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

[Kalanyr]

I'm just going to pull this one line out because its pretty much the only bit of your post I kinda disagree with in any really major way.

A wizard or sorcerer who doesn't take at least one item creation feat is really shorting his potential.

This is true, this is because core metamagic feats kinda suck. With the exception of extend which the duration decrease of animal buff's starts to suck too. Hmm maybe they'll change the metamagic feats so they are worth having ? Could do a bit to pick up the power of the arcane casters again if so. Probably not though, I do after all agree with those who say the goal of this edition is to make the arcane spellcaster worthless and to back this up I'll just go through some reasons why.

What do wizards do?
Damage
Self/Single Person Buffing
Summoning


Damage -> 3e is okay, the wizard has a d4 Hit Dice and can do a bit more damage than a fighter if he's got a whole pile of enemies spread out. This isn't chaning much, thing is the wizards damage matters less, the average encounter isn't against a whole pile of spread out foes who matter, foes who go down to a fireball are gonna drop in a round to a fighter anyway and probably can't hit him. This really starts to show up at high levels were a wizard can't do anything much in the way of significant damage to a major single foe (Around CR=Level) this is where the Save or Dies used to show up to let a Wizard have a chance of taking down the foe, however in 3.5e these are save or take damages, which a foe can still soak, (especially high HD critters like animals and beasts). A 3.5e Wizard can't do much in the way of damage except to hordes of mooks, or to low hit point foes like 3e Outsiders or to other wizards (hmm look save or dies are still save or dies, its just its only save or die for the wizard 'Oh goody, my potential to do stuff goes down while my potential to die instantly remains the same.') who are getting ramped up for 3.5e anyway.

Self/Single Person Buffing -> Hopefully this hasn't changed much, most of the changes so far have effected the cleric as well, Haste however has gone from a self or single person buffer to a group of fighters buffer which is something I'm not really happy with, I have a d4 Hit Dice and I'm not even allowed to crank out a little more damage than the fig hter for a few rounds (not to mention the problem in my game was Haste letting fighters get of move and FRA's not allowing double spells) ? So I trade the ability to take damage for what was it again? Oh yes versatility but say I'm a combat focused mage (an evocation toting sorceror say) well then I just have to live with it don't I ?

The anibuff's nerf Sorcerors/Wizards and Clerics equally which is all fair (even if I do think this isn't a good change). Howeverif you start reducing arcane only buffs like Polymorph and such what you do is allow the divine caster to take over this role (and since the cleric and druid have a whole pile of other roles (Healing as a major one) and powers too , I think allowing them to take yet another arcane caster role would suck)

Summoning -> Guess what? Divine casters do this just as well if not better its not an arcane caster role in any major way. So calling it a wizard thing is silly.

 

[Norfleet]

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.

Capable, perhaps, if you evaluate him as a standalone item. But in comparison to somebody of similar level, he's more or less crippled by the equivalent of about 5 levels. Fighter and Wizard is not a terribly synergistic combination, so the loss of power in both fields of specialty is not really adequately compensated for by combination effects.

A F10/W10, as compared to a W20, has anemic spellcasting potential, and probably has difficulty breaking through even a weak save of an opponent of his level. As compared to an F20, his BAB is limp-wristed at best, coming out as an awe-inspiring +15, falling short of the +16 needed for a 4-attack primary. His ability to pursue feat chains is probably slightly impaired also, but fighters have so many bucketloads already that this is a minor thing.

So, taken as whole, what do we have: A fighter that has the approximate fighting capability of a rogue, without all the bells and whistles which make a rogue a potent fighter. His AC will be in a wizardly range, as wizardly casting precludes the use of a fighter's armor, and his stat upgrades will likely be split between his strength and intelligence, further weakening his already anemic spellcasting potential with fewer bonus spells and a reduced save DC. This leaves his spells extremely vulnerable to dispelling, unable to cut the mustard against an opponent of his equivalent level, and his fallback option of melee sucks.

