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

By the way, has anyone ever actually SEEN a game where everyone played a wizard (or where only one or two classes were represented, each more than once)? If they're the UberCharacter, why not?

Close. We ran Bard (UMD), Cleric (Boccob), Druid, Wizard (conjuration), Wizard (transmutation). Effectively a four wizard party with a druid. For what it's worth, both wizards chose to swap out Scribe Scroll for Improved Initiative via that Unearthed Arcana alternate class feature for wizards.

I generally don't find scrolls to be worth the cost. I am a bit of a miser and the thought of spending my own resources to do what someone else is willing to do for free is, to me, absolutely mind-boggling.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Given that a crowbar will open most locks, probably.

Then Open Locks was useless before the Wizard came along, wasn’t it? Ban Crowbars – no more Tier 1 equipment!

It depends on the campaign. The wizard makes certain to keep a handful of useful scrolls at all times and then buys replacements. If it's locks-from-hell he might even invest in *gasp* a wand. But I've never seen that wanted.

Scroll of Knock: L2 x CL3 x 25gp = 150 gp x 1/2 = 75 gp x 50 = 3,750 gp
Wand of Knock: L2 x CL3 x 750gp = 4,500 gp

Unless you take Craft Wand, scrolls are cheaper anyway. You do save 30 gp per casting if you use Craft Wand, though.

So how many spells, at each level, is the wizard keeping a few copies of at all times? How often does he use them? If he uses them a lot, it’s expensive. If he only needs one once in a while, how is it breaking the game? Either this is a huge issue (and he runs through a lot of scrolls) or it isn’t.

And I’m assuming you weren’t the one saying “use scrolls for 10 minute/level and higher buffs as well” as those would get used pretty quick, so a chunk of your daily spells, I assume, go for buffs.

He can do it at twice the price, less reliably, without offensive spells (other than the few like Evard's that don't really care about stats), and by not putting his money into things like weapons.

I thought the Wizard used his own offensive spells, not scrolls, and the ability to have “a scroll for every occasion” which could be accessed out of combat, when time is not an issue, was the problem. The Wizard used up less than 10% of his wealth, which then jumped to 30%+ when your math was challenged. The Rogue certainly uses up more (but then, he doesn’t need as many Knock scrolls, does he?), but for a vastly overpowered ability, it should be worth it, right?

UMB at L7 can have 10 ranks, + CHA modifier. He needs 20 + caster level, so the 3rd level spell (as high as your wizard went) requires a roll of 13 (less if he has more than 10 CHA). Since time is not an issue, who cares that he must typically roll 3 times or so, or even that he could roll a 1 and have to wait a day (if he doesn’t have a second copy)?

He has all that leftover wealth for weapons, so that should be good, right?

Either
(a) On the BBEG

Poor adventure design – we always know who the BBEG is, and that nothing of note will happen when he’s down.

(b) When he has enough spells that he can Nova and have some spare. A full nova is probably only five spells.

It’s the higher level ones. For that L9 wizard, it’s his one 5th and most 4th, likely with a 2/3 or two in there.

(c) When he intends to teleport back to base anyway.

In the games I play or run, Intent and Achievement are not always synonyms.

Then he's stupid. Why do you insist on putting a D on the front of the wizard's pointy hat?

I used the example of one wilderness encounter a day. The response was “he can just nova”. So I asked how he knows there will never be a second encounter. Now he’s an idiot if he novas. Which is it? Who keeps casting Animate Goalposts?

Assuming (a) 100% success and (b) you never need to create one. So no. The rogue can't. Which doesn't mean the best option for a rogue is to pretend to be a wizard because UMD is one of the two best skills in the game

Failure = try again. Why is that delay a big deal for the rogue, but time is no issue for the wizard rummaging for that one appropriate scroll?

Because the Wizard also brings spells of his own.

And the rogue brings his other abilities. So what? Is the ability to have a utility spell for every occasion a huge power boost (as argued for the wizard) or not (rogue argument)? The rogue doesn’t pay the up front investment of learning the spell, but gets sandbagged with the doubled ongoing cost.

L3 spells? Like Stinking Cloud or Slow? Good enough to deal with chaff on their own. Hell, even Glitterdust and Web deal well enough with wandering monsters and the random wilderness encounters.

