What would you say is the biggest problem with Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and other "Tier 1" Spellcasters?

[Alzrius]

Hussar, you made a few errors in your post (presuming that you're talking about 3.5E). Here are the corrections:

I really, really get the feeling in these discussions that those who claim that there isn't a problem have never seen a highly competently played caster.

This is a matter of opinion, and a rather dismissive one at that. It's just as valid to say that those who claim that there is a problem with spellcasters have seen munchkin players and didn't recognize it.

NeonC brings up a 7th level wizard. That's a character wealth of 16000 gp, on average.

According to the 3.5E DMG, p. 135, a 7th-level character would have 19,000 gp.

A measly 10% of my character wealth (1600 gp - about the price of a +1 sword) nets me about one HUNDRED 1st-3rd level scrolls.

Actually, a +1 weapon is 2,000 gp, not to mention the 300 gp cost for it to be masterwork, plus the base cost of the weapon itself. So the 1,900 gp cost - as 10% of the gold pieces your 7th-level character has - is insufficient funds.

Insofar as how many scrolls that 1,900 gp would buy...the base price of a scroll is spell level x caster level x 25 gp. So for a 1st-level scroll that's 25 gp, for a 2nd-level spell it's 150 gp, and for a 3rd-level spell it's 375 gp.

Since you're buying 1st-3rd level spells, let's assume you're buying an equal number of each scrolls, for a total cost of 550 gp. That's about three-and-a-half such bundles - or three 1st-, three 2nd-, and three 3rd-level scrolls, with enough left over for one more 2nd- and four more 1st-level spells - far from hundreds.

Like I said, the counter arguments here just boggle my mind.

Consider yourself boggled.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This is a matter of opinion, and a rather dismissive one at that. It's just as valid to say that those who claim that there is a problem with spellcasters have seen munchkin players and didn't recognize it.

Indeed. It boggles my mind when I see claims that equate destroying a game with competence at playing that game.

 

[Manbearcat]

Pathfinder helped with this one. Cleave was changed to allow a standard action to take one swing and, if it hits, take a second one on an adjacent target. Great Cleave allows them to continue as long as they keep hitting, until every target in reach is struck (or you miss – but all these are at full BAB). Poor fighter has to suck up a -2 to AC, though.

There are also feats (and some class skills) allowing a single attack that does more damage. Vital Strike allows double base damage, with a chain boosting this to triple and quadruple. IIRC, a lot of bonus damage didn’t multiply, but one attack at top BAB vs 4 at declining BAB seems a reasonable tradeoff.

“There’s a Feat for that” offsets “There’s a Spell for that”, at least to some extent.

The Cleave Changes are great. The rest. Not so sure. Spoiling this as its a lot of stuff that most won't care to look at.

[SBLOCK]Lets take these two Fighters:

Level 16 Fighter

+ 3 Flaming, Keen Greatsword. No Flank Bonus.

Build 1 (9 feats)
Dazzling Display, Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Shatter Defenses, Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, Greater Vital Strike, Deadly Stroke, Improved Critical

Build 2 (6 feats) + 3 free (for cleave, great cleave, or defense):
Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical

Unfortunately, the math just doesn't work out (even if Deadly Stroke and Vital Strike were stackable). Assuming Deadly Stroke and Vital Strike were stackable, assuming the target was flat-footed every single round, assuming the level 16 Fighter is neither hasted (or speed weapon) and doesn't have a flurry ability, you're still looking at a damage spread of around:

AC DPR % of Fighter 2 to Fighter 1 vs AC
26 103 %
27 96
28 90
29 84
30 78.5
31 73.5
32 68
33 63
34 57
35 52
36 48

