[L&L] Balancing the Wizards in D&D

[Hussar]

Also, stoneskin blocks ONE attack.

Funny. I seem to recall that it blocked a d4 attacks +1 attack every 3 (or 4) levels. Is that my fuzzy memory or is JRR making up rules again?

See, this little sidebar is why it's so incredibly difficult to have this conversation. If someone who has played a game for decades is still discovering the rules, that is a VERY poorly written game. But, besides that, it means that any discussion needs to spend about an hour actually determining what the rules ARE before any criticisms can be brought forward.

 

[hafrogman]

Funny. I seem to recall that it blocked a d4 attacks +1 attack every 3 (or 4) levels. Is that my fuzzy memory or is JRR making up rules again?

It blocks that number of attacks for 2e. In 1e it blocks one attack or one "attack sequence" provided the attack isn't a punch or similar attack in which case it reduces the damage dealt and can still block a future attack.

 

[Lanefan]

High level wizard. No day long buffs at all. Bracers AC 6? I thought he was a high level wizard - why not 2? No Dex bonus at all? At these levels, it's not all that hard to hit negatives.

His AC was -4.

This was an odd situation where his lair - where he kept one very important thing* well away from his normal haunts so people wouldn't think to look for it there - was not his usual home; he had to come from a few hundred miles away (using shadow walk as he did not have teleport) once the alarms got set off. He's a Necromancer, thus does not get access to Stoneskin - and even if he did, in my game SS only stops the first blow and that blow would still interrupt casting a spell.

* - this thing was a rough equivalent to a horcrux that held about 80% of his soul and vitality.

No Guards and Wards on his home? No homonculus? Not a wand on his person - something that can't be interrupted. Loses initiative every single round. Etc. Etc.

Guards and Wards doesn't last very long, in the grand scheme of things. I didn't even think of a homonculus, though in this specific situation it probably would have just ended up as fodder for the undead guardians. He did not bring a wand or other offensive device, an outright mistake on his part due in part to panic and in part because he didn't want to risk blowing up what he was trying to protect. And it didn't matter whether he won init. or lost it; and we re-roll every round, when under melee attack all a wizard can do is a) flee, b) fight back hand-to-hand, c) use a device (but he had none on him), or d) try to cast and either fail or go wild every time.

He did have a Contingency spell in place that got set off and put everyone involved including him on another plane, but it didn't help in the end.

The one wise thing the party did when he showed up was they didn't go the movie route and let him monologue, they made their surprise check and got into his grill as soon as he arrived.

Lanefan

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Funny. I seem to recall that it blocked a d4 attacks +1 attack every 3 (or 4) levels. Is that my fuzzy memory or is JRR making up rules again?

See, this little sidebar is why it's so incredibly difficult to have this conversation. If someone who has played a game for decades is still discovering the rules, that is a VERY poorly written game. But, besides that, it means that any discussion needs to spend about an hour actually determining what the rules ARE before any criticisms can be brought forward.

I'd say 1e is a very poorly organized game, or rather that the dmg is a poorly organized book. And I did not make up a rule, I merely wasn't aware of (or more likely forgot the existence of) a rule.

And d4+1 attacks for stoneskin is making up a rule, at least as far as 1e is concerned. Not that there's anything wrong with that. If I couldn't make up rules, I wouldn't want to dm.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'd say 1e is a very poorly organized game, or rather that the dmg is a poorly organized book. And I did not make up a rule, I merely wasn't aware of (or more likely forgot the existence of) a rule.

And d4+1 attacks for stoneskin is making up a rule, at least as far as 1e is concerned. Not that there's anything wrong with that. If I couldn't make up rules, I wouldn't want to dm.

AD&D is definitely rather disorganized and confusing, 1e particularly, but 2e isn't exactly clear and concise either.

The whole Stoneskin debate is getting somewhat crazy. Stoneskin wasn't even a core spell in 1e at all. It was introduced in UA, where it stops one entire attack routine etc. It became a core spell in 2e like many UA spells and as with most of them was heavily rewritten to stop 1d4+1/2 levels attacks (not attack routines). Depending on what you were fighting the later version was generally better. As a 4th level spell the UA version wasn't really worth bothering with. So it really depends on what rules you're using.

The point stands though, a bare-arsed 12th level wizard without backup, with no spells active, and no items that will let him avoid an attack or quickly and safely withdraw is asking for it to the degree that he's not really anything close to a level 12 threat. It is a very specific (and IMHO rather odd and hard to account) situation. It certainly doesn't prove anything beyond if you put even a high level NPC in a bad situation they're hosed. A naked 12th level fighter without any henchmen or even a weapon would be an analogous situation and equally hopeless (sure, said NPC would have something like 50 hit points, but with AC 10 he'd be lucky to survive 2 rounds).

Likewise if you want to put this kind of situation in 4e you are easily able to do so. It isn't the expected sort of scenario though. You could make the NPC a low level elite/solo or just give him bad defenses in the 'I am not at all prepared' vein. In either system this kind of thing is a DM setup, there's no reason to consider it to be 'better rules' that you can make an NPC that is STORY important but combat ineffective.