I don’t use wandering monsters. A second planned encounter at the party’s CR (maybe higher if the plan is only two encounters in the day).

Good job the archetypal party is 4 people. And You don't want horses or pack animals - you're going home every night.

That much longer for overland travel, then. And we can’t escort anyone, guard a caravan or have a Druid with an animal companion, can we?

Indeed. You certainly study carefully wherever you had your lunch.

Certainly. Provided you study it carefully for an hour after you eat. But since time is never an issue in your games, no big deal, right?

Which is why you have one scroll of teleport. It'll be needed eventually.

More money spent. Hopefully, nothing happens while you figure out what went wrong and retrieve it.

You mean the Kraken isn't dragging people underwater anyway?

He’s not immediately submerging, jetting and ink clouding – if he is, you can’t target those spells.

Indeed. He's just made the job much easier.

Good – that’s his role on the team, isn’t it? If we go back to those three wizards, what do they do with a blinded, slowed and “another effect” Kraken (likely one effect – he made the other two saves)? Poke it with daggers?

I'm not sure by level 13 your level 1 and 2 spells matter too much. And a Solar Simulacrum can do most of what Unseen Servant can do and is incredibly useful. I prefer characters to caricatures myself, which is why I don't assum the wizard is stupid.

Jumped up another four levels, I see. And “every wizard is the same” is a caricature. And Glitterdust and Web mattered quite a bit earlier in your post – did they get revised in level since then?

Once again your wizards are stupid. If it's on the ground, pick it up and throw it away if the goblins are that close. And then the other two wizards turn round and nuke the goblins. They know where the centre of the silence is and you've bought them the space to walk out of it. Why do you assume an Int 18+ wizard is stupid?

Pick up an item – move action which provokes an AoO. “Pull item out of wood it is embedded in” isn’t listed, but I’m thinking that’s not as fast. Throw the item? What stops a Goblin catching it? For that matter, the Silence can also be cast on a point in space, one of several crossbow bolts fired or the doorframe itself. How does the Wizard know what it’s cast on?

Rope trick in the dungeon is IMO asking for trouble.

Agreed – but that means the party can’t, as seems consistently argued, avoid the risk of more encounters before resting by using Rope Trick wherever they are.

Nice to know that you are deliberately going to a judge who agrees with you because he's your friend rather than because he's looking at the case.
More because he’s sane, but suit yourself.

Magic swords are often treasure. Sold for half value or given away for favours.

If I’m a fighter focused on a specific weapon type, my approach is to buy a weapon of that type, have it enchanted and have it upgraded over time. If I don’t focus on a specific weapon type, I commonly use the best weapon(s) found as loot. Either way, I’m not paying full price and getting half price every time I upgrade or change the weapon.

It's only a straight trade if the crafter is letting himself be abused. Rather than being compensated for XP.

Why is the xp a big deal now, but wasn’t for scrolls to learn spells, wands, etc.? 1/25 of 6,000 in scrolls, wands or whatever is the same 240 xp.

And yes, it's a team game. But if we want to talk about a team game, we need to make the case that upgrading the fighter's sword from +1 to +2 is worth more than 6000GP worth of scrolls.

Because that's the other problem with the 3.X fighter archetype. In order to do anything they leech resources from the party. They need items - and can't pitch in. They need healing - and can't pitch in. They need buffs - and can't pitch in. The only time they pitch in as more than a warm body is standing in the way of the bad guy. Which is important - but the cleric does this too. As does the druid and the druid's animal companion.

YOU kill the Slowed Kraken, then. And we left that animal companion behind when the four humanoids Teleported home. Remember, we only needed to transport four creatures? Funny…the fighter/rogue/warrior is pretty much useless, but the party is never all wizards…
 

Why is the xp a big deal now, but wasn’t for scrolls to learn spells, wands, etc.? 1/25 of 6,000 in scrolls, wands or whatever is the same 240 xp.
Not desiring to get involved in the multiquote war, but the XP for an NPC is a bigger deal than it is for a PC (Experience is a river and all).
 

I don't know about anyone else, but this quote war is making this thread impossible to follow.

