The issue with wizards and sorcerers

[akbearfoot]

I had to read the original post a couple of times. Hearing someone say wizards aren't very powerful is like reading a foreign language. Does not compute...

A core wizard/druid/cleric compared to pretty much any melee class thats even allowed to use splatbooks pretty much dominates in the normal 3-4 encounter/day adventure style. Nothing really compares, except melee classes with Pounce(which should be banned in general, imo). ToB classes are also pretty competitive, but only in as much as they are better than other melee classes. Still weak compared to CoDzilla, with the exception of a few extremely poorly written maneuvers.

Bottom line is that a wizard can get a spell for anything. And any fight that involves a pre-prepared spell caster will be exponentially easier for having said magic-user. It is the nature of magic. It breaks the world. Hi level magic users can break the world many, many times per day/fight.

 

[Dandu]

Nothing really compares, except melee classes with Pounce(which should be banned in general, imo).

Seems to me that Pounce is only broken if you use Monks as your baseline for what is balanced, but I may be wrong. Compare a level 13 Barbarian with Pounce to level 13 to a Sorcerer who's Planar Binding Trumpet Archons, Ghaele, and Noble Djinn on top of her regular tricks (battlefield control, debuffing, utility, etc). How does a melee class with the ability to make a full attack on a charge remain competitive in such a situation?

Furthermore, if we accept as true that melee classes can compare, why do you recommend banning classes with Pounce and not the spellcasters, which you admit are more powerful and can break the game many times per day?

 

[krupintupple]

it could very well be that the DM is experienced and knows how to shut down casters before they can cause too much trouble, coupled with a player who's new to casters. just suggesting.

also, OP, you should consider that rays don't give saves, and being nailed with a ray of stupidity or a ray of idiocy from a flying caster is a sure-fire way to one-shot the raging Cha 6 barbarian. plus, some of the better spells don't offer saves, so it's just "you die now." one of my favorite versions of this is "earth reaver" from the spell compendium; 4th level arcane spell that does 7d6 no save to everyone in a 20 sphere, i believe. 3d6 fire, 4d6 impact, reflex or fall down.

even opening a battle with something like that can, on average, cause 24.5 (3.5 x7) damage to everyone in the enemy party. while this seems fairly good, dandu's ideas about binding should really, really make the average melee'r cringe.

 

[Alexanderone]

yes I know many rays don't allow saves but wizards and sorcerers can miss as the attack bonuses are generally low. I know this can be countered by a quickened true strike but re died actions and total cover play a part too. Also the surprise round if their is one is often crucial in are games.

 

[Dandu]

yes I know many rays don't allow saves but wizards and sorcerers can miss as the attack bonuses are generally low.

Fortunately, touch AC too is relatively low.

I know this can be countered by a quickened true strike but re died actions and total cover play a part too.

So toss a Web on the targets.

Also the surprise round if their is one is often crucial in are games.

In core, casters have Contingency for this. Out of core, there's Celerity.

 

[Alexanderone]

A lot of that seems to count on the wizard getting the higher initiative abd being able to get the spells off. Also can bindings be effected by dispel magic.

 

[Dandu]

A lot of that seems to count on the wizard getting the higher initiative abd being able to get the spells off.

Contingency does not care for your initiative checks.

Even without contingency, wizards boost Dex right after Int and/or Con, plus can afford to spend a feat on Improved Initiative.

Out of core, there is Celerity and Nerveskitter. Plus Hummingbird familiars, if you're into that.

Alternatively, you can simply play a different game and Planar Bind a few Imps or Quasits for their Commune ability, or use Contact Other Plane. Play 20 questions in order to determine when someone's going to be attacking you, and prepare accordingly.

Also can bindings be effected by dispel magic.

At which point, you're fighting magic with magic, and not using melee, which kinda undergirds the point that magic > melee.

 

[Nifft]

A lot of that seems to count on the wizard getting the higher initiative abd being able to get the spells off. Also can bindings be effected by dispel magic.

... except for Contingency, remember? Also Wizards have spells like Skittish Nerves to instantly boost their Initiative, if they find it to be lacking.

Anyway, in my experience Fighters etc. are outclassed by spellcasters. Hell, the Druid's animal companion is better at melee than a Fighter at low levels, and at mid to high levels the Druid is better... plus the Druid can cast spells. At first level, a wolf companion by itself is strictly better than a first level Fighter. That's just sad.

ToB did a great job in making melee dudes playable, but they're still not on par with optimized spellcasters.

Cheers, -- N

 

[krupintupple]

on the topic of spells like commune or contact other plane, one must admit that there simply isn't a way for the fighter, barbarian, ranger or rogue to basically ask the DM "so...what've you got in store for us tomorrow, and what are they weak to?"

i'm not knocking melee characters, but to be frank spellcasters can outclass them fairly easily at mid levels, and consistently at high levels.

 

[Alexanderone]

just to point out I'm not arguing with you guys i was simply getting info on optimised spellcasters and why thier so great compared to melee characters. Dadu I asked about dispel magic because i've never herd of binding before and ni idea who it works. Spellcasters are very diffrent in my game and the comment about a tatic savvy dm and newbie caster players is proberly accurate.