Once you add in flanking, it bunches up dramatically. Once you add Haste, it becomes hugely in favor of the 2nd build (spread of 175 % down to 98 %). Once you add Haste + Flurry, its really not even in the realm of comparable (200 % down to 110 %). When you do those things and then take into account the reality that (1) DS and VS don't stack (so replace with weapon spec + 2 damage - which lowers the total damage) and (2) that targets won't be flat-footed anywhere near 100 % of the time - or even 50 % of the time), the damage disparity explodes. Enormously. Far enough beyond the realm of comparability that the two can't even really be discussed. I'm sure there is a few synergistic builds with class features and magic item cheese that can put those two somewhere closer...but I can't imagine that it would be near enough together such that it would be worth it - the loss of 3 extra feats, the loss of power attack, the loss of multi-attack synergy for multiple targets. And it doesn't stack with Spring Attack (a trap build) nor Charge (so charge feats wouldn't apply). I don't know. That looks like a classic trap build to me. Looks spiffy when you read the feats, but the math doesn't work out nor does it work out in play (as you're eating AoO's to get that skirmishing Vital Strike Attack). There may be some features/a build that mitigates those AoOs though (outside of classic Mobility - which you can't get with that build).[/SBLOCK]

Beyond that, Martial Melee characters default mode of attack should scale with the same Action Economy as primary casters default mode of attack...and their feats should diversify them and make them thematically and tactically deep. Their build choices shouldn't bear the weight of legitimizing them toward parity (and then not doing the trick in the final analysis).

Further, Pathfinder's answer (which doesn't work out in the end) doesn't address my other main concern - the legitimacy of high level Melee foils/villains (I've never been anything but a DM, ever, at all). Multi-attacking monsters/NPCs/Dragons are legitimized by normalization of the Action Economy (Full Attack converted to Standard Action). Their DPR payload is not rendered inert through easy, cheap kite tactics that takes away their Multi/Full-Attack Routines. Normalizing the Action Economy allows Dragons to actually be Dragons and not just gargantuan, uber HP/AC Sorcerers with stray Breath Weapons and it allows other melee multi-attacking enemies to take on the role of major villain.

So I still say that normalizing the Action Economy (and then allowing martial builds to gain advantage and tactical depth through diversification of their tactics within that action economy structure...rather than trying to come up with builds that deals with the action economy and gives you some kind of payload within the Standard Action structure) would have been the best move for Pathfinder. It has 4 large boons in one fell swoop (without the danger of too many 2nd order interactions):

- helps balance melee vs t1 casters
- allows melee to build for fun rather than work toward parity
- creates the potential for more dynamically mobile fights
- and legitimizes high level melee villains so every major foil doesn't have to be a caster in order to challenge the PCs.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Indeed. It boggles my mind when I see claims that equate destroying a game with competence at playing that game.

It's a matter of the incentives the game hands out and that the motivations of the character are in direct opposition to the motivations of the player. The character wants to defeat the opposition as simply and safely as possible. The player who actually understands the way the game works wants to make things hard and do almost the opposite of what the character wants.

In an actually well designed game (oD&D is because the character's goals and the players goals are in alignment - both want to explore and get rich, 4e is merely competently designed so there isn't this opposition but isn't the direct synergy) this does not happen. Or to quote a blog post I read earlier today "Eponine is a mothering powergamer. But nobody gives a damn because in Smallville, powergaming = drama." That is the mark of a well designed game. One in which if half a dozen powergamers sit round the table, going all out, the results are going to be exactly the sort of awesomness the designers want.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It's a matter of the incentives the game hands out and that the motivations of the character are in direct opposition to the motivations of the player. The character wants to defeat the opposition as simply and safely as possible. The player who actually understands the way the game works wants to make things hard and do almost the opposite of what the character wants.

That's fair.

This topic is really about player-oriented rules; the magical classes. Your perspective also incorporates a broader paradigm that includes DM rules and guidelines; XP, rewards, encounter design, campaign design, etc. Those are the "incentives". And indeed, in D&D (some versions surely more than others), those mechanical incentives don't mesh with the fictional characters. I guess I just never used those rules.

My approach is to build a game around the players and their characters, and certain stylistic choices that I make. The goals, the rewards, and the challenges before them, are all to some extent functions of the players' capabilities. Thus, my incentives do (I hope) encourage the players to play well but not trash the world in the process. If I used a published adventure, or if I built encounters using challenge rating, handed out experience based on the tables, and matched the treasure guidelines in the process, I'd likely have very different experiences.

So my assumption here is that those DM rules don't really count; they're "soft rules" that many people modify or ignore. I don't really consider them much in this context. But if you're saying they incentivize the players to abuse their side of the rules, I don't disagree.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's fair.