Any way you gents could make do with... say... 3 or 4 max? Rather than nitpicking sentence by sentence? Because this has become a lot of tl;dr. :)

-O
 

I don't know about anyone else, but this quote war is making this thread impossible to follow.

Any way you gents could make do with... say... 3 or 4 max? Rather than nitpicking sentence by sentence? Because this has become a lot of tl;dr. :)

-O

Yeah, this thread has been interesting, but certain posts (the ones it takes me 3-4 screens just to scroll down through) I've started skipping entirely.
 

So how many spells, at each level, is the wizard keeping a few copies of at all times? How often does he use them? If he uses them a lot, it’s expensive. If he only needs one once in a while, how is it breaking the game? Either this is a huge issue (and he runs through a lot of scrolls) or it isn’t.

And I’m assuming you weren’t the one saying “use scrolls for 10 minute/level and higher buffs as well” as those would get used pretty quick, so a chunk of your daily spells, I assume, go for buffs.

That was Hussar who assumes normal treasure. At ten encounters per level you can afford to use a couple of scrolls per encounter and be extremely well set.

I used the example of one wilderness encounter a day. The response was “he can just nova”. So I asked how he knows there will never be a second encounter. Now he’s an idiot if he novas. Which is it? Who keeps casting Animate Goalposts?

You are. As usual. One of the points I made was with the number of spells a 7th level caster gets, let alone a higher one, one nova in a day will not burn through all your spells. So novaing isn't a problem here. (It is at low level). As for the level 13 caster, that was from a previous conversation where I was bringing up the GiantITP duels between a level 13 wizard and a level 20 fighter. And the situation there. That's where the level 13 came from - and the Solar Simulacrum.

YOU kill the Slowed Kraken, then. And we left that animal companion behind when the four humanoids Teleported home. Remember, we only needed to transport four creatures? Funny…the fighter/rogue/warrior is pretty much useless, but the party is never all wizards…

Indeed. That's a partial point - mostly because we haven't gone into the larger point.

In pre-4e D&D there are two basic roles rather than four. Those who take the world on head on and those who try to adjust the world to better suit them. Either is stronger than the other.

And two of the four core classes have always been in each of these roles. The hallmarks of the classes that take the world on head on are the heaviest armour they can find, serious toughness, and the ability to bring the hurt. The hallmarks of the classes that try to adjust the world are light armour, the ability to hide, and the ability to bypass things. In category 1, of course, are the fighter and the cleric and in category 2 the wizard and the rogue.

Now in oD&D they were almost balanced. Of the four, the fighter was the underpowered one - largely because it was Robilar's class, and so the most experienced and highest level player played a fighter. Whcih slightly skewed the playtesting. (oD&D is probably the most playtested RPG in history; several years and with a large wargaming community).

I'll start with wizard and rogue because the story is simpler here. The wizard has literally had a significant power boost in every edition other than 4th. 1e gave the wizard more spells. 2e gave us specialist wizards - so the wizard could cast more spells - and merged the wizard and illusionist to the benefit of the wizard. 3e removed the soft cap on the levels, gave the wizard even more spells, let the wizard cast even more spells gave the wizard free spells every level, and half a dozen other things. By contrast the rogue has been abused over the years. Some time in AD&D the spirit of the rogue's skills changed. Scale sheer surface was downgraded to climb wall. Hide in shadows was the rogue's chance of hiding where no one else could. It was intended to be an almost supernatural ability and if anyone else could do the job the rogue didn't have to roll. And then 3.X managed to hamstring the rogue on skill points - 8 rogue skills became 8+Int skill points per level, whereas no fighter skills became 2+Int skill points per level. The rogue should be on ten or twelve and the fighter four. Also the rogue used to have a very favourable XP track and the wizard an unfavourable one, again for balance purposes.

The cleric vs fighter role on the other hand has been much swingier. The cleric has always been tougher than the fighter - they levelled first, and they had Cure Light Wounds. On the other hand the fighter has always hit harder - the fighter had better weapons (which was especially obvious against large foes) and a better to hit chart. Before Unearthed Arcana it wasn't enough. After Unearthed Arcana/Weapon Specialisation fighters rocked at what they did, and did throughout 2e. 3e on the other hand nerfed fighters savagely (especially on the defensive front - 3.X fighters arguably have the worst saves of any PC class) and buffed clerics (and their druidic cousins) enormously through a massive range of ways.

