It was an opinion. Pretty easy to see that.
It was stated as a fact.
You are changing your claim. First you said most. Now you're claiming it's all. Right.
I want my games to simulate fiction. We differ on what we want.
Except you want to play NPCs. You are claiming that wizards should be more powerful because Gandalf and Merlin are. When one's an NPC and the other's a quest giver.
If I feel like playing Thulsa Doom, I will play him.
So you want once more to play the uberpowerful NPC. Some "simulating fiction" you're doing there.
Thulsa Doom was more about a goal than being an NPC.
Goal and methods. And his methods made him an NPC.
Nothing is to prevent me from playing an evil priest worshipping a serpent god who wants a lot of power as long as I can find a group to play with.
OK. And there's nothing preventing you playing a half dragon half drow wizard wielding two scimitars and calling himself Drizzle Do'Elminster.
Merlin is still a wizard archetype. He used magic to support the knights and manipulate the game world.
He is also an NPC very clearly. You're arguing the case that wizards should be powerful
but NPCs.
It's fairly obvious you play with DMs that don't plan for the characters they are dealing with. Luckily for me your chance of derailing my carefully laid plans would be pretty much impossible since I I have imagination and tactical skill and will design an encounter to appropriately challenge you and the entire party. I have access to the entire plethora of monsters and classes as well.
Point 1: You seem to believe that the entire world should be set up to reflect the party.
Point 2: People claim that
4e is encounter based?
Point 3: This is not what you say you do below.
I guess because DMs were throwing Moe, Larry, and Curly at parties the system had a problem eh?
If the game told the DM that that should be a decent challenge, then yes. The game has a problem. This can be fixed by an experienced DM - but the designers failed.
I guess you've played against a bunch of creatures with weak fort saves that easily get polymorphed.
The problem with Polymorph is not and never has been
Baleful Polymorph. It's alter self, polymorph, polymorph other, polymorph any object, shapechange.
Or perhaps you were doing the one day adventuring day that so imbalanced previous groups. Something I don't do at all.
So all your bad guys have to run plans to really tight deadlines?
You know what? The one day adventuring day is pretty much what makes players like you able to abuse so much. I decided that all those intelligent BBEG coming after you, well they don't let you rest. And guess what, they have vast resources when it comes to evil minions. And they know all the little tricks adventurers like yourself use like rope trick and the like for hiding. They have counters for such.
That you've houseruled into the system. Just because you can DM Fiat something out of the game doesn't make it a problem. It means that you've got round it.
They are also smarter than those foolish wizards who memorize save or die spells. They often amp up their melees and minions to levels to crush what they face.
Which is when you teleport out.
I'd love to have you come to one of my campaigns. I know how players think. It is the module designers that have to create modules for the standard four man, 15 point stat adventuring group. I don't have to. I don't. I design encounters according to my players.
No you don't. You point this out very clearly below.
Which is what DMs are supposed to do.
And the system should support them.
And "imaginative and tactical" players like yourself find out the hard way that a prepared DM has as much and more in his arsenal than your wizard.
Of course they do. DMs always win the DM/PC arms race. They have license to cheat after all. But by the point the wizard is running the arms race, the fighter has stopped being any more use than a grog in Ars Magica.
Please, you had trouble with Silent Image and Alter Self? I never had any trouble with either of those spells. My biggest problem was amped up melees with haste.
Sounds as if you are running a seriously combat heavy game
Why are you having trouble with these types of spells? Are you a DM that is unhappy if your players mow down trash? I don't care if my players mow down trash.
I wasn't DMing it. I was the PC.
Those problems are for DMs that run by the exact rules.
You mean it's a system problem. And that you don't play D&D 3.X. You play Celtavian D&D. Congratulations. You have just proved my point. You need to house-rule to nerf the wizard.
That allow cheese from players.
Cheese that's allowed in the system. Again a game design problem.
I don't have that problem. I've been playing too long.
Which says good things about you. Not about 3.X
The goal of strategy is to defeat your enemy. Why try to paint it as anything else.
If you even need to ask it would take too long to explain.
