Wizards: Squishy or All Powerful?

[Elf Witch]

My experience has been that wizards die easily and often. It doesn't matter what spells they have. Their low hit points compared to other party members makes them fragile. That and smart NPCs practice hose the wizard first because he is the most dangerous to their strategy.

There are things that wizards can do spell wise to help them stay alive like fly and invisibility. Also spells like mirror image and blur make them harder to hit in combat. But all it takes is anther mage with dispel magic and then you have a good chance of hosing the wizard.

My wizard got hit a few months ago with two dispel magics I lost all my protections with no mage armor going my AC dropped to an 11. I got hit with two crossbolts and then one freaking magic missile knocked me to -3.

Sorcerers are better off in this situation simply because since they don't memorize spells if they lose their mage armor and have any spell slots left above 0 can cast a new one next round.

I did not have another mage armor memorized so I was in a bad way.

 

[Noctos]

(i have only read the original posting)

a well played mage who use all the resources available to him is as all mighty being at even lvl1 it just takes proper preparation and a dm that isn't a total dick.

if you could grab any of the first 2 level spells from any or all the books published by the company for DnD in second edition (All i truely know by heart). you could be totally unstop able if you had a few people around to assist. in later levels basicailly anything after 3rd level spells can be mastered you had to realize the purpose of all mages. (this is were a understanding dm comes in) it's time to start with the enchanting; Not only of temporary items but of tools and gear. The mage needs to write scrolls, make potions, understand other uses of spells. (things like stone to mud/mud to stone have a wonderful range of uses). enchanting your own weapons not along a great way to gain power and save money; but an easy way to make money while gaining easy levels. As everything constructed not only gives exp but has a value if sold.
(sell enough magic spell scrolls to fund your personal projects.)


i hope sopme one found this use full

 

[MarkB]

In 4e, the classes are actually pretty balanced with each other. At least in my low-level experience, wizards are probably a little weak. They shine in some areas (control, AoE damage) and are weak in others (single-target damage). But they usually have low ACs with little to make up for that. Wizards also don't get the overly awesome defensive spells they got in 3.x, and these spells usually only give you a one-time bonus (for instance, Shield gives you +4 AC, either against a single attack or until the end of your next turn). Spells that let you bypass a fighter's attack roll (eg Displacement) have been rewritten so they merely give you a bonus.

In my experience, 4e wizards can, and frequently do, have defences comparable to the very best in the party, largely thanks to their primary ability score being tied to AC and Reflex Defence. A wizard with Staff Mastery and leather armour proficiency can easily have a base AC better than the Fighter, and with his Staff of Defence class feature plus a small selection of utility powers can either boost his defences or negate an attack at least 2-3 times per encounter.

Where 4e wizards are vulnerable is in their fragility over the adventuring day. They tend to have fewer healing surges than other classes, so if they let themselves get targeted, they'll run low on surges within a few encounters. There are ways to compensate for that (feats like Durable, for instance), but taking them will consume build options that could make you a better wizard.

 

[Dannager]

The second is that DMing plays into it tremendously. Wizards have to prepare spells, which means that the DM (and possibly an intelligent NPC) know exactly what's coming. There are plenty of counters, starting with SR and saves but ending somewhere beyond my knowledge, and every logical in-game reason to use them.

There's a reason crafty wizards favored potent spells that didn't allow spell resistance (Glitterdust, for example), to say nothing of those that didn't allow any save or SR check (see: Black Tentacles).

The rules are complicated enough that many judgment calls are required in adjudicating how spells work, and it's important for a DM not to let overpowered stuff get through. For a wizard to take over, the DM has to let him do it.

"Wizards aren't too powerful because the omnipotent being in charge of the game can make them less powerful on purpose," isn't a great argument, I'm afraid.

 

[Jhaelen]

Pre-3e we had virtually no 'pure' wizard characters. They either used 'human change class', starting as fighters until about level 8 or they were multi-classed wizards.

Survivability received a huge boost when the wizard could cast Dimension Door, Teleport, and eventually Teleport without Error. Also, there was Contingency.

Still, it was mostly a function of the player's skill rather than the wizard's spell book that determined survivability _and_ power.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I don't disagree with the idea that system mastery is important for the wizard, but I do have two other points.

The first is that I don't know or play with any people who are willing to put in the effort it takes to master the system to a degree where casters become unbalanced. Even when playing high-level casters, it's my experience that most players will pick a character theme and select spells around it rather than trying to find aberrantly powerful uses for them.

That's astoundingly different from my experiences. It doesn't take a whole lot of system mastery to figure "big dumb monster - cast Hold Monster", IME, or that Mirror Image is good while Blur isn't.

The second is that DMing plays into it tremendously. Wizards have to prepare spells, which means that the DM (and possibly an intelligent NPC) know exactly what's coming.

This sounds a little metagamey. Sometimes the NPC knows what the wizard can do, but it works the other way too. Sometimes the PCs know what the NPCs can do. It's a wash. I find having NPCs prep "standard" tactics works better anyhow. Even if the NPC wizard Scryed the PCs as they discussed their tactics, no plan survives first contact with the enemy.

There are plenty of counters, starting with SR

Unless you're a monster with natural SR, the only cure is the Spell Resistance spell, and there are ways around it. Dispel Magic comes to mind.

and saves

Those are very hard to buff. A weak save is a weak save is a weak save.

