How would you houserule (nerf) magic at high levels.

[Mort]

Well how how about protecting the wizard niche? A rogue at high levels who has poured ranks into use magic device can very effectively compete with a wizard in the spell category. Not only can he use arcane spells but he can also use divine spells.

The rogue cannot come even close to the wizard. He can sub in a pinch, at great expense (non crafted wants and scrolls are expensive!) and only at the whim of the DM (who must actively give access to the proper magical items).

Meanwhile the mage can step on the rogue's niche as an afterthought (knock, invisibility, silence, scrying etc.) and (with crafted scrolls) still have plenty of room to do his own thing.

The playing field is not remotely equal.

The rogue also with his back stab can compete with the fighter when it comes to doing damage in combat.

Again only at the whim of the DM. Backsab is extremely situational and often does not apply (undead, constructs, slimes etc.).

The wizard, on the other hand, by mid-high level can summon monsters that give a fighter a run for his money and again still have plenty of oomph left over for other things.

Then there is the cleric with his buff spells and access to heavy armor he can more than compete with the fighter to be the frontline tank.

I've noticed this only applies if there are 2 (or more) clerics in the party. Otherwise the cleric is so busy healing (and swapping spells for healing) that "kicking butt" is tertiary. On paper the cleric seems more powerful, but in play this always seems balanced by his almost indispensable medic role. But even here caster vs. non-caster, that is the real distinction.

It is almost impossible to totally protect niches there will always be some overlap.

The big problem arises when the niche encroachment is extraordinarily one sided. The mage can fill in for the rogue with some inconvenience; the rogue cannot fill in for the mage, not really.

As for the spells you mentioned like spider climb it is should be in the wizard repertoire. Wizards are not as strong as fighters and they don't have climb as a skill so they need to be able to climb that cliff face. They can also use it to help other classes.

This is why I love 4e rituals, they solve this problem. Sure the wizard can open the lock just like the rogue. BUT the rogue can do it in seconds while the mage takes 10 minutes, it's pricey, loud, and it fatigues the mage (costs a healing surge).

As for knock sure as the party wizard I could memorize this spell and use it to open doors. But unlike the rogue's pick lock ability I am limited on just how many spells I get so eventually I won't be able to do it any longer. A rogue can open locks and disarm traps all day long. And that ability does not stop him from using his other abilities. He can still use his back stab in combat and evasion to avoid damage.

A wizard who has taken a lot of knock spells has to to that at cost of taking other spells that will help protect them and help them fight in combat.

A scroll of knock is not that expensive, there are rarely that many must open locked doors where a scroll or 2 will not sufice. And if there are - use a wand; I don't believe I've seen 50 must open doors in 20 levels of adventuring!

Another reason spells like knock exist is to allow the party to be able to function without a rogue.

I have seen several parties function without a rogue. I have yet to see even 1 party function without a wizard (though I'm told they exist).

I keep reading that wizards step on a lot of feet but in 20 years of playing the game I have never seen this at the table. I have never seen a wizard character that takes spells to be better than another character in the group. Why would a wizard take a lot of knock spells if the party has a rogue? By doing so they limit what they can do and that is not usually fun.

What I have seen is that wizards may take a spell to help boast or back up another character that is not stepping on toes that is called being a team player and helping make the party as a whole effective.

I don't remember near the niche encroachment in 1e/2 but have seen it since 3e and I firmly believe (as I've stated elsewhere) that extremely easy access to scrolls (it's a free feat) and wands (also essentially a free feat) is the big culprit.

 

[Elf Witch]

The rogue cannot come even close to the wizard. He can sub in a pinch, at great expense (non crafted wants and scrolls are expensive!) and only at the whim of the DM (who must actively give access to the proper magical items).

Meanwhile the mage can step on the rogue's niche as an afterthought (knock, invisibility, silence, scrying etc.) and (with crafted scrolls) still have plenty of room to do his own thing.

The playing field is not remotely equal.



Again only at the whim of the DM. Backsab is extremely situational and often does not apply (undead, constructs, slimes etc.).

The wizard, on the other hand, by mid-high level can summon monsters that give a fighter a run for his money and again still have plenty of oomph left over for other things.



I've noticed this only applies if there are 2 (or more) clerics in the party. Otherwise the cleric is so busy healing (and swapping spells for healing) that "kicking butt" is tertiary. On paper the cleric seems more powerful, but in play this always seems balanced by his almost indispensable medic role. But even here caster vs. non-caster, that is the real distinction.



