If the mage spells are being weakened, what compensation is being given to the mage?

[ForceUser]

Damn straight. Half-elves were more or less annihilated as of the 2E->3E conversion, as were all */caster multiclasses. As of 3E, any attempt to create a balanced-level caster multiclass without heavy use of PrCs will create a useless cripple incapable of effectively performing either function.

I don't agree. A 10th/10th Fighter/Wizard or Cleric/Rogue is a capable character. I didn't like multiclassing in previous editions of the game, now it makes total sense to me.

 

[DreamChaser]

Damn straight. Half-elves were more or less annihilated as of the 2E->3E conversion, as were all */caster multiclasses. As of 3E, any attempt to create a balanced-level caster multiclass without heavy use of PrCs will create a useless cripple incapable of effectively performing either function.

Your experience is clearly different from mine. I've never had this problem. It requires being more careful with spell selection than a single class magic-user and accepting that you'll never be as potent as a single class magic user in terms of raw damage, but other than that, I have found that it works out alright.

But each person lives their own experience.

And of course, I agree that multiclassed magic-users took a cut in power in 3e. Of course, it really made little sense, from a power perspective, to ever NOT multiclass into a something/mage. I agreed with the change for overall game reasons.

DC

 

[Will]

I actually just had an insight... not sure it's WotC's reasoning, but bear with me...

Multiclassing as a spellcaster is, in 3.5e, much more worth it.

3e : 12th level spellcaster's Bull's Strength lasts 12 hours, vs., say, a 4th level spellcaster's 4 hours. Party wizard is better off casting it. It takes little effort, lasts a huge length of time. Multiclassing a fighter/wizard (or, more likely, sorcerer) would be silly at this point. Sooo much easier to just get a half day buff from the wizard.

3.5e : 12 mins vs. 4 mins. Er. Not a heck of a lot of difference except on rare occasions. Party wizard really has better things he could be doing, and probably doesn't want to blow spells on a one (maybe 2) combat buff. Multiclassing, though... hey. Cool.


I'm not sure if haste allows cast and regular action, but that would be handy for a fighter/(arcane guy). There's also still the problem of arcane armor failure... it'd be cool if BS and CG were nonsomatic, to support this multiclassing option.

But, well, we'll see.


In any case, here's a benefit people may have overlooked.

 

[DreamChaser]

hmmm. I'm realizing that one of the main reasons this thread keeps growing is that to many people "balanced" is not a goal. They think of balance as fine, as long as it raises the power curve and doesn't "negatively" affect their pet race or class. If that happens, "balance" becomes "nerf" or "annihilate" because they are suddenly going to have to make a different character than the one they've played for the last 10 years.

It never occurs to some people to wonder why the most popular race in 2e was half elf.

Or why there were so many fighter/mages out there.

It is because they were more powerful than others.

Balance then equals toning down since if we keep raising the bar on power level we end up with everone a god-level character and where's the fun in that?

All of the above is nothing more than my opinion. Your opinion may differ. I accept that. I, in fact, encourage you to disagree.

DC

 

[Vrylakos]

There is a better solution.

Find a different game system. I would recommend you at least look at GURPS, Ars Magica, or Feng Shui games. There are a lot of game systems out there, several of them are very good.

Edit: Fix URL formatting.

Ars Magica is the bomb.
In fact, you can get the rules free from RPGNow.com

You want a powerful magic user, and the best magic system out there? Ars Magica, IMO.

Darren

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Have you ever tried to play either class? IME 10/10 is about the most useless combination possible. Any other possible combination (except fighter 11/wizard 9) would be significantly better. 12/8 is dramatically better for either class (it grants either 6th level spells--including Tenser's Transformation or 4 attacks/round at 20th level depending upon which way the 12/8 went) and moving down to 16/4 or 18/2 is generally even better.

A 10/10 fighter wizard has the worst of both worlds. He doesn't have enough caster levels to be worthwhile as a wizard and doesn't have enough BAB to be better a better fighter than a single classed cleric or rogue (both of which have very powerful abilities (+10d6 sneak attack, etc or 9th level spells) which he lacks).

I don't agree. A 10th/10th Fighter/Wizard or Cleric/Rogue is a capable character. I didn't like multiclassing in previous editions of the game, now it makes total sense to me.

 

[dgrey]

Comparison between a fighter and wizard in the campaign I'm in now.

10th lvl fighter vs. 10th lvl Wizard

Fighter:
BAB:10
STR:20
Weapon: +3 Frostbrand Greataxe
Feats:
Weapon Focus(Greataxe)
Weapon Spec(Greataxe)
Power Attack
Cleave
Great Cleave

To Hit:
1st Atk: 10(BAB)+5(Str)+3(Enhancement)+1(Weapon Focus)=19
2nd Atk: 5(BAB)+5(str)+3(Enhancement)+1(Weapon Focus)=14

Damage:
1D12+1D6(Cold)+5(Str)+3(Enhancement)+2(Spec)
Per Hit: 12-28
Total(Per Round): 24-56
Avg(Per Round): 40

Wizard:
Int 20
Feats:
Spell Focus(Evocation)
Spell Penetration

Spell: Fireball
DC:
10+3(Spell Lvl)+5(Int Bonus)+2(Spell Focus)=20
Spell Resistance Check:
10+2(Spell Pentration)=12
Damage:
10-60 w/o Save
5-30 w/Save
Avg(Per Spell):
35 w/o Save
18 w/Save

Now...