This topic is really about player-oriented rules; the magical classes. Your perspective also incorporates a broader paradigm that includes DM rules and guidelines; XP, rewards, encounter design, campaign design, etc. Those are the "incentives". And indeed, in D&D (some versions surely more than others), those mechanical incentives don't mesh with the fictional characters. I guess I just never used those rules.

My approach is to build a game around the players and their characters, and certain stylistic choices that I make. The goals, the rewards, and the challenges before them, are all to some extent functions of the players' capabilities. Thus, my incentives do (I hope) encourage the players to play well but not trash the world in the process. If I used a published adventure, or if I built encounters using challenge rating, handed out experience based on the tables, and matched the treasure guidelines in the process, I'd likely have very different experiences.

So my assumption here is that those DM rules don't really count; they're "soft rules" that many people modify or ignore. I don't really consider them much in this context. But if you're saying they incentivize the players to abuse their side of the rules, I don't disagree.

Can we have less of the ad hominem please? You are accusing people of abusing the rules.

Pun-Pun is abusing the rules. It's taking rules that the players were never intended to get their hands on (i.e. the Sarrukh) and an intereaction that was not visualised by by the designers and using it to break the game in half. Creating a 50 point advantage in GURPS to kill anyone by stacking several thousand percent of modifiers is abusing the rules. The Locate City Bomb is abusing the rules.

Playing a caster who picks spells intelligently out of the PHB is not in any way abusing the rules. Using the spells you have picked out of the PHB to do precisely what they are intended to do is not abusing the rules. Having a master of nature or loremaster who knows a lot of animals is not abusing the rules. Using Scribe Scroll to keep a handful of utility spells in your spellbook (which is what it was designed for) is not abusing the rules (although Hussar's hundred scrolls almost certainly is).

The reason 3.X has problems is even when you don't abuse the rules, just using the rules as they were intended to be used breaks it. The specialist conjurer with spell focus and spell resistance ignoring save or sucks is one of the paths the game points you at. Complaining about people abusing the rules is (a) needlessly insulting and (b) missing the point.

 

[Elf Witch]

Indeed. But this is because they do not have magic - or they would. And a D&D animal companion obviously puts up with a lot more than almost any trained animal. And above all they are used to magic and to the idea that if their human tells them something ... it's probably right.



You can give them challenges - you just shouldn't say "No".



Everything I read from you indicates that you play 2e using 3e rules - if taken on their own merits the games are very different in many ways (and 3.0 was tested as if it was 2e). And have never seen what a player can do with a wizard PC who is (a) smart and (b) determined.



Flexibility is power. But take it back to the 2e situation where even the smartest wizards had caps on how many spells they use.

[quoet]Again I have to say in 30 years of role playing I have never seen this happen. I have talked about this with my son and his friends and with the players in my group over the years and they to have never seen this happen. Where a wizard always takes out the big bad after using their most powerful spells just to get there.

Scry and Fry? It definitely was a thing. But "Using their most powerful spells just to get there" actually saves them spell slots in the long run. Instead of using a level 5 spell and a level 4 to take the enemies out, and burning a couple of buffs, they use a level 5 to simply bypass the terrain and most of the guards. The problem isn't actually the wizard taking out the big bad - if the fighter can get in sword's reach of the big bad he can do a lot of damage. The problem is the wizard making things irrelevant (or almost irrelevant). Things including monsters he's just teleported past, or hit points because he's broken out the save or suck.



Me, I put the blame squarely at the feet of the system. When I run a game I present the PCs with challenges and, depending on the game, a motivation. How they solve it is up to them. And it's not as if a castle designer goes round saying "I'll put a locked door for the rogue here, and a ward to dispel for the wizard here, and a portcullis to lift here". This is not a technique that fails in most games.



Option C. Attack using spells like Glitterdust or Slow which don't do damage but make the monsters sitting ducks for everyone else. Given these are the sort of spells a smart wizard uses anyway this isn't much of a hinderance.

And yes, this is a change from 2e which is one of the many reasons I say you're playing 2e using 3e rules. Hit points rose massively from 2e to 3e due to the change in the way constitution works for monsters. The fireball is still doing only 1d6/level damage here and when a monster like a giant gets +5 hit points per hit dice, that no longer is as useful as it once was. (Which means, to take one example, that a cloud giant went up from 16+2-7 hit points (or about 80) to 17d8 + 102 (!) or over 170.)