Some multiclass combinations work great. This isn't one of them. Balanced caster multis don't work.

 

[Barastrondo]

Sounds like you want a no magic system. If all the power comes from the character, then no spells, no magic sword, no cloak of protection, nothing.

Not at all. What I want is the option to excel without being reliant on magic. It allows for a greater diversity of character concepts; the most remarkable heroes out of myth didn't rely on magical items to get the job done even if they were in obviously magical situations. (Except that gimp Perseus.)

What I don't want is a system where a melee type is considered underpowered and not competitive if he hasn't been layered with buffing spells. I would prefer such spells to be appreciated when they're used, or broken out for specific situations — not taken for granted. I think it's more entertaining when the infrequently seen bull's strength comes out to a chorus of "Oh yeah, Fafnir's gonna put a hurtin' on somebody now!" than when Fafnir's ever-present bull's strength is dispelled to a chorus of "Oh no, now Fafnir's useless! Somebody throw a fireball!"

Also if you can do everything why have a party?

Being able to do well in combat without relying on scraps from somebody else's table isn't the same as being able "do everything" last time I checked. I'm not arguing for granting melee types the ability to scale cliffs, punch holes in castle walls, decipher magical scripts and dispel magic just by giving the offending person or object the hairy eyeball. I just want them to get to do something other than being "meat shields," without somebody else's spells holding their hands the whole way.

 

[rangerjohn]

You do realize that most myths are about gods, don't you?

 

[Gothmog]

Ok, maybe I just don't get it. Why does everybody think that wizards and ancane casters ought to be able to blast out so much damage? If you look in myths and legends, wizards are the ones credited with mind control, power over nature, shapechanging, curses, divination, illusions, summoning, and the ability to do things that would be impossible for normal humans (ie fly, teleport, create darkness, etc). I'm not aware of many (if any) myths where wizards are walking atrillery. So why expect it in a game? Casters as artillery is purely a theme that originated in RPGs.

Gamewise, no arcane or divine caster is ever going to have a higher damage output per round than the fighter or other primary fighting classes, nor should they. Its futile to even try. Combat is where the fighting classes are supposed to shine. Wizards can do things no other mortal can without the aid of magic. Clerics can call upon the direct power of their deity to aid them. Sometimes, that might be for combat, but most of the casters in the games I have run and played in really shine in out-of-combat situations, especially divination, protection, infiltration, deception, negotiation, and utility spells. IMO, designing a spellcaster to be a combat monster is counter-intuitive and difficult to do in the 3E rules without being a munchkin. Yeah, you might be able to make a damage-dealing fiend, but he'll likely be a liability when it comes to deception, diplomacy, utility spells, or skill use. Fireballs and disintigrates are only useful when you are going to kill an enemy, but are useless for subterfuge, deception, or non-violent resolution of a problem. I guess I am just tired of seeing twinked-out, powermongering combat casters when spellcasters have the potential to be so much more than that. The spells that have been changed in 3.5 were warranted changes, since almost every arcane caster went for a few certain spells, it indicates that these spells are overpowered and needed some downgrading. So IMO, the changes in 3.5 not only correct some terribly broken spells, but might actually help downplay the artillery role many casters seem to occupy.

 

[ForceUser]

Some multiclass combinations work great. This isn't one of them. Balanced caster multis don't work.

I don't agree. Refer to my post on page 3 explaining why Ftr/Wiz 10/10 works for a rebuttal to your arguement. I've already covered this.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

And all this fits in with "back to the dungeon" how?

And if wizards are supposed to be so good in non-combat social situations, why is it that they have no social skills on their class skill list?

The design you're suggesting would place wizards in the same position as Deckers in a Shadowrun game. Supposedly very important to have around but basically filling an entirely different role than that of the rest of the party. The decker neutralizes security and/or finds info while everyone else waits around and then the decker's player waits around while everyone else plays the adventure (or, as my DM did it, the decker is an NPC who tells you a few things and then shows up again at the end of the adventure). Similarly, your non-combat wizard seems like he plays his own game before the party enters the dungeon, takes a movie break while the party plays out their combat encounters and then the rest of the party takes a break when it's wizard time again.

