It's a little hard to answer this, as I'm not sure if this is based on a specific set of rules. I
assume 3.x, based on the responses. I think 4e is reasonably balanced in this regard.
Thus my point stands - if wizards are less good at finishing a combat with damage, but have more general utility, where is the problem? Presumably in the save-or-end-fight spells (which are a bit of a gamble - and is the issue the presence of the spells or the ease of cranking up save DC? What if save DCs were always 10 + half caster level and saves were always + half defenders level, and classes have one strong save with +2 on top of that - and all ability bonuses were ditched (both on DC and save)? Would a base 55% save against equal level foes be OK? or should it be a better chance of saving? Perhaps DC is just 10+ spell level with no improvements, so 1st level spells are always just DC11 to save?
This is exactly what 4e does to fix the spellcaster DC problem. The differences between defenses (especially for monsters) are low, so a controller can't just "pick the weak defense" and "guarantee" it will work.
In 3.x, a PC mage would use his one high stat to determine spell DCs. He could dish out Hold Monster against any "big dumb monster" while PCs offered a choice of saves to target compared to an evil mage's smorgasboard of powers, like Disintegrate or Finger of Death or Flesh to Stone (Fort), Otiluke's Resilient Sphere or Sunburst (Reflex), Glitterdust (Will).
(I once knew a player who didn't know about the "big dumb monster" effect and taught it to him. His wizard became much more powerful, until the next encounter when he faced a "big dumb monster" that wasn't actually dumb, was an aberration (high Will save) and had a permanent Freedom of Movement effect. I was playtesting a product, so... Anyway, the DM can't just keep doing that.)
It got even worse with magic items. NPCs needed a certain amount of magic items to be effective, and they got less than PCs of equal level, so they'd always be weaker. An NPC mage only needed two items (one item to boost their key stat, and a cloak of resistance). An NPC fighter needed at least four (a stat-boosting item, a cloak of resistance, a magic weapon, magic armor and maybe a shield and an AC-boosting item or four...) Since fighters were so much more item-dependent, an NPC fighter ended up being a lot weaker than an NPC wizard. (Contrast with 4e, where NPCs are monsters and can go into battle naked except for carrying a weapon or implement and still be a reasonable threat for their level.)
Some monsters that were "mageproof" (like high-level 3.5 fiends) were often fighter-proof as well. When a monster has spell resistance that assumes the PC mage will take Spell Penetration (I'm thinking pit fiend) and also regenerates from anything that isn't, say, holy silver, it makes it very difficult for a mage to kill them and nearly impossible for a fighter without a very specific spell [Align Weapon] from a PC cleric. (Fortunately, you're very unlikely to face a pit fiend without some kind of warning.)
In 4e it helps that two stats contribute to each defense (use the higher one) so it's actually pretty hard to have weak defenses. IMC (I'm the DM) one PC is a halfling rogue with a very high Dex (started at 20, and had to sack a lot of points to get it that high) and took a buckler feat to boost his AC to at least 2 points higher than usual, so he's really hard to hit... but wimps out when facing spellcasters, psions (it's Dark Sun), etc. It's his choice to min-max that way though; it wasn't imposed by the rules. Another PC is a thri-kreen fighter, and his
only low defense is Ref. A 3.x fighter, however, was pretty much guaranteed to have a weak Will save, even if they took Iron Will. (Barbarians, especially in 3.5, had it a bit easier as they could crank their Will save with rage, and evil mages might still think they're a "big dumb" monster.) Rogues probably had it even worse, as without extra feat slots, it's a little hard to try for both Great Fortitude and Iron Will, and both based on lower ability scores too!
4e control effects are also quite weaker than those in 3.x. They never have a duration other than "until the end of your next turn", "until the beginning of your next turn" or "save ends". Some 3.5 spells (eg Hold Monster) tried this, but if you target someone with a weak Will save (like a rogue) they'll just fail "every" round anyway.
Is it the plot bypassing spells? What if they were rituals that could be learned by anyone with the appropriate feat (as per 4e)?