On the other side of the coin, saves also changed. In AD&D as level rose spells became easier to resist so you'd rely on the half damage from a fireball because it wouldn't entirely be resisted. And more debilitating spells would use the death or poison line or the paralysis or petrificiation line, both of with were easy to resist. The spell line on the other hand was hard to resist - so wizards didn't normally try to paralyse people and again fireball had a huge advantage that it's lost. Also save DCs now scale nastily with the attacking wizard - higher level means that the gap between the defences is bigger so a smart wizard can get an unresisted debilitating spell through easily.

All this means that throwing direct damage spells in AD&D was a very good idea - and it really isn't in 3.X



Very few. The highest PC in Greyhawk was Sir Robilar at level 14. And the game intentionally changed at level 10 in older editions (with the demihuman level limits giving further incentive to keep the level low). It wasn't playtested up there and wasn't intended to be run up there, and the game quite deliberately changed at level 10 (when, at least partly to keep the balance, the fighter gained an entire army).



This is a myth. The fighter can keep bashing things until he runs out of hit points. He's as dependent on spells as a wizard (unless you're playing with Wands of Cure Light Wounds).



And healing? And yes, this happens at lower levels. Especially if the wizards aren't scroll monkeys. On the other hand, if the wizard has a handful of colour sprays prepared, that ends a few encounters fast.



Disable Traps: So useful 4e rolled it up with Sleight of Hand and Open Locks into one single skill (Thievery). It's also incredibly niche. Sneak Attack is just damage - useful I'll grant. And Evasion and Uncanny Dodge are both passive not active.



No they don't. They get more skill points than any other class. And fewer skills than any other incarnation of the rogue.



Why not?



The ridiculous claim is that this is meaningful. That you want to pick locks all day long. That there are enough locks to make this meaningful except in edge cases. How many locks do you meet a day?



See my comment above about direct damage spells being not terribly useful. The rogue's evasion is utterly useless against even a reflex-affecting spell like Web (there's no save for a partial effect). And it certainly does nothing against Glitterdust, (Evard's) Black Tentacles, Slow, or Stinking Cloud - i.e. the sort of area spells a wizard casts when they want to end a fight in 3.X.



2lb. W00t. Yes, most are heavier. (7.5lbs there).



So noisy real life burglars use them. A crowbar breaks the lock, not the middle of the door. And breaks it at the weakest point. The advantage of picking the lock is it does no damage and people can't normally see where you've been.



Silence lasts 1 minute/level. In other words a while. And kicking the door open doesn't give the monsters much time to react.



If speed is that important, it's time to use knock rather than the rogue. Or to use the crowbar - it, too, is more reliable than the thief in most circumstances, and faster. (The entire combined strength of the party vs the weaker of the physical strength of the lock or whatever's holding the lock against the frame when backed up by a long lever allowing about a 10:1 force multiplier is a hugely unequal struggle in almost all cases).



If all you have is a rogue and the door is locked with an arcane lock you might as well just give up and go home. The rogue's having serious problems. If, on the other hand, you have a crowbar, you can force the thing open anyway. You can also continue if you have the Knock spell. You're making my case that the 3.X Rogue's Open Locks skill isn't that useful for me. (And no, a lock isn't a trap so trapfinding won't work here).



That's because your wizards are going for direct damage spells... See above for how the game changed between 2e and 3e. And in 2e the high level fighter pretty much shrugged off spells. Not so in 3e where they have two weak saves including Will.



The conditions were rigged to favour the fighter. No divination, no scrying, unprepared wizard, no pre-buffing.



Translation: In plenty of games you've seen a fighter finish off a wizard after the wizard has been weakened by other factors.



You're moving the goalposts. Hard. Different editions have different characteristics - and you haven't been playing 3.X for more than 12.5 years. 3.0 removed most of the previous restrictions on the wizard and slackened the rest, while stealthily crippling fighters by raising monster hp, lowering weapon damage against large monsters, reducing their number of attacks, and moving them from incredible saving throws at high level to arguably the worst of any PC class. By going for direct damage spells your wizards are bringing a knife rather than a gun - which is just as well because the fighter only has a knife.



