ruleslawyer said:
For a wizard, for whom Int is everything, starting with a 17 Int is easy to do, even under low point buy. Saying otherwise is rather disingenuous.
Two problems with this. The 17 int wizard needs 4 successive wishes or a +4 tome in order to reach int 34. At an xp cost of 20,000 those are not things that can be relied upon and in any event set the wizard back more than an entire level.
Second, a 17 starting int is not easy to do under low point buy unless your idea of low is 32+points. Under 22 point buy, taking a 17 int would mean having a maximum net ability bonus of +2. The character could do it but would have almost no other bonusses and would have to accept multiple penalties. Under 25 point buy it would mean a maximum net ability bonus of +4. If the wizard wants more than a +1 con bonus (which, IME, is nearly as valuable to wizards as int--for both hit points and fortitude saves), he will have to be taking penalties. Under 28 points (which is no longer relatively low point buy but standard), the wizard can finally have a 17 int and a 14 con. . . and nothing else above 11. Anything higher than 28 points is statistically better than 4d6 drop lowest and no longer qualifies as low point buy in any sense of the word. Furthermore there are some players who actually roll for their stats and normal rolling methods don't even come close to ensuring a 17 or an 18 in every set of rolls.
Not only that, the assumption that a viable wizard will start out with a 17+ int is not typical of other 3e classes. The system is supposedly balanced upon characters built with the iconic spread--no stat higher than a 15. That can produce viable fighters, barbarians, clerics, rogues, druids, etc. If it can't produce viable wizards, something is wrong.
I was pointing out an optimal situation. I also threw out a less-optimized save DC character with a lower Int, no spell power, and possibly Spell Focus instead of GSF, for a save DC of 30.
You're right that it was an optimal situation howevery I think you're wrong to think that it's reasonable to take an optimized wizard and claim that because the optimized wizard has a chance of being effective, there's no reason to say that the encounter has a negative effect on wizards' viability.
It may be that you are more experienced in high level D&D than I am but under the 3.5e rules we've seen previewed, I think that 30 will still qualify as an optimized DC for a single classed wizard. The only way to get that DC without prestige classes is Greater Spell Focus, +6 int item, 5 stat increases to int, and a starting int of 17 (+1 inherent bonus required for each point below 17). Furthermore, given the paltry reward and number of feats required (vis a vis the number of feats available to a wizard or sorceror), I think it unlikely that the typical wizard--or especially the typical sorceror--will have GSF Enchantment. Saying that the encounter is balanced on the assumption that the perfect character for it shows up is like saying that a low level melee encounter with 40 orcs is balanced because the fighter has a reach weapon, combat reflexes, and great cleave. Such a fighter may be able to handle the situation but he is not a typical fighter.
If you're the sort of wizard who throws save-or-die spells, you should have GSP.
Probably. I'm just pointing out that the wizard in question is more optimized than you're letting on. And that GSP appears not to be an optional feat anymore but one that's required for all wizards except conjurers to take.
The beauty of the 3e feat system was that it was viable to create characters without taking feats like Greater Spell Penetration so it enabled high level characters to vary widely in terms of abilities. The 3.5e system seems like it will only be functional on the assumption that every character takes 4 to 6 specific feats (many more for fighters) which means that the flexibility of the feat system is really an illusion.
Ah, are we trying to resolve debates by pedantry now? You knew what I meant. "Save-or-die," in this case, is "save or encounter ends." It's common enough terminology on these boards. The encounter ends if the opponent is dominated. Weird is an example of a save-or-die Will spell, if you really need one, as you yourself pointed out.
It's hardly pedantry. Wierd may be a save or die spell but like Phantasmal Killer, it only kills if the opponent fails a fortitude save as well as a will save. You could have 30 wizards line up and cast DC 30 wierds at the Titan and odds are good that it would still be alive two rounds later.
Dominate Monster does not necessarily end the encounter either. (Which is why my point isn't simple pedantry). While the order "go away and leave us alone" might end an encounter with a drunk Titan having some fun kicking mortals around like footballs, telling the evil Titan who is on the verge of completing his plan to dominate the world "drop your weapons and abandon your plan" is going to grant another save with the +4 bonus for doing something against the target's nature. In that case, the 45% chance of ending the encounter with 2 spells just went down to 9%. Similarly, the demonthrall Titan would, at the very least, be entitled to a new save if told not to go through with opening the portal to hell would be entitled to a new save. The point is that Domination and similar effects that operate on will saves are highly situational and while they are able to end some encounters, they cannot be relied on to end an encounter on a single failed save.
Right, and that's fine. You're talking about one 20th-level PC's contribution toward defeating a CR 21 monster. I'm simply stating that there's a 45% chance that two 8th- or 9th-level spells (hardly 20% of a party's resources) will end the encounter without any contribution from the rest of the party calculated in. Throw in another three PCs working toward taking the thing out, and I think it's a fair encounter.
Unfortunately, in the case of the Titan and the Pit Fiend, this is not a case of "can the wizard defeat this on his own" but "can the wizard contribute at all?" As you point out, only a moron would toss a Horrid Wilting against a Titan and with its hit points and SR (and possibly elemental resistances--I don't remember any from the beginning of the thread), a meteor swarm isn't likely to make more of a contribution than a fighter or barbarian's partial charge (less of a contribution than a full attack action). (24d6 averages 84 points of damage on a failed save; about 50 points of damage after SR is taken into account (assuming the no save version is used). Of course the wizard can only use his meteor swarm a few times per day though so. While that may count as a "contribution" it's not much of one considering the amount of the wizard's resources it represents. So if the wizard wants to make a contribution, it will probably be in the "save or consequences" category. And tossing a bunch of spells at the Titan that only have (at best) a 25% chance of doing anything at all isn't a very fun contribution either.