The fighter can full attack nearly every round. The monster the fighter hits is unable to "save" for half damage.

The wizard can cast a grand total of 4 fireballs, a session.

The fighter will deal more damage, faster, then the wizard(on average).

A fighter that has been hasted in 3e(In 1 round):
Damage:
36-84
Avg(Per Round):
60


A wizard that has been hasted in 3e(In 1 round):
Spell: Fireball
Damage:
20-120 w/o Save
15-90 w/1 Save
10-60 w/0 Saves
Avg(Per Round):
70 w/o Save
53 w/1 Save
35 w/2 Saves


Note: Once hasted he can cast 3 fireballs a session. So while he can potentially hit for 20-120 if he does so he'll e burned out of 3rd lvl spell slots VERY soon. So within 1 round after casting ahste be unable to fireball, this assumes the first round haste is cast the wizard casts a fireball. The fighter on the other hand can continue to attack every round(He doesn't just have 3 attacks in total).

This is how things currently stand as we know them, using only core books, which is all many players have/use. As things currently stand using the current core books the fighter will outdamage a wizard, very easily. As for the argument the fireball hits multiplem foes, with Cleave/Great Cleave so does the fighter.

Now with the current changes that we know about, or can devise, in 3.5e:

The fighter's information remains unchanged.

The Wizards:
Wizard:
Int 20
Feats:
Spell Focus(Evocation)

Spell: Fireball
DC:
10+3(Spell Lvl)+5(Int Bonus)+1(Spell Focus)=19
Damage:
10-60 w/o Save
5-30 w/Save
Avg(Per Spell):
35 w/o Save
18 w/Save

Haste now offers no additional bonus to the wizard, he can no longer cast an additional spell with it. So his avg damage(hasted) remains capped at 35. The fighter's(hasted) remains capped at 60. The wizard once again can cast the spell a limited number of times per day. The fighter has no limit on the number of times he can use the full attack option. Also note that the wizard will deal with spell resistance, aka the chance that his spells do nothing. The fighter also deals with this, AC, however his to hit modifier is signifigantly higher than the wizards to hit to beat spell resistance.

The common belief is that the wizard sacrifices hitpoints(d4) for the ability to deal mass damage. However this isn't really true. The fighter will deal more damage on average then the wizard & the fighter has far more hitpoints(d10).

So go ahead and change haste, which I never really used on my arcane casters anyway, I can live with this it brings things back to 2e. Go ahead and change the buffs. Go ahead and drop the DC's of the wizard's spells. But don't tell me its because the wizard is too powerful. 3e is hack and slash pure and simple
with melee classes having the ability to clearly outdamage the spellcasters. 3.5e makes this distinction even worse. In all of the sessions I've played in using 3e when we're fighting a "major" npc/monster its the fighters that actually do the damage/kill not the arcane casters. Don't tell me that this needs to happen to "balance" the two classes. This is happening for pure misplaced class envy.

If this is wizard's way to "fix" third party d20 supplements then they're failing. These changes will do nothing to dampen overpowered 3rd party spells. However, they do damage any player that stick with the core books. Wizard should stay out of the 3rd-party supplement issue. It has absolutely nothing to deal with them. If you have an issue with a supplement then talk to your DM and don't use the supplement in YOUR campaign. Remember YOU and ONLY YOU are responsible for what happens in your campaign. You don't like some book's spells then YOU make the decision not to use them.

Don't bother flaming back, I could care less about your insults. If you take argument with my numbers or wish to debate this thats fine, and please respond, but if you're going to act like a spoiled little 12 year old then don't bother.

 

[Tidus4444]

You are forgetting two things in your analasis:
1.) Fireball is an area spell. It can affect more than 1 person, unlike a Fighter.
2.) A 10th level Wizard can cast 5th level spells. Change that to an empowered Fireball.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

dgrey:

Good post, always helpful to have numbers. Only thing I see 'wrong' is that this is only ONE spell. While Fighters are meant to just deal damage...and...well...Fight. Wizards have a large spell list that allows them many more options, not JUST damage dealing.
Even with Hold Person at a save every round, against a low Will save Fighter, it will still cause pain. Then he just get humiliated by continually failing.
Wizards don't sacrifice HP for damage, they sacrifice HP for extreme flexability in spells, ability to use staffs/wands/scrolls, and ability to make them. Its a fair trade of if you ask me.
If you want to stick to a damage argument though, look at the old Save or Die spells...now they do...MASSIVE damage.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Edena

I assume the mage is getting something in return. Unless WOTC has decided to weaken the class.