Is dumb. A wizard who has three scrolls of knock at the back of his spellbook and carries around a crowbar for the fighter to open any other doors on the other hand covers this job.



4e fixed that one. The issue with wizards is twofold.
1: Nova potential. This is in theory not a problem because of everything you mention.
2: Type of resources. A properly prepared wizard can do anything. Including teleport straight to Mount Doom, or the like.



Or to put things another way, you stop when you run out of spells. Right.[/QUOTE]

The players handbook makes it very clear with the quote that the animal is a loyal friend who will go on adventures with the druid as appropriate for its kind. There is a magical connection and the companion is treated as magical creature for somethings but that quote tells me that they don't normally go into things that are appropriate for their kind that to means to lad creatures spending a great deal of time underwater or water creatures spending time on land.

No DM should be handicapped that they can't plan interesting encounters because it might cause a druid or a ranger to temporary leave their animal companion or have to get another one. It only takes 24 hours for the druid to this and there are no penalties to the player for letting a companion go. I have seen many druids leave their companion out side of a town or outside of a dungeon and then rejoin with them later.

As a DM I try and not say no. My first course of action is to try and say a modified yes. Can I have this PRC a players asks me but it is ot suitable for my world so I ask what is it you like about this PRC and then try and build them one that does what they are looking for and fits my world.

I never thought of it like that because my games don't really feel like 2E games at all. Granted I do make magic items rarer and require either questing or having someone make it for you which takes time. And most of the DMs I play with don't gives us a lot of downtime and we tend to use a slower XP progression. Most of us have house rules where a 1 on a skill check is a -10. I don't think 3.5 is perfect there are several things that need fixing like how easy it to get to the point rather quickly of not being able to fail a skill check, a way to robust magical economy, clerics looking to much alike.

There are a lot of things I like about 3E I was glad to see go the race limits, THACO, and no caps on spell damage, and way more choices on character builds, I like the concepts of skills and feats. I think what may be the difference is how we play. First of all we tend to not have an issue with a DM doing things that may not be in the rules or is against the rules if it is how things work in his world. We also don't have an issue with the DM nerfing abilities now and then and see it as just another challenge to overcome. Also we don't build optimized character just to have optimized characters there has to be a background or role playing reason for multiclassing or taking a PRC.

Scry and fry has never happened all that often in any game I have played in. Why because of the size of the mirror required to scry if you are not a druid it not that portable. Second it would really depend on who you were going to scry on if there are magic users involved it only makes sense to have protections up that either block scrying or alerts them to the fact that they have been scryed on. I am not saying we have not ever done we have it is a formidable tactic and we have NPCs do it to us.

But there is a solution to it if you don't like the power of it make a DM call and nerf or ban the spell. I don't think every spell fits every campaign so part of being a DM is making a decision what does. Also if that is all your players ever do then make it harder for them to do I don't understand the idea of making making reasonable precautions it is some how screwing over the players.

I house ruled scry back to how it was in 3.0 you have to not only have the spell, scrying item but ranks in the skill scry.

That's bull the game allows wizards to do other things to make choices to go nova at the drop of a hat. It is bad tactics to blow all your spells when you are in enemy territory because you should know that there is always the danger of having to face more danger later in the day and the idea that you can just hide for 24 hours is not necessary a good one that you will make no progress. Wizards may not be great with weapons but they can use them they can also make or buy alchemical items and use those in combat. You blame the system for poor player choices and you make all the rules you want to try and stop poor playing choices and eventually the game gets bogged down with all these rules.

Now you just assume that every wizard has both those spells. Our wizard had glitterdust which would have done jack against a creature that only had its tentacles not its head above water. Also the all spells were doing blow back. A glitterdust or slow would have bounced back and effected the caster as well.

Things have changed in 3.5 but I have never found it as dire as you say area effects spells still do damage so do direct attack spells.

And a wizard can only keep casting until they run out of spells and running out of hit points which wizards have less of stops a wizard the same as any other class. Yet with magical healing a fighter can go back to battle a wizard out pf spells is still out of spells.

