Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Banshee16" data-source="post: 5297586" data-attributes="member: 7883">No offense, but you *did* read what I wrote didn't you?"3-Sometimes (at least at lower levels) simple measures like using caltrops, or marbles can work wonders. A rogue in our party was renowned for carrying bags of marbles, and scattering them all over the floor under the feet of her enemies, forcing saves to avoid falling flat on the ground. DR doesn't protect against it, nor does mirror image if it's an area attack....nor does mind blank or spell resistance, etc. A simple fly spell would work, or levitate..if the wizard had them."As I pointed out "Sometimes (at least at lower levels)".....Did you miss that part? I never said the rogue was throwing bloody marbles at archmagi.Geez.There's not a lot of sense in even discussing this much further, as many ideas have been discussed for high level encounters, and anything that doesn't fit your specific interpretation of how the game is supposed to work would get thrown out.People have suggested Forbiddance being used to prevent Teleportation into an area.  That's countered by saying essentially "well, how likely is everyone going to be to have it?  If you overuse a tactic like that, players will get bored".  It's a fantasy game.  In the game, the people live in a reality where magic works.  Wizards teleport around, bypass walls and standard protections, can see what you try to hide, etc.  Of *course* enemies are going to do stuff like use permanent Forbiddance spells....because they *work*.Anti-Magic Field is another great spell that any wizard over lvl 12 has access  to.  Given that it would invalidate that wizard's own abilities, he'd be cautious about using it....but if he was multiclassed, then yeah, it makes perfect sense.  Again, because it works.  Is it spamming?  Sure.  But it's also a smart defense if you're a multiclass spellcaster.  You can bet that if you're a fighter 4/Wizard6/Eldritch Knight 10, and you're facing a superior spellcaster, you're going to use that spell, run up to him, and chop him into hamburger.  4 attacks per round, against an effective AC of between 10 and 14, when you have +17/+12/+7/+2 (before counting for STR bonuses, weapon focus, or the masterwork weapon bonus your magic weapon has when in a nonmagical area).  If he also has Improved Critical, that wizard is going to be in trouble fast.  He might not last one round.The player running that character would be using Improved Trip and spamming trip all over the wizard, while the wizard couldn't get away due to the antimagic.  Boring.  Yeah.  But effective.  Those 52 hp won't last long....two rounds, maybe three?  Or one, if any criticals are scored.  Once the wizard is down, drop the anti-magic field, and either teleport away, or use Wall of Force (hemisphere) to give some breathing room for a round or two, to rebuff (depending on how quickly the cleric can dispel it).And, yes, Disjunction.  If you want to look at it from a realist perspective, it sucks for NPCs to use it, as they lose whatever they might gain from defeating the PCs (in terms of magic items).  If you look at it from a gamist perspective, why *wouldn't* you use it?  THey exist to fight the party members for X many rounds, then die.  From that perspective it would be stupid *not* to use it.Those tactics can all work.  They're really pretty basic, and use stuff in the core rules.  You asked for methods to show the wizard wasn't unkillable within the core rules, and you have them.  They might not be pretty, but they work.  And, IMO, if the spamming of Moment of Prescience, Stoneskin, Mind Blank, Spell Resistance etc. is putting you in a position where players are complaining they feel their characters are useless compared to the mage, then why *wouldn't* you use those tactics a few times?  You can't have it both ways.  You either want everyone to bow down and worship the wizard as the best character of all time, or you're looking for solutions to a problem in your game, where a smart player is playing the wizard character effectively.If you've got all the members of your party doing nothing but making sure the wizard dominates the encounters, by using their buffs on him, and throwing themselves in front of any opponents trying to get at him...then, yeah, you know what?  He'll dominate.  No duh.  That's pretty obvious. But the same thing would happen if you had the entire party devoting its resources to making the rogue, fighter, or cleric succeed.But if it's a realistic campaign, where different characters have different motivations, different responsibilities, and they're not all aiming to pump up and protect one single character, then the entire story changes.  Then the wizard isn't nearly as dominant.  In my game, characters had depth like that.  You know?  Role-playing?Frankly, the kinds of players who ran characters who demanded that everyone be there to support them were the ones who tended to wreck groups.  Whether they were playing a wizard, monk or fighter, their mentality was such that they felt that everyone was there to make *them* look good.  I suppose if you have a group of players who are all like that, and as DM, more power to you.  I'm very thankful I haven't.  And it wouldn't be the kind of group I'd even want to play in.Big caveat here.  If you *like* that kind of game, and those kinds of players, more power to you.  But there are lots of different types of gamers, with different play styles, and all sorts of different campaign types.  Not all of us will appreciate the same group dynamic.It's a team game.  Everyone needs everyone else.  If the Wizard doesn't have the cleric to heal him and cast spell resistance and other buffs on him, and the rogue and fighter to keep people from running up to him and pummeling him, then he's going to have problems.  His whole schtick is that he's powerful, but he needs other people....The wizard is highly valuable.  Very flexible.  If played well, they're a big addition to most parties.  They're probably one of my favourite classes.  But unkillable?  Hardly.Banshee</blockquote>

Verification