Round 1: I'm an 11th-level wizard. I cast Haste, then Disintegrate. My opponent has death ward on him, but it won't save him. I have a save DC of 23 (starting Int 15), due to Spell Focus (Transmutation). If it doesn't die, I repeat again, twice, the next round.

If my opponent looks tough, I use Hold Monster instead, with a save DC of 22. I can pick and choose which save my opponent uses, unless it's a really unfamiliar creature

My opponent quite likely dies in one round. I haven't spent 20% of my resources, my allies have spent no resources (except perhaps the rogue, who lost an arrow or two during the surprise round), the rest of the party twiddled their thumbs, and the entire party did not lose 20% of their resources!

Is it a longer spell list? (diversity)

Yup. I don't know how good those two spells that were released in the latest Revision Spotlight are, but now we know that there will be new spells.

Is it new skills?

You don't need Scry any more, so this is similar to more skill points.

Is it new abilities?

More powerful familiars.

Eldragon

3.5 haste is potentially better than 3.0 haste. While 2 fireballs in a round is nice, 6 Fighters (and fighting classes like barbarian) getting 1 extra attack a round is better.

I disagree. The previous haste let a wizard cast two save-or-die spells per round. The victim's hit points were irrelevant, as was the fighter's ability to do 100 points of damage per round, crits included. The fighter doesn't get a full-round attack, and I blow my opponent away. No contest.

Rangerjohn

Well your not hearing the other side. Here is a long time player of wizards is telling you he will no longer play the class.

See this...

Eldragon

I believe what has most people concerned is that the magic system is getting changes beyond simple rules fixes on the "broken" spells. And we know for certain that this is the case. People don't like their characters suddenly becoming useless. Recently I decided against being a mage PC because my DM plans on switching to 3.5. The fear of having a worthless PC was enough to keep me from being a mage (and I am a mage 9 times out of 10). In other words, the knowledge of a change coming, and next to no information regarding that change has a lot of people assuming the worst.

Norfleet

incredibly lame save-or-die attacks which tend to automatically work against YOU because your saving throws are blatantly rigged, and tend to automatically fail because it's an unwritten rule that real enemies never fail saving throws.

A good wizard will pick on his enemy's weak save. Furthermore, if your DM cheats ...

Get a new DM.

Edena

Perhaps WOTC is trying to backload the power of mages?

That wouldn't be balanced. Low-level mages are quite weak. Even if they had powerful spells like entangle, they couldn't cast it that often.

Cable

What makes you think they will get anything in compensation? The designers want to discourage people from playing arcane spellcasters. It's as plain and simple as that.

If you say so. I think the ability to do 140 points of damage to my foe in the first round of combat is a great incentive to play a wizard.

Al

Disintegrate is barely worthwhile

WHAT!!!!!

Read this...

Power Munchkin (that's the name he chose)

An 11th level wizzie just got his shiny new desintegrate. That's 22d6 on a failed save. 77 damage on average.

Take an average 11th level rogue. He has roughly 88 hp assuming 14 con. This would damn near kill him.

Take a 11th level fighter. 110 hp, assuming 18 con. He is likely to save, but if he fails, it also puts him in the red. All from one spell, right off the bat.

Another boom spell and he dies.

Now you could argue that a fighter could easily do 77 points in one full attack. True, but he can't generally full attack in the opening round. So it would take him two rounds to do that. Pretty much the same as our mage.

At least there is a semblance of parity here.

Al

Most of the complaints about wizards being too powerful were based on supplements.

I disagree. People only really started complaining about wizard supplements when the FRCS was released, due to that Spell Power.

Incidentally, if your characters aren't use Harm, Heal, Holds, Polymorphs, Disintegrate, Horrid Wilting and Spell Focus, I'm very impressed at your characters' restraint!

My characters didn't use Harm, Haste and Polymorph, since they were blatantly broken. Things like Disintegrate and Spell Focus took more time before we found the balance problems.

Felon

anibuff

I must transfer this term to the WotC boards.

Will

That's my problem. Not that it nerfs power level, but it nerfs the range of things wizards can/want to do.

I tend to agree with this statement... but there are new spells coming out.

Tidus

Improved Invisibility, now THERE'S a spell that needs to be nerfed.

I'd like to see that, too.

There's a reason why Wizards are so powerful at higher levels: they suck at lower levels.

I think beefing them up a little at the lower levels is long overdue. A little, however.

Scion

If you nerf the caster's spells, you lessen the character to a certain degree. I know when I convert my favorite character, who happens to be a wizard, to 3.5, it will result in lower spell DCs, less spells that I can cast in combat, and less damage I can do with a single spell.

Yup. No one likes to see their class get weakened. I wish that WotC had balanced the classes right the first time... but their time constraints made it difficult to playtest stuff past 10th-level. *Sigh*