Mind you, that's not my experience of 3e at all but I'm confused as to why you are putting a positive spin on that particular view. It seems pretty much like a worst-case scenario to me. Simply functioning as an enabler who scouts out the area or conjures up a secure resting place for the night. That sounds about as fun to play as the walking bandaid that 2e clerics were supposed to be. (Were they really? I wouldn't know; I never played one--I know that when I played the SSI AD&D computer games, the clerics in my party were little more than band-aids).

Gamewise, no arcane or divine caster is ever going to have a higher damage output per round than the fighter or other primary fighting classes, nor should they. Its futile to even try. Combat is where the fighting classes are supposed to shine. Wizards can do things no other mortal can without the aid of magic. Clerics can call upon the direct power of their deity to aid them. Sometimes, that might be for combat, but most of the casters in the games I have run and played in really shine in out-of-combat situations, especially divination, protection, infiltration, deception, negotiation, and utility spells. IMO, designing a spellcaster to be a combat monster is counter-intuitive and difficult to do in the 3E rules without being a munchkin.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I've got a better idea. How about we put all the chips on the table and show our cards? You post your workable version of the fighter 10/wizard 10 and explain his role in the party.

Then Norfleet or I will post a non 1/1 progression character who fills the same role or one of the character's roles and demonstrate how it is better or worse. We should probably prohibit prestige classes (although we may come to the conclusion that multiclass fighter/wizards will always be 2nd rate characters unless they take prestige classes). Shall we use standard iconic spread (15, 14, 13, 12 10, 8) for stats, 28 point buy, or something else?

I don't agree. Refer to my post on page 3 explaining why Ftr/Wiz 10/10 works for a rebuttal to your arguement. I've already covered this.

 

[ForceUser]

I think we can just say our opinions differ and leave it at that. I'm not interested in trying to crunch a powerful character to prove my point, because my point is that all 20th-level characters are powerful by virtue of being 20th-level. Power is a relative thing. You might look at a 20th-level evoker and a 20th-level rogue and think that the evoker could crush the rogue with absurd ease. In one way, you'd be right. I'm sure the evoker could do all sorts of nasty things to end the rogue's life in a straight-up fight. But let's say it's a city campaign, with political factions, and the rogue happens to have a lot of pull with the evoker's rivals. If the evoker burns him down he could catch a lot of flak from his allies. Or the rogue, knowing that a confrontation is imminent, could use his powerful political connections - which exist because of his great social skills - and call in favors from an ally whose power is on par with the evoker's. So who's more powerful? Hard to say, and entirely subjective given the campaign situation, which is why a straight-up pound-for-pound analysis of character firepower is an irrelevant benchmark. A 20th-level wizard or sorcerer is probably more "powerful," in a sheer destructive sense, than a 20th-level anything else. But a 20th-level monk could dish a 20th-level wizard by virute of his innate monkly powers. A 20th-level fighter could probably hew down a 20th-level monk, and of course the 20 wizard is going to destroy the 20 fighter. Hakuna matata.

So what? None of that matters. What matters is how your character develops on the journey. I don't care if you've multiclassed into all eleven core classes and have taken nothing but the Toughness feat nine times. You're still 20th-level, which means you're still a powerful character by virtue of your level. I can't explain it any better than that. It's really a very simple concept. Anything else is just a penis contest.

 

[Li Shenron]

So, what is the mage (and the sorcerer) getting in return?
I assume the mage is getting something in return. Unless WOTC has decided to weaken the class.

I think the only aim of the changes is to lower the number of spells that there is almost no reason to learn and of spells that there is almost no reason not to learn. The first ones (like Nystul's auras) are probably going to be strengthen to become more attractive, and the latter (Haste) to be hampered enough not to be a bad strategy to live without.