At lower levels characters are more vulnerable and therefore a bad encounter where they take a lot of damage and run out of healing can force them to find a place to hole up and rest. But even then as I said we don't stop just because the wizard is out of spells not if we have full hit points. This is hold over from older editions where wizards started the game with one or maybe two spells. Back then it was expected that the wizard would run out of spells before the day was over it was why he had a crossbow. We played that way for years without worrying about the 15 day and now wizards have more spells at first level and it does not take long for a party to become more robust.

Now this is not a bug but a style of play some gamers like myself like weaker newbie adventurers and some don't which is why a lot of people like 4E and the way even first level characters are better than average.

I don't understood this argument at all a rogue does not pick locks all day he does a lot of other things as well the point is very simple his pick lock ability is not a limited resource which means he does have to make a choice between picking locks and being effective in combat.

There are spells that the rogue can't save against nobody can any one caught in black evard is in for a bad day unless they have freedom of movement. I lost a character caught in one and it was by friendly fire our party wizard cast the damn thing. And glitterdust blinds everyone. so what why should the rogue be special in those cases. The point is I have seen for myself the rogue take little or no damage when the party has been hit with an area spell and maybe our DMs are dumb because they sure like to use them a lot.

It is part of the game and at least in some spells there are saves you get hit with a rogue sneak attack there are no saves against the damage that does or the fighters sword. You don't hear people whining about being hit by a weapon.

No they were not they often use area spells we just have clever DMs who plan encounters so that an area spell does not take all the bad guys down. Leaving bad guys for the others to handle also in a lot of games it is impossible to cast an area spell once you are in melee without danger of hitting your party members. There are plenty of tactics to make it hard to use area spells effectively every single time.

The wizard had no idea he was going to be in a duel he was just plunked down with half his spells used up and missing hit points? How was this played with two players of equal ability playing one of each and rolling dice? If this is some universal truth then why do wizards die in games at the hands of fighters if wizards are the only class playing why then does anyone bother playing anything else. If people hate this style of play why are people still playing 3.5 and playing Pathfinder plus the older editions?

So what it is a team game everyone working together to weakened the bad guys and bring him down. Again I ask why does it matter if the wizard who has magic can take down a fighter in a duel that is not how the game is played. In a game that fighter can can spend money on items that level the playing field and yes I know that means using magic. And that to be is the point either you have magic that can kill things and do special effects or you just allow cantrips and first evel spells in your game so that magic is never powerful and mundanes don't need or want magical items and weapons.

So fraking what yes with the right combo of spells and tools you can do a reasonable job of the rogue at picking locks of course you can't do it as well as for those magic locks a crowbar will work but what if the door is made of stone or some harder surface it is going to take more time and make noise. With the right combo of wands and potions you can get by without a healer the same with a wizard, fighter a good game design should allow other ways to accomplish things without requiring that you can't succeed at the game with that class present. But you know what does rogue skills the best a rogue and no argument is going to change my mind on that.

Yes 4E fixed some of that and other ways made the game not fun for a lot of people there are a lot of 4E fixes that people don't like.

I think it comes down to attitude of the players involved on what kind of game they want. The people I play with don't worry that a wizard can use knock to open a lock better than a rogue and I have told you why. The people playing fighters don't care if in some duel on a web site showed that a wizard will usually take down a fighter. The DMs I play with would rather have the freedom to ban certain things from certain campaigns not be locked in having a game so rigidly designed and balanced as 4E that a lot of that freedom is lost. Which is what several have told me as the reason why they have left 4E and either gone back to 3.5 or Pathfinder for some games.

No you are again very wrong we did not stop if we were out of healing spells and potions and were at full hit points we kept going on. What would make us stop sooner than planned was the threat of dying because we were badly injured and did not have the ability to fix that. We never considered the wizard being out of spells as a good reason to stop if the martial characters still could fight and be healed. About the only time we would ever consider stopping because of the wizard is if we knew we needed a certain spell to be able to accomplish the next step. But that happened maybe five times in 30 years

 

[N'raac]

No, I'm pretty sure using magic that can't be negated by their own magic screws them over quite thoroughly. Though since the thief party and fighter party don't have their own magic, they have some rather significant problems.

But they waltz right through those Goblins!

Five foot step and web.

