalid point). If the attacker is using ranged effects, the attacker doesn't need to get all the way to the Wizard - just into striking range, which can be fairly distant.



After level 15, when foresight enters the game, the wizard becomes pretty much impossible to kill. You can't surprise him any more. In fact, you can't even act, because the not at all surprised wizard has already activated celerity and any one of the various save-or-dies, solid fog, perhaps teleport if he/she isn't confident.

Nitpick: Foresight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/foresight.htm) is a 9th level spell, not an 8th level spell. It comes into play at 17th, not 15th.

Aquillion
2008-05-30, 11:10 PM
Am I the only one thinking this would actually be a pretty cool game?While I obviously can't give you a copy of Dungeon Keeper or Dungeon Keeper 2 (which you should go play immediately if you haven't already, they're awesome games with a great sense of humor), I can give you a link to this fun little flash game:

Dungeon Defender (http://www.kongregate.com/games/kendric/dungeon-defender).


Only kinda. You did advance in the two (or three, sometimes) classes simultaneously, but your XP was divided between them. Best case: you'd advance at 60% speed in each class, since everybody got a 10% XP bonus if their class's main attribute was high enough.Don't forget, though, the steep XP curve meant you were rarely more than a level or so behind the rest of the party. Straightforward multiclassing worked much better in 2nd than it does in 3rd. (If you ignore the fact that you could, with a few exceptions, only multiclass during character creation, anyway.)

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-30, 11:10 PM
And you totally ignore the mention of dips in PrC's tends towards cheese, that multiple source builds tend towards cheese, that or that it's no longer properly a Wizard when you're doing that, and that in such cases it's the cheese that's broken, not necessarily the thing you're putting it on. No, you just focus on the tactics for getting around the particular bit, and the 9th level spells thing. And on the 9th level spells point, you up the ante by discounting 8th level spells... which, done repeatedly, slowly backs the Wizard down to the point where he's classically the weakest. Amusing.

Still, though, it's not all that hard. A Monk with a race with a base land speed of 30 feet has a move of 50 at 6th level (incidentally, the same level when you get the Telepathy from a 1-level dip into Mindbender, and have an available feat slot for taking Mindsight). Boots of Haste will get any PHB's race up to at least 50 feet (due to the 30 foot enhancement). A mundane composite Longbow has a range increment of 110 feet, and the Ranger holding it has the stealthy skills available to get within that range. It's generally possible to convince mindless critters to go in a particular direction - and they have a habit of attacking anything along their path. Have fun waking up to a spider swarm. Dispel Magic has a minimum range of 150 feet (and the question is how Wizards are broken, not necessarily spellcasters in general, so this isn't an invalid point). If the attacker is using ranged effects, the attacker doesn't need to get all the way to the Wizard - just into striking range, which can be fairly distant.



Nitpick: Foresight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/foresight.htm) is a 9th level spell, not an 8th level spell. It comes into play at 17th, not 15th.

What's the number of enemies that have class levels, or are classed NPC's?

Yeah.

And swarms...Listen checks should do the job.

Jack_Simth
2008-05-30, 11:22 PM
What's the number of enemies that have class levels, or are classed NPC's?

Yeah.

And swarms...Listen checks should do the job.
1) What ratio they take on varies rather widely based on the DM who's running things. This question can't be properly answered, but it doesn't matter too much, as...
2) Plenty of nonhumanoid opponents have ranged effects, stealth capability, and/or move scores of 50+, which is all the class levels were really needed for.
3) So you're going to stop and clear out all the mice, bats, and other critters with an Int score of 1 or higher before going to sleep, and you're going to wake up and zap everything with an Int score that comes within a 100 feet? You're not going to get much rest in an area that supports a meaningful amount of life.
4) When was the last time you actually heard a spider move? When you tack on the Distracted or Sleeping penalty to Listen with the little issue that Wizards don't get Listen as a class skill, and that Wizards tend not to invest too much in Wisdom, you end up with some crazy-low Listen checks on Wizards.

Occasional Sage
2008-05-31, 12:57 AM
While I obviously can't give you a copy of Dungeon Keeper or Dungeon Keeper 2 (which you should go play immediately if you haven't already, they're awesome games with a great sense of humor), I can give you a link to this fun little flash game:

Dungeon Defender (http://www.kongregate.com/games/kendric/dungeon-defender).

Don't forget, though, the steep XP curve meant you were rarely more than a level or so behind the rest of the party. Straightforward multiclassing worked much better in 2nd than it does in 3rd. (If you ignore the fact that you could, with a few exceptions, only multiclass during character creation, anyway.)

Right, the lock-in for everybody BUT humans! I'd forgotten about that.

I do have to say, wizards were a LOT more fragile back in the day, when armor just wasn't possible for them to wear.