Therefore 3.X is the edition of Caster Supremacy. Wizards are massively dominant over their mundane rivals, and Clerics over theirs. If the wizard is acting solo, the wizard should engage only when he or she has no other choice. This, incidently, is what is pathetic about the level 13 wizard being a match for the level 20 fighter. The wizard has to engage and can't pick the battlefield. If you want something killed, the preferable classes to do it are the head-on classes. Preferably the two that contribute rather than leech spells - the cleric and druid. The wizard's job is to make this as easy as possible if it needs doing in the first place.
 

One of the points I made was with the number of spells a 7th level caster gets, let alone a higher one, one nova in a day will not burn through all your spells.

It doesn't need to burn through all your spells. It needs to leave you with sub-optimal spells for CR appropriate challenges. With 1 bonus spell (generous at higher levels) plus 1 specialist spell (restricting your choices and versatility, but not enough that we see many generalist wizards), that's 3 or 4 of the highest level spell, and 4 or 5 of the next level down. Typically, spells below that are used for riff raff and/or less significant effects.

Indeed. That's a partial point - mostly because we haven't gone into the larger point.

In pre-4e D&D there are two basic roles rather than four. Those who take the world on head on and those who try to adjust the world to better suit them. Either is stronger than the other.

And two of the four core classes have always been in each of these roles. The hallmarks of the classes that take the world on head on are the heaviest armour they can find, serious toughness, and the ability to bring the hurt. The hallmarks of the classes that try to adjust the world are light armour, the ability to hide, and the ability to bypass things. In category 1, of course, are the fighter and the cleric and in category 2 the wizard and the rogue.

Now in oD&D they were almost balanced. Of the four, the fighter was the underpowered one - largely because it was Robilar's class, and so the most experienced and highest level player played a fighter. Whcih slightly skewed the playtesting. (oD&D is probably the most playtested RPG in history; several years and with a large wargaming community).

This depends on definitions. Many, if not most, felt OD&D's balance was largely on the assumption of a wide range of levels. The Wizard was much weaker than the Fighter at low levels and much more powerful at high levels, and we assumed "balance" because of the shift over time.

A more blatant example was non-humans. You can multiclass, and here's a bunch of other advantages. But you stop advancing, so you have a limited shelf life.

I'll start with wizard and rogue because the story is simpler here. The wizard has literally had a significant power boost in every edition other than 4th. 1e gave the wizard more spells. 2e gave us specialist wizards - so the wizard could cast more spells - and merged the wizard and illusionist to the benefit of the wizard. 3e removed the soft cap on the levels, gave the wizard even more spells, let the wizard cast even more spells gave the wizard free spells every level, and half a dozen other things.

I find most editions now start with less spells for the casters to choose from, but splatbooks quickly increase those numbers. They also increase other options, but the casters have greater freedom to swap between options (ie once you pick a feat, you can't change it out, but Wizard and Cleric can get a different spell selection every day).

But OD&D and 1e had no cap on "per level" increases to spell power (magic missile, fireball, etc.). Those came in 2e, and became more structured in 3e. 3e codified gaining new spells - I don't think too many groups assumed Wizards achieved 3rd level but - too bad - you never found any L2 spells as loot, so you don't have any to memorize. They did get bonus spells for INT, but there was also some drop in power for some spells. Sleep, for example, got reduced targets and a save it previously lacked.

By contrast the rogue has been abused over the years. Some time in AD&D the spirit of the rogue's skills changed. Scale sheer surface was downgraded to climb wall. Hide in shadows was the rogue's chance of hiding where no one else could. It was intended to be an almost supernatural ability and if anyone else could do the job the rogue didn't have to roll. And then 3.X managed to hamstring the rogue on skill points - 8 rogue skills became 8+Int skill points per level, whereas no fighter skills became 2+Int skill points per level. The rogue should be on ten or twelve and the fighter four. Also the rogue used to have a very favourable XP track and the wizard an unfavourable one, again for balance purposes.