To be clear, my "close quarters" posits you not having a 5' space not either occupied by a friendly or threatened by an enemy. But there are also lots of advesaries that can have Reach.

Brute force deals with both these problems. As I say, carry a crowbar if you don't have a rogue handy. Lockpicking is a tool of stealth rather than one of opening - and by the time you reach the treasure the owners are normally dead (or the rogue isn't around to blame).

If we don't need Open Locks, why do we need Knock. The Rogue should focus on a different skill, and the Wizard on a different spell.

If the wizard focusses almost exclusively on 1 target Save or Suck spells that wizard is stupid. Why don't you use as your example a wizard who focusses exclusively on stat buffs? It's about as realistic. For starters there are plenty of Area Save or Suck spells. (Web, Glitterdust, Stinking Cloud, and Evard's Black Tentacles giving complete save coverage between them and all ignoring SR and Magic Immunity in 3.5). Now there is a place for single target save or suck spells for the rare times you can't place AoEs. Especially whatever that spell from Frostburn doing 3d6 Dex (and so having a good chance of 1-shotting a dragon) is. But any approach that starts "If the wizard only focusses on one single thing" just means "If the wizard plays like a chump." No one doubts that a badly played wizard can be useless. Or dead.

So what's the spell load of those Wizards going up against an L20 fighter?

What do you mean winning Encounter #1?

I mean the 15 minute work day that has been griped about through much of this thread. Is that, like the Knock/Open Lock issue, not relevant after all?

Assuming the wizard knows what's happened, a smart wizard takes off his hat or cloak and covers the crossbow bolt. Silence is an emanation so you block it. The other two wizards then proceed to AoE the goblins.

Cite, please. I see nothing in the description of Emanation which suggests a cloak or hat block it.

Burst, Emanation, or Spread
Most spells that affect an area function as a burst, an emanation, or a spread. In each case, you select the spell’s point of origin and measure its effect from that point.

A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, even including creatures that you can’t see. It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst’s area defines how far from the point of origin the spell’s effect extends.

An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.

A spread spell spreads out like a burst but can turn corners. You select the point of origin, and the spell spreads out a given distance in all directions. Figure the area the spell effect fills by taking into account any turns the spell effect takes.

I see no reason a hat or cloak would stop any such spells from expanding beyond their confines. Can you catch a Fireball in a bottle?

NeonC brings up a 7th level wizard. That's a character wealth of 16000 gp, on average. A measly 10% of my character wealth (1600 gp - about the price of a +1 sword) nets me about one HUNDRED 1st-3rd level scrolls. NeonC is nice in that he uses half his load out for utility spells. I wouldn't bother. All my utility spells are on scrolls. No one puts combat spells on scrolls because, as was mentioned, you lose actions pulling out scrolls. I have 18 spells per day. I don't NEED combat spells on scrolls. And, because we're talking about utility spells, taking a standard action doesn't matter outside of combat. I have time. Heck the rogue takes minutes to unlock that lock. I unlock it in 6 seconds and I have 99 scrolls left over.

According to the 3.5E DMG, p. 135, a 7th-level character would have 19,000 gp.

Actually, a +1 weapon is 2,000 gp, not to mention the 300 gp cost for it to be masterwork, plus the base cost of the weapon itself. So the 1,900 gp cost - as 10% of the gold pieces your 7th-level character has - is insufficient funds.

Insofar as how many scrolls that 1,900 gp would buy...the base price of a scroll is spell level x caster level x 25 gp. So for a 1st-level scroll that's 25 gp, for a 2nd-level spell it's 150 gp, and for a 3rd-level spell it's 375 gp.

Since you're buying 1st-3rd level spells, let's assume you're buying an equal number of each scrolls, for a total cost of 550 gp. That's about three-and-a-half such bundles - or three 1st-, three 2nd-, and three 3rd-level scrolls, with enough left over for one more 2nd- and four more 1st-level spells - far from hundreds.

In fairness, the Wizard could scribe them himself and cut the cost in half - so seven bundles. About 70 if he spends all his wealth.

Of course, once they're gone, they're gone and you spend money to make some more. How much money did you spend at 1st - 6th level? If the Wizard spends all his cash on consumables, and the Warrior spends all of his on permanent items (an extreme case), then the wizard will have significantly less wealth than the Warrior, whether because the Wizard has 19k less what he's used up, or because the Warrior has 19k plus everything the wizard used up.

