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

[Elder-Basilisk]

Here's a good place to elaborate and thereby gain credible support for your thesis. Give us some bullet points explaining briefly and succinctly why the anibuffs are now near-worthless.

Would it help? If so, here you go.

- At mid-high levels, they are superceded by items.

-At low levels, they last for one combat--2 if you're lucky.

-In many low-level groups, they add less to the party than average first level spells:

Bless vs. Bull's Strength: The likely combat effect of a bull's strength 20 points of damage over 4 rounds (16 str, 6th level fighter on full attacks against AC 18); 8 points of damage for a 4th level fighter over the same period against AC 16. Note that the level 6 number is probably exaggerated since the fighter will probably not always make full attacks. The likely combat effects of Bless: bless (assuming 2 of the 6th level fighters and 2 characters with 14 str and +4 BAB against the same AC, bless nets an extra 16 or so points of damage over the same period (heavily approximated--the total does not include sneak attack
or any other kind of damage that secondary fighters usually have). Verdict: Bless is dramatically superior to Bull's Strength until the target of the bull's strength gains multiple attacks; then Bull's strength pulls up even.

Cat's Grace vs. Protection from Evil: Both grant +2 to AC (one is limited by alignment, the other by armor max dex bonus); Cat's Grace grants +2 to reflex saves only and +2 to ranged attacks; Prot Evil grants +2 resistance bonus to all saves against effects of evil creatures, and immunity to mental control as well as untouchability by summoned creatures. Verdict: Protection from evil is better for everyone except archers--and enjoys a much longer lifespan as a useful spell since the mental control and summoned creatures benefits are never made redundant.

-They are not comparable to decent 2nd level spells:
Mirror Image vs Cat's Grace: (using the 6th level fighter as a benchmark, if the 2 points of AC from Cat's grace take the wizard from AC 20 to AC 22, it saves the wizard 2.3 points of damage/round on average (10.9 to 8.6)--about 10 points of damage over 4 rounds; Mirror Image, OTOH, saves the wizard from about 19 points of damage over the same time frame (assuming 6 images) but that doesn't tell the whole story; the average 14 con 6th level wizard will have 31 hp and, with Cat's Grace, he will probably be below 0 in 3 rounds--especially if the fighter is using anything better than a longsword (assumed in my example); the odds of the fighter hitting the mirror imaged wizard three times (what's necessary to drop him) with six attacks, however, are probably a good deal lower than 50/50 (becaue if the fighter closes his eyes and guesses, he'll have to also guess which square the wizard is in; and even more significantly, the odds of the wizard going down in round one are much lower than the cat's graced wizard).

Bull's Strength vs. flaming sphere (assuming DC 17 against +4 reflex save, that's 18 points of damage at level 4--double what Bull's strength grants at that level; although the comparison doesn't look so good at 6th level Flaming Sphere is generally acknowledged to have a very short window of usefulness), Acid
Arrow (15 points of continual damage over three rounds at level 6; 10 points of continual damage at level 3 or 4--continual damage over a much shorter time span make this dramatically superior).

The effects of good 2nd level spells like Glitterdust, Web, Calm Emotions, and Hold Person (3e--3.5e doesn't qualify as a good 2nd level spell) is much harder to quantify so direct numerical comparisons between them and the animal buffs. However, Glitterust, Web, and Calm Emotions are able to singlehandedly change the course of a combat--something that the animal buffs can't ever do.

Disintegrate barely worthwhile? Heard it did ridiculous amounts of damage now. Ridiculous damage doesn't sound barely worthwhile. What's up with that?

For someone who complains about all emotion and no facts, your take on disintegrate is remarkably factless and full of emotion. The crunch has been done on this countless times on other threads but it doesn't usually make a difference.

So here you go.
3e Disintegrate: Targetted Saving throws
3.5e Disintegrate: Targets saves and Hit points. Thus instead of targetting one weakness, it is now only effective against targets with two weaknesses: low hit points and poor fort saves.

3e Disintegrate: Was often better than Destruction because it effected targets destruction couldn't.
3.5 Disintegrate: Is pretty much completely inferior to Destruction--who cares if it effects targets Destruction can't if it doesn't do much to them?