Tempest Fennac
2008-05-31, 01:37 AM
I thought the Skills and Powers system included the option of giving Mgicv Users armour proficiencies (I was playing around with the Path Guy character Generator a while back). In regards to Haste, I'd say that it should cause system shock due to the ageing, even though this was probably an oversight by WotC. Being brought back to life sounded much harder back then as well (at least if you're higher then level 1, you don't lose anything perminantly by being brought back in the 3rd Edition).

Sebastian
2008-05-31, 07:30 AM
I think the problem with wizards being vulnerable to spellbook loss is the utter binary nature of it. Either you're totting all your spells or, oops, you can't do ANYTHING meaningful. It's equivalent to having the occasional battle in a dead magic field; wizard either owns or is useless, no middle ground.

That is not true, at least in 3e, there are ways like the spell mastery feat, for example, that make the loss of the spellbook less serious (and of course to have a backup spellbook, somewhere), the problem is that *nobody* pick that feat because they know that the DM will *never* bring their spellbook away from them permanently, if ever. And this not apply only to wizards, the fighter, for example will almost never bring a reserve weapon, or take Improved unarmed Combat because he know that the DM will never bring away his weapon from him without giving a workable replacement, not for long periods, at least. and in 3e this is a necessity, in 3.x and 4e you need a +x weapon to not be useless at certain levels, bring away from the 20th level PC his +5 weapon without giving him a new one and you could even kill him on the spot for how useful he will be. (Not for nothing for many players the death of his character is better than the loss of his equipment).

In 2e with AC that stopped at -10 (in 3e terms it should be 30) weapons were not so indispensable, and you could have, and generally did have, spells and monsters thast could destroy weapons, armors and similiar. Tecnically even failing the saving throw on a fireball (just failing, not rolling a 1) had a chance to destroy even all of your items. A little exagerated, maybe but IMHO the 3e/(4e?) alternative of "you can swim in acid and your items are fine" is not better.

Ned the undead
2008-05-31, 11:38 AM
Ooh Ooh! Is it Time Stop? It's gotta be Time Stop!

John Campbell
2008-05-31, 02:50 PM
Right, the lock-in for everybody BUT humans! I'd forgotten about that.

I do have to say, wizards were a LOT more fragile back in the day, when armor just wasn't possible for them to wear.

And when wearing armor was actually meaningful... Dex mods were lower, and you didn't lose them when you put on armor. In 3E, putting on better armor can quite easily make your AC actually get worse, which did not happen in 2E. Non-armor sources of AC were more difficult to come by, too.

Those puny d4 hit dice were more meaningful, too... Con modifiers were lower across the board, and wizards (any non-warrior, in fact - "warrior" being a sort of superclass that covered fighters, rangers, and paladins) could not get more than +2 HP/die, no matter what their Con.

Wizards also had crap THAC0... 1/3 progression. In 3E terms, that means that they'd have a +6 BAB at level 20. Warriors were full progression, just like in 3E, and got extra attacks (at full THAC0!) at higher levels, which no one else got. Rogues were 1/2 - 3E Wizard progression - and clerics were 2/3 - +12 at 20th level, a little worse than in 3E. That's somewhat counterbalanced by the fact that very few spells required any sort of attack roll, though.

Aquillion
2008-05-31, 03:03 PM
That is not true, at least in 3e, there are ways like the spell mastery feat, for example, that make the loss of the spellbook less serious (and of course to have a backup spellbook, somewhere), the problem is that *nobody* pick that feat because they know that the DM will *never* bring their spellbook away from them permanently, if ever. And this not apply only to wizards, the fighter, for example will almost never bring a reserve weapon, or take Improved unarmed Combat because he know that the DM will never bring away his weapon from him without giving a workable replacement, not for long periods, at least. and in 3e this is a necessity, in 3.x and 4e you need a +x weapon to not be useless at certain levels, bring away from the 20th level PC his +5 weapon without giving him a new one and you could even kill him on the spot for how useful he will be. (Not for nothing for many players the death of his character is better than the loss of his equipment).Wizards don't even need spell mastery; they can just make a backup spellbook, store it someplace safe, and always keep one copy of 'teleport' in reserve to go get it in a pinch.

I never get the obsession with wizards losing their spellbooks. Wizards are actually less dependant on their spellbooks than other classes are on their equipment -- a fighter with no weapons and armor is fairly useless, say, and anyone without the magic items that give them essential things like flying and seeing invisible could be screwed later on. A wizard who loses his spellbook, though, still has all the spells he had in memory -- as long as he kept a backup (or has enough cash on hand to buy a backup) and has a teleport in reserve (always a good idea anyway), he's golden. He can even keep adventuring for that day if he wants, knowing he can zip back to get his backup spellbook whenever he needs it.