The big problem arises when the niche encroachment is extraordinarily one sided. The mage can fill in for the rogue with some inconvenience; the rogue cannot fill in for the mage, not really.



This is why I love 4e rituals, they solve this problem. Sure the wizard can open the lock just like the rogue. BUT the rogue can do it in seconds while the mage takes 10 minutes, it's pricey, loud, and it fatigues the mage (costs a healing surge).




A scroll of knock is not that expensive, there are rarely that many must open locked doors where a scroll or 2 will not sufice. And if there are - use a wand; I don't believe I've seen 50 must open doors in 20 levels of adventuring!



I have seen several parties function without a rogue. I have yet to see even 1 party function without a wizard (though I'm told they exist).




I don't remember near the niche encroachment in 1e/2 but have seen it since 3e and I firmly believe (as I've stated elsewhere) that extremely easy access to scrolls (it's a free feat) and wands (also essentially a free feat) is the big culprit.

I played in a high level game with a rogue and a wizard. I was the fighter. The rogue used his gold to buy tons of wands. He was hands down the most powerful character at the table. He would cast improved invisibility on himself from a wand and then back stab everything in sight. He had a wand of healing and he healed himself all the time. Another favorite thing he did was use a wand of spiritual weapon and between that weapon and his abilities he was always doing tons more damage then I did.

To be honest I often felt a little over shadowed by the rogue.

Clerics in our games are rarely the party's band aid they make the party cough up money for wands of healing. So they are more than free to use their spells to outfight the party fighter.

I have often played without a wizard in the party. And in these cases it was the bard or the rogue who filled that niche usually through the use of scrolls and wands.

I think the issue here is one of how easily it is to come by scrolls and wands. You want to bring the power level down then make those items harder to get. Doing that levels the playing field quite a bit. Wizards only have the spells they have memorized. Rogues don't become this unstoppable force who does not need the rest of the party.

The only downside is for the cleric. A lot of players want to play a warrior cleric not a healing bot. I know back in 1/2 very few people I knew wanted to play clerics. Even in 3 we often found ourselves without one because people didn't want to play party band aid. The easy use of buying healing wands have helped with this.

 

[pemerton]

Well how how about protecting the wizard niche?

<snip>

As for the spells you mentioned like spider climb it is should be in the wizard repertoire. Wizards are not as strong as fighters and they don't have climb as a skill so they need to be able to climb that cliff face. They can also use it to help other classes.

<snip>

I play a wizard and I routinely cast invisibility on the party rogue to help him scout better and more safely.

It's not entirely clear, in classic AD&D or in 3E, what the wizard's niche is. In Chainmail and early D&D there was a sense that wizards were primarily artillery (magic missile, fireball, lightning bolt). Spells like Sleep and Charm Person added a type of special-ops/anti-personnel dimension. (In an early White Dwarf article Lewis Pulsipher identifies artillery and enchanter as the two main options for a PC wizard.)

By the height of AD&D, though, let alone 3E, the wizard niche seems to be "any magic except healing". And because magic can do anything (after all, it's magic!) the wizard's niche becomes everything (except healing - a game like Arcana Unearthed follows the logic to its conclusion and gives the Magister access to healing magic).

It's true that a wizard can be played as a support character - Enlarging the fighter, Invising the rogue etc. Depending on the group, however, the players may well notice that there are often more optimal strategies available. And once these are explored for a bit, it is hard to unlearn what's been learned and return to playing the pure support wizard.

As for the wizard's need for spider climb to keep up with the other PCs - the 4e solution lets wizards be able to climb without being better at it than rogues and fighters. In 3E - for those who don't like the anti-simulationist tenor of the 4 approach - you could introduce a cantrip called "Magical assistance" which lets a wizard grant herself +5 to a single untrained skill check. This would allow a wizard to climb, or swim, or jump, using magical power to help, without overshadowing those classes for whom athletic prowess is actually part of the raison d'etre.

As for knock sure as the party wizard I could memorize this spell and use it to open doors.

<snip>

A wizard who has taken a lot of knock spells has to to that at cost of taking other spells that will help protect them and help them fight in combat.

Another reason spells like knock exist is to allow the party to be able to function without a rogue.

Others have made the point about scrolls and wands in 3E. As for the need for the party to function without a rogue - this returns us to the question "What is a wizard's niche?"