Depends on the spell. A time cost is probably more important than a gold piece or feat cost. I think Teleport should be
really limited (eg only through teleportation circles), which at the very least means the DM is going to think about the plot when placing said circles. Clairvoyance is fine if it has a reasonable range (Dark Sun gave it a range of only 10; I think I gave it to an NPC but gave it a range of ... 20).
Another issue that wizards had in 3.x (something clerics didn't) were "non-standard" defenses. Greater Invisibility was killer. You could play a ranger, crank your Spot, and you were still going to fail. NPCs could waste actions trying to throw around clouds of flour (and now you need rules for that...) But it was worse when the party faced a mage. The wizard could cast See Invisibility, but onlly they could deal with the enemy mage now. The cleric could cast Invisibility Purge, which had a range of ... useless.
Contrast with 4e, where attacking while invisible is next to impossible and even if you are invisible, it just means opponents are at -5 to hit you (a pretty good defensive buff all-round; while an effective +5 is pretty sweet, the mage is running on a lower AC to start with) but still know where you are unless you can make Stealth checks (you probably are pretty bad at this if you're a mage) and suffer a significant penalty to this if you move more than 2 squares, the penalty exactly matching the lack of a bonus a character untrained in Perception gets, meaning Skill Training (Perception) doesn't become a required feat for fighters.
I just gave a list of nerfs, though, without any buffs. Wizards are squishy, especially in a system with few buffs (eg 4e). The key, I think, is to give them a "specialty" but not to go too far at it. In 4e, wizards are generally better at AoE and at control effects than other classes in the PH1, but don't dish out as much damage to single targets as a striker. I think that's pretty reasonable. I'd like to see more wizardry in 4e though; right now my party's controller is an arcane bard.
How many times do people only realise when pointed out that certain spells have longer caster times (Sleep, Silence, Summoning etc.)?
I remember complaining about how 3.x druids couldn't pull off summons due to the casting time, until I was told that full-round action spellcasting only means the druid can't
move while spellcasting. The summoned monster appears and attacks immediately; the spellcasting can only be disrupted if someone gets an AoO on them, or if someone readied an action. If someone hits them two seconds later, too late, the spell's already gone off.
How many times is the wizard forced to make a concentration check when casting (in other words readying to disrupt a wizard through damage)?
Pretty often any time I'm DM.
Do people realise that concentration checks are now more difficult than before?
Apparently not. I didn't know this. Is this a Pathfinder-specific thing?
Not quoting:
I saw some really poor suggestions earlier in the thread, like "roll to know which spells you learned this lesson". Not only could you luck out (
or do the exact opposite) but that's a direct screwjob on the wizard player. I'd rather address core problems, like save DC vs save or broken spells.
And here I was worried I'd just talk nerfs; the person above me talks buffs
I think that as long as we're discussing nerfing high-level magic users, we need to also discuss buffing low-level ones--especially wizard/sorcerer d4 hd types that are completely useless without their spells (druids, bards, and clerics are at least decent at physical combat).
What I would do to balance casters overall then:
First off, low level clerics, druids, and bards are fine imo. They have weak magic but are decent enough fighters to make up for it. Wizards and sorcs are crap though so I'd make sure that wizards and sorcs have at least 10 spells per day; cantrips and 1st level, at first level.
Yes. Pathfinder gave cantrips for free. I think I would have made cantrips more powerful (I would make magic missile a cantrip) but more powerful 1st-level spells (eg Sleep) would remain there. Wizards need to have as many spells to last as many encounters as an equivalent-level fighter. A 1st-level wizard with two or three spells was really frustrating. You couldn't even spare a slot for Mage Armor!
Secondly, magic users tend to gain in power too rapidly over time, so they eventually greatly surpass non-magic using classes. Therefore all magic using classes would gain fewer spells per day on a level up. Probably only 1. So that 20th level magic users still only have around 30 spells per day in total. However, I'd allow them to assign a greater proportion of their spells per day to higher level spells if they wish. So that a 20th level caster might have something like 3 spells per day from each level, plus 3 more of any level. Something like that anyways.
Be just a little careful with this. Spell point systems (and psionics) had this problem where high-level casters/psychics still rocked the field because they could pool their resources into the better, higher DC-attacking spells/powers anyway. But I agree; the solution is a pretty good fix for the linear warrior quadratic mage problem.