And after all that, the damage on the revised disintegrate only looks impressive compared to other direct damage spells. Assuming that it's 2d6/level, a clvl 12 disintegrate will inflict 84 points of damage on a successful touch attack and a failed fortitude save. Your typical 12th level wizard has 80 hit points (max lvl 1, 2.5 per level thereafter and an 18 con--starting con 14, +4 item or starting 16, +2 item, or starting 16 and a toad or some combination thereof). Thus disintegrate has only slightly better than a 50/50 chance of killing a wizard, assuming it hits and that the wizard fails his save. And every other possible target offers worse odds. In fact, given the anemic damage on a successful save, it is arguably inferior to Otiluke's Freezing Sphere (1d6/lvl damage--no save). At least you can hurt a dire tiger, fighter, or barbarian with Otiluke's.

Disintegrate is no longer a save or die but rather a damage spell. As a damage spell, its usefulness is vitiated by a save for almost nothing.

And I still haven't heard what the info source on the Spell Focus "nerf" is. I guess I can only assume nobody really knows where that rumor came from.

The source is Dungeon 100 statblocks, supposedly confirmed on Andy Collin's boards. And "nerf" doesn't need the sneer quotes. +1 to save DCs for a single school of spells instead of +2 is a definite nerf. (And it also decreases the effectiveness of every other DC increasing power or ability--which may be a good thing but IMO those abilities rather than Spell Focus were what needed toning down).

Hmm. Getting to be less of a thesis and more of a hypothesis. A thesis is based on cited research. This sounds more like speculation regarding Wizards' motives. Speculation is all good and well, as long as it's presented as such.

Thesis or hypothesis, Al's theory explains a lot. And his analysis of the result seems, to me, spot on.

I think attempting to design epic levels of play taught them more about how problematic "save-or-die" or uncapped spells are.

One might think that balance at epic levels is somewhat different than balance within the defined level 1-20 limit. And one would be correct. Unless they're incorporating the ELH into the core rules, problems that primarily crop up at epic levels are irrelevant to level 1-20 gameplay.

Reducing anibuff durations does not make the wizard too weak. Switching Disintegrate's effects from death to ridiculous damage is not weak. Things like d4 hit points make the wizard weak.

d4 hit points and poor BAB don't necessarily make the wizard weak. D4 hit points, poor BAB, and a weak spell list make the wizard weak. Unfortunately, all the evidence so far (including the spell spotlight wave of "would've been balanced at two levels lower" spells) points to 3.5e wizards having a weak spell list. As Al points out, it won't be a problem for people using overpowered supplements. But for wizards restricted to the Core Rules, it's a death knell.

 

[ForceUser]

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 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 see how you can say that any 20th-level character is useless. He's still 20th-level, and a 10th-level wizard to boot, which is not insignificant.

 

[dgrey]

Fireball is an area spell. It can affect more than 1 person, unlike a Fighter.

I didn't forget this. I equate the usefullness of AoE to Cleave/Great Cleave. A wizard can't toss fireballs around willy-nilly because he'll damage his own party members, the fighter can cleave/great cleave around and his damage won't affect his party members(unless he's cleaving off them)

A 10th level Wizard can cast 5th level spells. Change that to an empowered Fireball.

A wizard that has been hasted in 3e(In 1 round):
Spell: Fireball (Empowered)
Damage:
30-180 w/o Save
23-120 w/1 Save
15-90 w/0 Saves
Avg(Per Round):
105 w/o Save
75 w/1 Save
53 w/2 Saves

Note: Empowering the fireball's while makes them more powerful he now only has 2. The wizard's damage essentially has a 1 round lead on the fighter, but in any prolonged combat the fighter WILL come out above the wizard. If I could graph the damage over time it would be more obvious.

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.

They have more spells, this is correct, however the vast majority of thefunction of their spells can be done by other classes/divine spells. As for this flexability: the wizard must plan out exactly what he is going to come across. If he misplans, let say he has a knock spell, then that spell slot is worthless. A fighter's attack is not worthless.

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.

First off the fighter still has a chance to roll a 16 every round he is held, this precludes any bonuses to will saves. A npc/monster doesn't get the chance to roll a 16 every round to ignore damage from the fighter's attack. Besides this the fighter's bonus feats allow them to overcome this, with the ability to grab iron will or the use of other items to raise a save, aka stat boosting items come to mind.

...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.

