Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 1794283" data-attributes="member: 9053">I'd define low level as 1-4. At these levels a wizard is significantly behind the curve of power, but catching up. I'd say middle levels are 5-12, and at that point the wizard is fairly well matched against other character types and increasing. I'd call high levels 13+ and at this point the wizard is significantly ahead of the curve and pulling ahead. That's a very general statements, and doesn't apply universally. I'd say the cleric is ahead of the wizard on all counts, but I suppose that's another debate entirely.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I think it's a very bad idea to balance the wizard's power level based on item creation. For one thing, not all GM's allow this or give the time for it. Beyond that, when you're crafting items you're putting your character development behind the rest of the group, both in terms of EXP (not so much with weak items) but also in terms of money. Doesn't your 5th level wizard really have something better to spend 2400 gp on? Spending significant money on crafting items means less money for spells, which can make a bad situation at low levels even worse. It also means that a character who is not an item crafter is less viable as a character choice. That means fewer options, and that's a bad thing to me. Sleep It also means that the wizard is standing around for the the whole time casting a spell, and can easily have it disrupted. At 1st through 4th levels, a wizard has very little to offer to a group in classic adventuring terms: they can use sleep or color spray to eliminate a small group of opponents once or twice. A figher or barbarian can do just about the same job and keep doing it round after round. The standard schtick of the wizard has always been, "I can do some pretty impressive things, but only a few times in the day." A wizard should be able to have an effective role in combat, even at low levels, with those spells. Otherwise, what is he supposed to do? Buff SpellsSo a wizard can use a second level spell to have a minor enhancement on one character for one combat. Since we moved to 3.5 I have never seen any of the buff spells cast...until I house ruled them. Yes, I know "objection! anecdotal evidence!" but, in my experience. mages cast Enlarge Person if they want to buff the fighter. They cast Shield or Mirror Image to improve their defenses and False Life to improve hit points. Once I changed the buffs to 10min/lvl they started to see some use again, which is how I think it should be (emphasis on "how I think" YMMV). Hmmn, this is going to sound waaay more snarky than I intend it to, so let me add the smileys up front <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> just because you or I might find something a snooze fest or a yawn factor doesn't mean it's appropriate to take out of the game. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ...and another one behind, too. The question is: does stacking these bonuses up front result in a worse game experience than not? To my mind, since it really doesn't make a character significantly more powerful than other combat options, I think removing the stacking is a bad thing, since it removes options, and that's what I'm all about. I also question whether or not paying for a magic item and spending a feat really needs to have any drawbacks besides the fact that elementals, undead, constructs and most evil outsiders (i.e., opponents that characters level 8+ are likely to be facing) simply ignore the ability. ...and to you as well!</blockquote>

Verification