3e also replaced the uncommonly usable Backstab with the much better codified, and more commonly useful, Sneak Attack. To me, OD&D, 1e and 2e were variations on the same game. 3e was much more a new game, as was 4e, but that's another story!

The cleric vs fighter role on the other hand has been much swingier. The cleric has always been tougher than the fighter - they levelled first, and they had Cure Light Wounds. On the other hand the fighter has always hit harder - the fighter had better weapons (which was especially obvious against large foes) and a better to hit chart. Before Unearthed Arcana it wasn't enough. After Unearthed Arcana/Weapon Specialisation fighters rocked at what they did, and did throughout 2e.

Balancing Fighters with Rangers and Paladins was an issue for some parts of that history, though. Not sure CLW was a cleric advantage - it was typically used as a party resource, often to the extent the Cleric got dirty looks if he took non-healing spells.

3e on the other hand nerfed fighters savagely (especially on the defensive front - 3.X fighters arguably have the worst saves of any PC class) and buffed clerics (and their druidic cousins) enormously through a massive range of ways.

Therefore 3.X is the edition of Caster Supremacy. Wizards are massively dominant over their mundane rivals, and Clerics over theirs. If the wizard is acting solo, the wizard should engage only when he or she has no other choice. This, incidently, is what is pathetic about the level 13 wizard being a match for the level 20 fighter. The wizard has to engage and can't pick the battlefield. If you want something killed, the preferable classes to do it are the head-on classes. Preferably the two that contribute rather than leech spells - the cleric and druid. The wizard's job is to make this as easy as possible if it needs doing in the first place.

So, once again, show me the party with no fighters and no rogues. Haven't seen one yet. That's not to say the balance is perfect, but it's not nearly as out of whack in my play experience as others claim. That may be having a group that avoids optimization wars, but I don't think that's the whole of it. A large part is that our group looks more to the team than to individual characters - synergies are harder to attribute to one specific character. Wizard is protected by Fighter; Wizard buffing Fighter means Wizard is better protected. Fighter protects Wizard, which allows Wizard to cast spells making Fighter's job easier.

But the history makes for an interesting read. In my experience, OD&D and 1e saw a bias towards fighters and wizards, and away from clerics and rogues. Some of that balance has shifted, with the cleric moving beyond "MEDIC!" and the rogue being able to inflict damage more consistently.
 

By the way, has anyone ever actually SEEN a game where everyone played a wizard (or where only one or two classes were represented, each more than once)?
I have GMed such a game in RM, yes (which by RAW, especially at mid levels and up, has much the same structural features as 3E).

As I mentioned upthread, my group subsequently made some tweaks to RM to make fighters and nova-ing casters comparable - at which point the game included both sorts of PC.
 

This is what I want to see.
Someone who thinks wizards are over-powered needs to make me a 3.5 10th level wizard - PHB only.
Use the standard point-buy.
DO NOT BUY ITEMS. There are no rules in the core books that say that magic shops exist and you can buy anything you want. You can make your army of 1st-3rd level scrolls if you really want to. Wizards get scribe scroll.
For the sake of this exercise, don't take other crafting feats. If I was DMing and a player really wanted crafting feats I would consider it. But let's say you can't make your own items.
Show me your stats. If your INT is 20. your other stats are going to be super weak.
You get TWO spells per level. show me at what level you took what spells. I want to see if this 10th level character had a chance to survive 2nd level.
That means you don't automatically get other spells as scrolls. The DM made you fight goblins and orcs and sahuagin and orges and fighter/rogue bandits and maybe a sorcerer. You haven't found any spell books or scrolls. You have YOUR 20 spells and thats it.

Show me your spells known, your spells memorized and then we'll see how you handle different scenarios such as "you're woken up after a night's rest to find the princess has been kidnapped and a note left saying she will be killed at midnight." in addition to "you know today's mission is fighting a dragon" or "you're infiltrating an enemy base led by an enemy sorcerer and his deadly rogue and barbarian brothers"

Show me this completely broken, no-weaknesses showing, perfect suite of spells that allows for offense, defense, utility, scrying, no matter the situation.
 


Remove ads

Top