First off I've already covered the "flexability" arguement, its not as useful as it seems. As tot he ability to use satves/wands/scrolls other classes can do this as well, bards/rogues. The ability to make them: This is extremly expensive to do, both in cash and XP. A wizard should not have to be constantly broke & level signifigantly slower than another class in order to be given a slightly better chance to compete. While the additional scrolls/staves/wands may give them the bility to throw more spells they still suffer from the fact that these spells to less damage over time then a fighter will do, besides the fact that the DC's for items are much lower than that of the wizard's normal spells, DC 13 vs DC 20 on that hold person.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

He's a 20th level character with the power of a 15th level level (non-caster) character. Not useless in absolute terms (if you were a king in D&D land, you'd be happy to have him on your side) but relative to the enemies a 20th level party ought to be facing, yes he's useless. He's not in the same league as other 20th level characters.

And a 10th level wizard is insignificant relative to 20th level challenges. If 10th level spellcasting capabilities would make much of a difference to them, they wouldn't be EL 20+ challenges.

I don't see how you can say that any 20th-level character is useless. He's still 20th-level, and a 10th-level wizard to boot, which is not insignificant.

 

[ForceUser]

He's a 20th level character with the power of a 15th level level (non-caster) character. Not useless in absolute terms (if you were a king in D&D land, you'd be happy to have him on your side) but relative to the enemies a 20th level party ought to be facing, yes he's useless. He's not in the same league as other 20th level characters.

I don't agree.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Why not? And what evidence do you base your disagreement on? Have you ever tried to play a 3e multiclass caster?

I don't agree.

 

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by Elder Basilisk:

So here you go.
3e Disintegrate: Targetted Saving throws
3.5e Disintegrate: Targets saves and Hit points. Thus instead of targetting one weakness, it is now only effective against targets with two weaknesses: low hit points and poor fort saves.

3e Disintegrate: Was often better than Destruction because it effected targets destruction couldn't.
3.5 Disintegrate: Is pretty much completely inferior to Destruction--who cares if it effects targets Destruction can't if it doesn't do much to them?

And after all that, the damage on the revised disintegrate only looks impressive compared to other direct damage spells. Assuming that it's 2d6/level, a clvl 12 disintegrate will inflict 84 points of damage on a successful touch attack and a failed fortitude save. Your typical 12th level wizard has 80 hit points (max lvl 1, 2.5 per level thereafter and an 18 con--starting con 14, +4 item or starting 16, +2 item, or starting 16 and a toad or some combination thereof). Thus disintegrate has only slightly better than a 50/50 chance of killing a wizard, assuming it hits and that the wizard fails his save. And every other possible target offers worse odds. In fact, given the anemic damage on a successful save, it is arguably inferior to Otiluke's Freezing Sphere (1d6/lvl damage--no save). At least you can hurt a dire tiger, fighter, or barbarian with Otiluke's.

There is one thing a lot of people are forgetting about the massive damage spells (disintigrate, horrid wilting, etc) in 3.5. If you take over 50 hp of damage, you have to make a DC 15 Fort save or die on the spot per Massive Damage rules. And since Disintigrate is a 6th level spell, you are looking at a minimum of 22d6 damage (avg 77 hp), 11d6 on a successful save (avg 38.5 hp). If you roll over 50 hp of damage, the target has to make ANOTHER Fort save, even if the first one was successful or die. So now in essence, you have two chances to kill the target with one spell- even if the first save is made, the second save could kill him. And if you Empower or Maximize a Disintigrate- game over. I don't see that this spell has been weakened one bit- if anything its MORE potent.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

The more I debate this and read this debate, the more I see that there really won't be any end to it...my party constantly has Wizards in it that don't use tactics anything like some people here obviously use, and yet we do fine. The Revision isn't hurting us much because of our inclination to play a different way...it just seems more and more pointless every time this debate comes up...the same points keep getting made, by the same people, refuted in the same way by the same people, and then it just goes on...too many different points of views on things among games...ah well.
I just don't see a point in continually posting my opinion anymore, because I've done it so many times, that its just...pointless. I've stated how I feel, and so has pretty much everyone else. It just gets down to...buy the Revision or don't. Your old books won't explode when the Revision comes out. Or, buy the Revision and simply House Rule away what you find to be a problem...WotC is fixing what THEY see as a problem, and obviously we won't all agree on it. But they're not wrong either, and they are balancing it...but its all perspective. *shrugs* How many more of these threads will we see? Or will it just get worse after the Revision comes out...?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

If Disintegrate is now save for 1/2 instead of save for 5d6, I'll retract some of what I said. It would not be a useless spell. In fact, it would be a good damage spell. It wouldn't be a save or die spell anymore and wizards wouldn't hold a candle to clerics in the save or die department until Wail of the Banshee kicked in at 9th level but it wouldn't constitute nearly the nerf that it seems to be.