How many spells per day is the Wizard using from scrolls? He's spending that much per day. At least he will be motivated away from the 15 minute day - let all those scrolls' remaining duration EXPIRE? NFW!

 

[Elf Witch]

On this, note that if you've got three wizards then they can open the locked door (Knock), dispel the ward (Dispel Magic) and lift the portcullis (Strength). Three rogues/thieves can open the locked door and perhaps lift the portcullis if one of them is strong (though the 18/50 of Strength is beyond them). They cannot deal with the ward. Three Fighters should have no problem with the portcullis, cannot deal with the ward, and before and before 3e would have had no way to open the locked door (with their number of skill points and class skills 3e improves their chances infinitely, as any increase from 0% represents an infinite increase). One of those groups is more versatile than the others, and hardly suffers for it.

So your problem with the game comes down to the fact that three wizards may be better at doing something than three fighters or three rogues. Though with three rogues why don't any of them have use magic device which would enable them to do what the wizards just did.

Do you really sit around worrying that in some game some where there are three wizards doing this? Or do you think that the game should be so rigidly designed that you can't do anything out of your class?

 

[Hussar]

Hussar, you made a few errors in your post (presuming that you're talking about 3.5E). Here are the corrections:



This is a matter of opinion, and a rather dismissive one at that. It's just as valid to say that those who claim that there is a problem with spellcasters have seen munchkin players and didn't recognize it.

Well, considering that this is an issue that has been addressed since AD&D, I'd say that the refusal to recognize the issue is a bit much.

According to the 3.5E DMG, p. 135, a 7th-level character would have 19,000 gp.



Actually, a +1 weapon is 2,000 gp, not to mention the 300 gp cost for it to be masterwork, plus the base cost of the weapon itself. So the 1,900 gp cost - as 10% of the gold pieces your 7th-level character has - is insufficient funds.

Note, I did say about. I'd also point out that you're making my point in that the wizard needs LESS funds than the fighter.

Insofar as how many scrolls that 1,900 gp would buy...the base price of a scroll is spell level x caster level x 25 gp. So for a 1st-level scroll that's 25 gp, for a 2nd-level spell it's 150 gp, and for a 3rd-level spell it's 375 gp.

Since you're buying 1st-3rd level spells, let's assume you're buying an equal number of each scrolls, for a total cost of 550 gp. That's about three-and-a-half such bundles - or three 1st-, three 2nd-, and three 3rd-level scrolls, with enough left over for one more 2nd- and four more 1st-level spells - far from hundreds.

Sigh. Do we really have to go through this? For one, why is the wizard not creating his own scrolls, considering HE HAS THE FEAT already? So that's 12.5 gp/75 gp/187.5 gp for each scroll. Also note, if you read the post, I said one hundred, not hundreds.

So, 50x1st level spells=625 gp, 30x2nd level=2250 gp and 20x3rd=3000 gp. Ok, so, my total here is 5875 gp. So, 30% of my character wealth. To have enough scrolls of utility stuff that I'll pretty much never run out. Heck, even if I pay full market price, I'm still only spending about 2/3 of my expected wealth.

This is only a 7th level character. We're talking the price equivalent of a +2 suit of armor and a +1 weapon. To have enough scrolls that I'm pretty much never going to run out. And, let's not forget, I've still got 2/3rds of my wealth left.

Consider yourself boggled.

Like I said, it's pretty clear that people have never really faced a competently played caster in their games.

Good grief, EVERY SINGLE EDITION has tried to fix this problem. Looking all the way back at AD&D, you have high level modules that beat casters bloody with a nerf bat to try to be able to have high level modules where the casters don't completely dominate the game. We have two ENTIRE EDITIONS (Pathfinder and 4e) which make massive changes to the d20 ruleset in order to try to bridge the disparity.

Do people really think both Paizo and WOTC are so stupid that they are inventing problems where none exist? If this problem didn't exist, how do you explain the changes made by both systems?

After all this time, why do we STILL have to jump through these hoops to try to get people to admit that these problems actually do exist and that they are systemic issues?