If the wizard's spells and arcane might weren't necessary, then why even have them around?
But the fighter's swordplay
isn't necessary. The cleric's works against mooks. And the cleric has better defences and a deeper reserve of hit points for mook trashing (he has the healing spells). Plus the cleric can really bring it in 3.X against the BBEG.
But you somehow think the wizard was above the team because one on one when prepared he could destroy the melee classes. Yet if he wandered into an encounter with most BBEG's alone, he would be destroyed.
The problem isn't that the wizard is above the team. The cleric and the druid are both on the same sort of power level as the wizard. As is the artificer. The Fighter is not.
You say "smart wizards" can destroy the game. I say "smart melee" are far, far, far better than animal companions or crafted golems. If you take your golem/animal companion force against a wizard with a bunch of "smart melee", you''ll get your clock cleaned.
One PC vs 4.
Bottom line rule for good DMing "Know Thy Players". I haven't found a system, Not 4E, not GURPS, not any system, that players couldn't exploit. Not a single one. And players always try to give themselves the biggest advantages they can.
Of course. But there's a vast difference in the level of exploits available between WHFRP 2e and 3.X. However you point out below that you don't follow this rule.
Now that being said, the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting was way out of hand in its first incarnation for 3E. It was fun for the power mongers. But it was a nightmare for the DM. And the Spell Compendium added some ridiculous spells that shouldn't have made it in. And the original haste was pretty ridiculous. When you have clerics drinking haste potions and casting double destructions that's a little much do deal with.
Polymorphs got worse with every subsequent MM. But was bad enough in core. Haste was core 3.0. Glibness is core 3.5. So is Sculpt Sound.
But as I said Pathfinder has curtailed much of the problem in 3.x. I'm not sure what spells you think they missed, but I don't see much. Alter Self and the polymorph line are good, but not overpowered. There are no real save or die spells. All hold spells or crowd control usually grant a save every round.
Off the top of my head, Flesh to Stone (duration: Instantaneous) is a save or die.
I haven't seen a bard yet that can beat a well-designed melee in battle. Might be able to mind control him, but kill him straight up. Love to see you pull that off against an Invulnerable Rager or Two-hander fighter.
And that is another damning point about 3E. The level of system mastery required. Feats for the fighter included Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, EWP: Bastard Sword, two levels of weapon focus and two of weapon specialisation in the bastard sword, and toughness. Not the best fighter or even close - but all things recommended by the system. One of the many flaws of 3E.
Balanced how? One on one against each other? Damage output? Versatility?
Overall contribution.
Wizards cast magic, which is inherently more dangerous, far better than fighters. Which is what they should do.
So the wizards get to send in the angels...
Wizards should be the most dangerous class in a given world. The part that isn't simulated well and should be is that it is extremely difficult to become a powerful wizard. While it is extremely easy to learn to fight. That part is supposed to be role-played and part of the world design.
Actually, in a balanced system, that is probably the single easiest thing to simulate. If it is hard to become a wizard it takes a lot of experience points and wizards are high level only. From levels 1-10 you are an
apprentice wizard. From levels 11-20 you are a
journeyman wizard. You only actually qualify as a
Wizard at level 21. This is because it is extremely difficult to become a wizard. And makes wizards the most dangerous
people in a given world. There just aren't many of them.
Did we forget that? It isn't first and foremost a game perfectly balanced for all characters to be somewhat equal in battle so no one feels like anyone else is better than them.
Your man. It is made of straw.
D&D is all about cooperative story-telling. The illusion the DM is supposed to create is that all characters have an interesting and useful part in said story. Even if the wizard could take all the other character's in one on one battle. That shouldn't matter. Because if he is doing something like that, then he is a bad guy and needs to be taken out by some adventuring group with a wizard interested in helping a party rather than being cheesy, "I do everything myself" player.
Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit. You've just described the whole problem here. Not that the wizard does but that he can unless he holds himself back - and everyone knows it.
Or maybe because your DM wasn't designing challenging encounters for you go against.
That only leads to party death. We had the most inexperienced players playing the cleric and wizards. It usually lead to their death and the death of the party. Not knowing spell strategy can get an entire party killed.