I don't know that empowering or maximizing Disintegrate would be worthwhile though. It would have a lot of competition in the 8th and 9th level spell slots. And even a maximized 40d6 clvl 20 disintegrate would be survivable by quite a few monsters and a number of 20th level PCs. (Heck, a dwarven wizard who bought a +6 manual of bodily health (or a +4 manual and had a toad familiar) could take it, fail the save, and have 10 hp left over.) If a 20th level caster is going to get his foes to fail a fort save, it might as well be against Wail of the Banshee instead (and that's area effect with no touch attack required).

Saves for massive damage, however, are pretty much a formality. Even a 12th level wizard with a 14 con and no cloak of resistance feat, or other protective item would have a fort save bonus of +6--enough to make it on a 9. By higher levels, even the weakest creatures will only fail such a save on a 1 or a 2.

There is one thing a lot of people are forgetting about the massive damage spells (disintigrate, horrid wilting, etc) in 3.5. If you take over 50 hp of damage, you have to make a DC 15 Fort save or die on the spot per Massive Damage rules. And since Disintigrate is a 6th level spell, you are looking at a minimum of 22d6 damage (avg 77 hp), 11d6 on a successful save (avg 38.5 hp). If you roll over 50 hp of damage, the target has to make ANOTHER Fort save, even if the first one was successful or die. So now in essence, you have two chances to kill the target with one spell- even if the first save is made, the second save could kill him. And if you Empower or Maximize a Disintigrate- game over. I don't see that this spell has been weakened one bit- if anything its MORE potent.

 

[ForceUser]

Why not? And what evidence do you base your disagreement on? Have you ever tried to play a 3e multiclass caster?

Yes and no. I played a bladesinger, which is, of course, a single-classed fighter-wizard. But the whole time I played the character I thought to myself how nice it would be to be able use wizard spells X, Y, and Z in my fighting, instead of the absymally short spell list of the prestige class (which, admittededly, has some goodies on it). But it was while playing that character that I realized how handy it would have been to have greater flexibility. The bladesinger itself is very focused on melee combat.

I think when you build a multiclass character you choose to trade sheer firepower for versatility, and that is such a character's strength. At one point I had planned out a character that I had intended to build as a 10 ranger/10 bard, but the campaign ended for me when the character was 6th-level. I think that would have been a fantastic multiclass combination.

Getting back to the fighter-wizard, don't think in terms of absolutism, or look at it from the perspective of a blank 20th-level character with no history. Instead, keep in mind the journey to 20th-level as you consider the character: at low levels the fighter class is more durable and generically useful with its ability to both deal and absorb damage. The class is uncomplicated, deadly, and survivable. Conversely, the low-level wizard is frail and generally less useful, with few spells per day and few spells known, making a semi-flexible character that is less powerful and less survivable than the low-level fighter. As levels progress, the reverse becomes true; at high levels fighters are often a liability with their absurdly low Will saves and lack of ability to do anything except deal out and absorb damage. The wizard, on the other hand, has come into his own finally, slings spells with a dizzying array of effects and consequences, and is often an important figure in any high-level campaign. The fighter-wizard then, is a character that could potentially be a good combatant at low levels (not to mention more survivable), and a decent (if not amazingly powerful) spellcaster at high levels. 10 levels of wizard is nothing to scoff at, even at level 20 - the character has access to 5th-level spells, and what's more can use any magic item a powerful wizard can use, such as, oh, a staff of the magi. 10 levels of fighter is nothing to scoff at either; six bonus feats and Weapon Specialization in, say, the longbow allows the character deal significant amounts of damage in conventional warfare. Imagine such a character with item creation feats, sculpting for himself magic things that maximize his strengths. Perhaps the fighter-wizard is more in the league of the 20th-level fighter than the 20th-level wizard, but no 20th-level character is to be scoffed at. They are all powerful.