Wizards who refuse to use blast spells

[shilsen]

Efficient characters are well and good, but when it comes down to using the same three or four tricks, all of which prevent me from doing anything interesting with the NPCs in combat ... it sucks a lot of fun out of it.

Wouldn't using damage-dealing spells count as effectively a single trick? Three or four seems a healthy improvement on that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Wouldn't using damage-dealing spells count as effectively a single trick? Three or four seems a healthy improvement on that.

I do not think it counts as an improvement when all tricks feel annoying for him.


I like those spells and I wouldn't mind if spellcasters sometimes rely more on them, but: Some of these spells are just to tedious _and_ they sometimes break the suspense - the big villain constantly falling in a Grease spell, or the heroic fighter slashing someone to pieces that his hanging in a Web?

Maybe the solution is: if you see that your NPC is considerably hampered and nearly useless, just let him give up. Now the PCs have to deal with prisoners (low level prisoners, no problem, but what are you doing with the BBEG?). if they don#t like this outcome, because everybody hoped on an exciting tactical encounter - well, then they have to adjust their tactics.

Sometimes it might be okay to use the same tactic on the PCs (but don't over do it - once or twice in the course of 10 levels is enough). Maybe make a "thematic adventure", where the PCs have to fire a spider cult or something to use Web very often...

 

[Dread October]

Personally I can't believe someone is compalining because a Wizard is actually USING the damn spell book but I have a suggestion:

Use tactics that don't require the NPC to move.

Ok so he's in a Grease'd area. Now is when he can use those stilled offensive or defensive spells.

Oh he's failing a balance check? Psions don't all have to all worry about that.

Freedom of Movement or even a burning hands in a ring make for a good counter to web as well.

Why do the recurring villains never remember what tactics a party has used on them before? As far as I'm concerned, anytime a PC does something more than 2x in different encounters, they can develop a reputation for it.

If your guy is prone to relying on the same 2 or 3 spells, firball or not, have the bad guys be ready for it.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Why do the recurring villains never remember what tactics a party has used on them before? As far as I'm concerned, anytime a PC does something more than 2x in different encounters, they can develop a reputation for it.

There are several problems with this approach.

1. My experience is that reoccuring villains are a rareity in D&D. PCs don't like letting bad guys get away, and they can be pretty efficient at preventing it. Also, few fights have non-combatant witnesses. Combined, this makes learning specific tactical information something that a villain is specficailly going to have to seek out, rather than hearing about effortlessly.

2. Knowledge of PC tactics has a definite "shelf life". Especially when it comes to spells. As the PCs continue to gain higher levels, they will adapt new tactics. The tactics used at level 3 may bear little relation to the tactics used at level 6 to the tactics used at level 9.

3. Even though you may know the PCs are the protagonists, the bad guys do not. They are unlikely to direct all their preparations towards defending against the PCs exclusively.

4. If the villain knows enough about the PCs to effectively prepare for them, he likely knows enough to attempt to mislead them, avoid them, or otherwise try to stave off a direct confrontation.

 

[Tarek]

Another thing I noticed was that there are two magic rings missing from the DMG.

Ring of Balance: This ring provides a +5 competence bonus to Balance checks.
Ring of Balance, Improved: This ring provides a +10 competence bonus to Balance checks.

This would be a relatively cheap and efficient way of getting around the "Grease" spell.

 

[Shawn_Kehoe]

There are several problems with this approach.

1. My experience is that reoccuring villains are a rareity in D&D. PCs don't like letting bad guys get away, and they can be pretty efficient at preventing it. Also, few fights have non-combatant witnesses. Combined, this makes learning specific tactical information something that a villain is specficailly going to have to seek out, rather than hearing about effortlessly.

2. Knowledge of PC tactics has a definite "shelf life". Especially when it comes to spells. As the PCs continue to gain higher levels, they will adapt new tactics. The tactics used at level 3 may bear little relation to the tactics used at level 6 to the tactics used at level 9.

3. Even though you may know the PCs are the protagonists, the bad guys do not. They are unlikely to direct all their preparations towards defending against the PCs exclusively.

4. If the villain knows enough about the PCs to effectively prepare for them, he likely knows enough to attempt to mislead them, avoid them, or otherwise try to stave off a direct confrontation.

Also, I'm running an adventure path which features lots of mooks and animal intelligence critters at this point - they really have no logical way to learn of his tactics and adapt. I'm likely abandoning that module series though, so once I'm creating my own stuff some of these problems will disappear.

 

[Tarek]

Let's not forget that the point isn't to punish the wizard for not taking blast spells... it's to teach the wizard not to always rely on the same tricks over and over, regardless of character optimization.

I think the "no blast spells" wizard is just as boring as the "all blast spells" wizard, and more so when it prolongs combat for no good reason.

 

[Shawn_Kehoe]

Let's not forget that the point isn't to punish the wizard for not taking blast spells... it's to teach the wizard not to always rely on the same tricks over and over, regardless of character optimization.

I think the "no blast spells" wizard is just as boring as the "all blast spells" wizard, and more so when it prolongs combat for no good reason.

Absolutely. Variety is the spice of life! (Well, not for sorcerers and warlocks.)

 

[Ravellion]

I've always allowed people to move a 5ft area with AoO as a full round acion, despite being in a greased area: crawling.

 

[joela]

Opposite

Hiya,

Amongst my group of friends, there has often been a conceit that wizards who resort to Fireball and Magic Missile are unoriginal and therefore poor choices.

I wish I was playing in your group. In all three of my current campaigns, everyone -- from the DM to the players -- has been pushing me to move my PCs (all wizards) to the fireball/magic missle/"heavy artillery" type. I've already transformed my summoner/archivist into a full summoner with an increasing focus on fireball and other missle-esque spells in one campaign while retiring my transmuter who, after getting killed engaging in close combat as a nine-headed hydra (hit points don't change, remember?) and resurrected.