Apparently Wizards are perfectly balanced :)


log in or register to remove this ad

We've got two threads on the top page right now, one claiming that the wizard is the most powerful class, and one claiming that the wizard is the least powerful class. Seems to me that they might have got it just right, lol.

Nothing personal, but I cringe every time I see someone say "x things it is overpowered, y thinks it is underpowered, so it must be about right".

It doesn't follow at all!

All it means is that some people in some circumstances have found it good, and other people in other circumstances have found it bad. The circumstances vary and the wizard builds vary, so there really is no point of comparison between the two.

The presence of people asserting two extremes doesn't mean something is balanced, only that two extremes of view exist.

The best indication of balance is when everyone agrees that it is pretty balanced.

Cheers
 

Fallacy of the golden mean is what you're looking for I think.

That aside, I suspect that the wizard is balanced. The confilicting posts don't prove this but give me a warm feeling inside. If you give a rope to two internet users they will instictively pull in opposite directions.
 


You don't see how that works?

You imply that the Rogue has an advantage because he can attack Reflex, but then also say that the Wizard's ability to attack Reflex is *not* a true advantage because the Reflex defense of low level creatures is just as high as their AC.

So either the Rogue does *not* get an advantage (because the Reflex is just as high as the AC), or the Wizard *does* get an advantage (because Reflex is *not* as high as the AC).

You can't have claim that it's an advantage to the Rogue but not to the Wizard. Both or neither.

Yes, of course, the weapon proficiency and dagger thing is a benefit to the Rogue. That wasn't what I was referring to.
 

All it means is that some people in some circumstances have found it good, and other people in other circumstances have found it bad. The circumstances vary and the wizard builds vary, so there really is no point of comparison between the two.

It could also mean that one party is right and the other is wrong. Or is that a 3rd Edition way of looking at the world?
 

How come the 'wizards suck' camp seem to be comparing level 5 3.5 wizards to level 1 4th ed wizards? The wizard still hands out about as much damage as the fighter per turn, as he did at 1st level in 3.5 (except he could only do it once or twice before sleeping for 8 hours). Our wizard routinely hits 2-3 targets for 8-10 damage each, even with encounters vs only 4 or 5 monsters. And that's without any minions at all (when my party fought 24 giant rats, the wizard killed about 18 of them). Because of the dungeon environment, it's pretty rare not to be able to blast 2 or more monsters at a time. Also because of that same cramped environment, the ranger will be shooting into cover (making his chance of hitting worse than the wizard's), and the rogue will struggle to flank. The wizard ignores cover with area spells such as scorching burst though, and against 3 or more targets averages as much damage output as a ranger or rogue does against one.

Anyway, like most of 4th, the test is in the playing. The whole issue is one joke for us, as most of our encounters end with some smoking monsters, and someone saying 'of course, wizards are underpowered' (cue widespread laughter).
 

You can't have claim that it's an advantage to the Rogue but not to the Wizard. Both or neither.

Yes, of course, the weapon proficiency and dagger thing is a benefit to the Rogue. That wasn't what I was referring to.
The rogue attacks reflex with the benefit of an attack bonus that was intended for attacking AC. That's the difference.
 

The rogue attacks reflex with the benefit of an attack bonus that was intended for attacking AC. That's the difference.

It may be a difference, but it is completely irrelevant to the actual question posed.

The fact that the Rogue gets Weapon Proficiency is irrelevant to the AC vs. Reflex discussion because he gets the same bonus against AC or Reflex. If targeting Reflex is better than AC for the Rogue, it is better for the Wizard.

No one is arguing as to whether or not the Wizard targeting Reflex is going to have an easier time hitting it than a Rogue targeting Reflex would.

- Marty Lund
 

Well, to be honest, this argument's a bit silly. Wizards aren't supposed to do a lot of damage (except vs multiple targets, where their damage can far outstrip everyone elses). If you want to do a lot of damage with spells, be a warlock.

This I think is where most of the problem comes from, Wizards are now essentially two (or 3) classes. Wizards, Warlocks and soon to include the Swordmage. Before a Wizard could do all those jobs or focus on one of those jobs (in terms of ccombat targetting and damage) - now you must focus on one of them and you get a very different feel by doing so.

Wand Wizard Multi Warlock will get a lot of the feel of the traditional Wizard back.

Wizard Multi Swordmage with Spiral Tower Paragon will make for a nice combo as well for the old buff and fight style Wizard. (Will work the otherway around even better perhaps.)

This is the biggest thing with why people see Wizards as weak I think, before they could do everything with the right build, now they have to choose what it is they want to be good at and stick to it. Certainly my play experience with them as player and DM makes me see them as on par with the other classes.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top