Protection from Spells is an 8th-level spell, although once an NPC gets their hands on it it's pretty sweet. It gives comparatively greater bonuses to NPCs (who are more gear limited) than to PCs, and targets three or four NPCs instead of just one.

But I think a bigger issue is you had to use magic to resist a mage. There was no reliable way of seeing an invisible wizard, picking out which mirror image is the real mage, resisting a spell, etc.

Compare with 4e. A fighter still might not be a good choice, since you need to get past an enemy soldier/defender first, but a rogue or any other agile opponent who can get around can really ruin the mage's day. There's no "I win" defense, but of course the mage can still try to put a control effect on the rogue. And while the rogue's Ref defense is their strong defense, all NADs progress at the same rate before stats, so the difference isn't so extreme.

I think the lack of good high-level fighter/rogue benefits is a much bigger issue than the invincible wizard.

Unless rogues start getting True Seeing as a class ability, I'd say the wizard was the bigger issue.

In my experience, 4e wizards can, and frequently do, have defences comparable to the very best in the party, largely thanks to their primary ability score being tied to AC and Reflex Defence. A wizard with Staff Mastery and leather armour proficiency can easily have a base AC better than the Fighter, and with his Staff of Defence class feature plus a small selection of utility powers can either boost his defences or negate an attack at least 2-3 times per encounter.

Where 4e wizards are vulnerable is in their fragility over the adventuring day. They tend to have fewer healing surges than other classes, so if they let themselves get targeted, they'll run low on surges within a few encounters. There are ways to compensate for that (feats like Durable, for instance), but taking them will consume build options that could make you a better wizard.

I think unlike the previous poster, your experiences are closer to mine. I just find that, compared to the rogue, the wizard is almost guaranteed to have an AC two points lower, unless they spend an armor feat, but that doesn't seem like a standard option to me

 

[Stoat]

The problem with this thread, and the other recent threads on this topic is a lack of detail.

What level wizard are we talking about?
How were his ability scores generated?
What spells does he know?
What spells does he have memorized?
What equipment is he carrying, including scrolls, potions, wands etc. etc.?

Most importantly, under what circumstances are we testing the Wizard's power? The more the wizard knows about his foes, and the longer he has to prepare, the more devastating he'll be.

For my part, I believe the wizard is the 2nd or 3rd most powerful PC from the 3.0 or 3.5 PHB (behind the cleric and possibly the druid) but only after about level 12 or so. Prior to that, I think the wizard has too few hit points and too few spells to dominate the game.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

For me, the problem is not the power directly, but the amount of work required to deal with its lack or excess. And either lack or excess can occur easily with the wizard, depending on edition, character level, magic items, etc.

For example, in our last d20 game (Arcana Evolved), we had one of the more strategically minded players as the main wizard type (AE magister). But he used this understanding so as to try and not overshadow the rest of the party. (That is, he deliberately made a personality that he could play "in character" in a non-optimal mechanical way.) Meanwhile, also aware of the potential problems, I was running the game to try and give him a challenge. This worked well enough at first, but every level it got harder and harder, for both him and me. By 13th, it was shot. My brain was fried (with the game, and d20, and some external stuff) and the opportunities to dominate were so obvious that even the non-strategically minded players saw them clear as daylight.

Likewise, when I've got the energy and will to do it, I can run a group of, say, RC Basic, and keep low-level wizard mortality no worse than the rest of the group, given some reasonable, competent play. But it takes work to do it. Sometimes I'm up for it, and sometimes I'm not.

So for me, the question is not can the DM and players compensate for a "glass cannon". They most assuredly can. The question is rather, is the compensation always required to achieve some minimal level of satisfaction, and is there a better way to handle some of the work?

I can multiple and divide large numbers with pen and paper. Ask me to do it day in and day out, I'd just as soon use a calculator or spreadsheet, thank you.

Edit: There are times when the challenge of juggling the power is actively fun. In that AE game, I had a blast with it, right up until I didn't. It is merely that the combination of that external stuff hitting at the same time as the higher levels made this very abrupt and obvious. (I was also on math team in high school, which means I did math for fun. There was, even then, a time and a place, though.)

 

[Ourph]

Even when playing high-level casters, it's my experience that most players will pick a character theme and select spells around it rather than trying to find aberrantly powerful uses for them.

Yeah, it's the players who pick the character theme "survive at all costs until you gather enough power to be full of unstoppable win" that you have to be careful about (<whistles innocently> ).

The second is that DMing plays into it tremendously. Wizards have to prepare spells, which means that the DM (and possibly an intelligent NPC) know exactly what's coming.

I don't know what the social agreement at your table is like, but as a player, I never tell the DM what spells my Wizard characters are preparing and as a DM, I would never think to ask for that information from a player. If, as a player, a DM did ask for that information, my response would probably be something along the lines of "Sure you can see my list of prepared spells... as soon as you let me see the list of monsters, traps and encounters we're likely to run into this session".

 

[steeldragons]

I'm in the both camp. Mages are definitely "All-powerfully Squishy"...or "Squishily all-powerful", whichever you prefer.

Of course, the "all powerful" doesn't kick in until you reach a certain level (which takes a lonnnnng time to get to, traditionally)...so it's really more of "Hoping-for-Powerful-some-day Squishy", a "Just-you-wait-til-I'm-X-level" kind of Squishy.

FEAR THE MYSTIC MIGHT OF MY SQUISHY!

Which...personally...I love and think is great and think is all of the "class balancing" you need.

--SD