D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Is every Magic Change Downward?

[EPRock]

Yeah the mage does less damage at the cost of all of his spells. Plus how is the mage living against the giant.

You just set all of the mages spells to combat only, no defensive spells.

What happens when the mage casts the first spell successfully. The fire giant runs over to the mage, readies an action to attack him when he next casts a spell.

Mage casts a spell, smacked for 20+ damage, cannot make the concentration check and loses the spell.

Wow, spell is lost, next gets only 1 of those spells that he gets hasted.

What happens to the mage after the fight, he has to stop because he is now useless.

The fighter can go on and fight another 5 more of these giants before having to rest.

The fighter will have around double the hp of the mage, and a much higher armor class.

 

[rushlight]

Personally, I don't feel that the reduction in GSF is too significant. Of course, if you'd like to make the arguement that GSF IS the difference between the enemy making a save or failing, then it's OBVIOUSLY too powerful. What's 2 points of DC? Especially at higher levels.

"Rework your example without Haste, and I think you'll find that the wizard is outclassed absolutely."

Unless you consider multiple opponents. Under those conditions, the mage clearly outclasses any melee-based attacks.

"Plus how is the mage living against the giant."

That's not relevant to the damage output of both types. The fighter could be dead as well, or the mage could just cast Fly and hover 50 feet off the ground. Or he could stay 50 feet in front of the giant, thanks to the fact that his spells are ranged. Only an ignorant mage closes for hand-to-hand, unless you've got some kick-ass touch spell ready.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm surprised the mage didn't cast fly, followed by glitterdust, which would work even better against multiple giants.

 

[AuraSeer]

Yeah the mage does less damage at the cost of all of his spells. Plus how is the mage living against the giant.

He's flying.
Thank you, please drive through.

 

[Bauglir]

I heard a rumour that in 3.5e giants could throw rocks... really big ones.

That's an interesting perspective Jalkain.

Although what about the wizards that don't find playing the support role fun? You KNOW they're going to head straight to the save-or-dies.

"Rework your example without Haste, and I think you'll find that the wizard is outclassed absolutely."

Unless you consider multiple opponents. Under those conditions, the mage clearly outclasses any melee-based attacks.

To re-iterate:

- "Fireballs hit multiple targets"
Including any allies in the area, unlike say a whirlwind attack, or a great cleave.

 

[Darklone]

Grrr.
[anti 3rd ed haste rant]
I never liked it. I like the new thing much better. The old thing was a typical must have from a certain level on and any class who couldn't cast it MUST have the respective magic item or were outclassed.
The new thing is pretty powerful for a group of melee dudes (or archers). But it's NO must have. I like it.
[/anti 3rd ed haste rant]

 

[rushlight]

To re-iterate:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- "Fireballs hit multiple targets"
Including any allies in the area, unlike say a whirlwind attack, or a great cleave.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The objective of the experiment was to measure damage output from a beefed-up fighter vs a stripped down mage. Multiple targets just weigh things much more toward the mage. Allies in the area aren't relevant, and even if they were, there are feats that can again make allies irrelevant.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I heard a rumour that in 3.5e giants could throw rocks... really big ones.

I heard that throwing a rock draws an AoO from a fighter. Of course, with multiple giants, things get nasty. This is when the wizard cast improved invisibility.

 

[Bauglir]

Allies in the area are most definitely relevant, as this will be the case in the vast majority of situations.

I assume you're referring to sculpt spell? I can't remember which book that's from. Sure it's an option, but it increases the opportunity cost (higher level slot) yet further reducing the mage's effectiveness.

Fighters can also spend their feats on abilities such as whirlwind attack to strike multiple foes if they wish (with no additional cost - a fighter could whirlwind attack all day long) or if they choose, using no feats at all, they can distribute their iterative attacks amongst multiple targets. In both of these cases there is zero risk of friendly fire, meaning that these are ALWAYS viable options.

(Note: using 'mage' as shorthand for wizard/sorcerer )

 

[Jalkain]

That's an interesting perspective Jalkain.

Although what about the wizards that don't find playing the support role fun? You KNOW they're going to head straight to the save-or-dies.

Well, all I'm really saying is that's there's loads of spells, so why only use the same 5 all the time? If you want to do that, play a sorcerer, but I have to say that personally I find the lack of variety rather tedious.

What I want to know is why wizard players feel they need to adopt the same tactics as combat sorcerers. If you want to deal out maximum damage per day, then sorcerers are optimised for doing that. More fireballs, simple as that.

I advocate a more balanced choice of spells - that includes save-or-die spells, and AOE spells. They have their place in my spell list too. Power Word Stun and Disintegrate are two favourites. I'll generally have a couple of Cone of Cold ready as well, and also maybe a Fireball. Melf's Acid Arrow and Magic Missile too.

And after all that, I've still got loads of slots left for Slow, Charm Monster, Confusion, Wall Fly, Detect Thoughts, Clairvoyance, Teleport, Monster Summonings of various levels etc...