Oh! So you weren't designing challenging encounters for your players to go against! You were designing killer encounters and mulching the inexperienced. I thought you were advocating the DM pitching encounters to the party as part of the DM's job. Not simply turning the difficulty level up to 11
Probably why I didn't have the problems that so many on this board post about with 3.x casters. I made enemies in my game react according to the world in which they were in.
"Your job as a DM is to challenge your players. Get to know them, know how they work, and build appropriate encounters to challenge them on occasion." You weren't challenging your players, you were setting up a scary game world and mulching the wizards when they failed to measure up. The two are very different.
This is total hogwash. Not my experience and nothing more than opinion by someone who wants to overhype the wizard. Please stop spreading the lies. They're totally ridiculous and not at all a true statement.
Does calling someone a liar count as a PA? I haven't reported this but considered it. Especially when you yourself acknowledge that you don't play D&D as written because you need to pressure the wizard.
I guess there were no counters to your hold spells or save or die spells eh? Yeah, ok. Continue with that fallacy.
Of course there were counters. But to make counters you needed to know how the wizards were loaded out.
I guess no one has a bow or any ranged attacked. So now we're assuming "stupid" melee.
I guess that wizards can't cast protection from arrows or otherwise protect themselves... It's the arms race. But the wizard has more tools in his toolbox.
He should be stuffed. Why should a fighter be able to take on a wizard straight up? Why should that be? Game balance?
Because he's a goddamn fighter. Taking people on is what they do. If the fighter can't take a wizard on straight up, and the wizard is tricksier than the fighter then you're playing Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit.
I wouldn't want to play a game where the wizard is designed to be balanced one on one against the fighter. That is ridiculous.
And non-existant. There are two ways of balancing them - AD&D chose the non-overlapping competencies in which if the fighter ever reached the wizard, the wizard's head would get separated from his shoulders before he was half way through casting a spell. 4e chooses the shared spotlight where they each have different things they do well.
I use a sword.
I use magic.
We should have an equal fight. Are you serious?
The swordsman should win in arms length. Easily. A single thrust straight through the heart and the wizard is dead. Meanwhile the wizard is incanting. That takes
time and time is the one thing you don't have in combat.
You are correct. A fighter hunting a wizard should be sweating. He should bring friends. He should be frightened. You know, like he would be in a story.
And the wizard should be sweating and preparing traps and summoning guardians. He should be making the place as scary as possible. You know, like he would in a story. Because he knows that the fighter can run him through as fast as he can blink if the fighter ever reaches him.
How many stories you read where the fighter and wizard square off and they are equal? I can't think of one.
Hint: The fighter normally wins. Or the wizard uses a sword (e.g. The Grey Mouser. There are two basic paradigms; the AD&D paradigm where the wizard wins for as long as he can prevent the rubber meeting the road (he's basically a grand vizier), and the 4e paradigm where the wizard can blow up enemies by the horde - but head to head
will lose against an equal level fighter. 3e gives the wizard tactical combat without cutting his strategic assets - turning him into angel summoner.
This is a role-playing game first. It should simulate fiction, not be written with balance in mind.
Find me the fiction where Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit are protagonists together. I find 4e simulates a style of fiction far more than 3e
ever did. High action pulp, admittedly. Using Holywood Physics. (No, it doesn't do gritty - if I want that I break out WHFRP 2e which has a magic system that simulates magic in gritty stories as spells fail to cast at random and blow back, making magic scary even for the wielder).
A well-designed battle cleric will almost always murder a mage due to the mage's weak fort save.
See: CoDzilla.
There are all kinds of trumps and dangers out there for every character to face.
Yes.Things can threaten Angel Summoner. But most of them make BMX Bandit irrelevant.
That's why D&D isn't designed with balanced combat in mind, but useful role. That's how it should be designed. It should try to capture the elements of storytelling that drew the first players to the game. D&D wouldn't even exist if it weren't a game that attracted the lover of fantasy stories first.
And with its focus on spellcasters, 3.X
Fails. In sword and sorcery, the heroes are normally the
swordsmen.