A wizard can sub for a fighter (Tenser's Transformation, summoned monsters etc) or for a rogue (knock, invis, spider climb, etc). Neither of those classes can sub for a wizard's artillery (at least until a high level rogue gets a wand of fireballs - which in any event are probably doing fewer dice of damage than the wizard's would be) or anti-personnel charm/sleep/death ray powers.

If no one in the party has chosen to play a rogue, the GM can probably afford to dial back the traps, locked doors etc a bit - as apparently the play group doesn't see engaging with such things as at the forefront of their play experience. Or maybe the fighter can break down the locked doors with a feat of might strength. Or the paladin say a prayer which reveals the trap on the evil altar. It doesn't have to be the wizard.

Personally, I don't care for enforced niche protection. At the more extreme ends it leads to "the decker problem." In less extreme situations it leads to nonsensical situations like the fighter doing multiple back-flips to impress a king while the bard does the bulk of the talking.

I don't see what this has to do with niche protection so much as silly playing and GMing. If the fighter wants to impress the king with his/her athletic prowess, than (i) it's up to the players to construe a way to do that sensibly - perhaps they arrange for the king to see the fighter performing feats of strength in the arena - and (ii) it presumably has already been established that the king has some reason to think that being strong is impressive or important.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

So if I understand this correctly, because rogues can spend a lot of gold that would otherwise go to improving their gear in order to become a much weaker, lesser version of a wizard, they're overpowered.

So...wizards need to be buffed.

...Man, what?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Also why the hell do wizards need to be able to climb? You ask the fighter to bring down a rope and rely on him to get your butt up there.

It's such a small comment, but it really is the biggest note of what's wrong with wizards. They don't need to do everything. They're allowed to be really awful at something like, say, climbing. They don't need a spell for that!

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Then, and I don't mean this rudely, you have not seen a well played wizard.

I disagree with your contention that "playing with a high degree of system mastery" = "well played." There is a good deal more to the RPG experience, and what I regard as true skill is playing a character such that the players around you have more fun. That's a well-played wizard. It might be a high-optimization one, it might be a low-optimization blaster, it depends greatly on the group you're with.

But I do see your point about how some abilities are almost game-breaking even without any intentional optimization (like Color Spray or Natural Spell). So maybe "system mastery" or "well played" should be redefined to mean the player saying "Hey, this ability as written is WAY too powerful and will make the game less fun... can we tone it down?"

Something I read in the past... the novice thinks the valued currency is damage per attack, the journeyman thinks it is the action economy, but the real veteran realizes it's game-table-time, and the goal is for you and your friends to have as much fun as you can in your four hours every two weeks (or whatever).

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I disagree with your contention that "playing with a high degree of system mastery" = "well played." There is a good deal more to the RPG experience, and what I regard as true skill is playing a character such that the players around you have more fun. That's a well-played wizard. It might be a high-optimization one, it might be a low-optimization blaster, it depends greatly on the group you're with.

But I do see your point about how some abilities are almost game-breaking even without any intentional optimization (like Color Spray or Natural Spell). So maybe "system mastery" or "well played" should be redefined to mean the player saying "Hey, this ability as written is WAY too powerful and will make the game less fun... can we tone it down?"

Something I read in the past... the novice thinks the valued currency is damage per attack, the journeyman thinks it is the action economy, but the real veteran realizes it's game-table-time, and the goal is for you and your friends to have as much fun as you can in your four hours every two weeks
(or whatever).

Except in order to have that fun you have to willfully choose the not as great options. Having to purposefully hobble yourself so as not to outshine everyone else is not a design feature.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Also why the hell do wizards need to be able to climb? You ask the fighter to bring down a rope and rely on him to get your butt up there.

It's such a small comment, but it really is the biggest note of what's wrong with wizards. They don't need to do everything. They're allowed to be really awful at something like, say, climbing. They don't need a spell for that!

But they don't necessarilyh have to cast that on themselves. They could be casting it on the fighter in full plate.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

But they don't necessarilyh have to cast that on themselves. They could be casting it on the fighter in full plate.

Beowulf didn't have a nearby wizard cast a spell on him when he dove into the sea to search for the lair of Grendel.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Beowulf didn't have a nearby wizard cast a spell on him when he dove into the sea to search for the lair of Grendel.

Eh?

How many people were in Beowulf's party?

I'm really trying to understand the significance of this example and can only come up with none.