Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm

[The Little Raven]

I reject the entire premise. It's funny, before 4e the argument was that damage spells were too weak because they still do the same damage they've always done, but monster HP exploded in 3e. Now suddenly wizards are the uberest of the uber.

Suddenly? HARDLY. They've been considered the uberest of the uber since back in the day, when they overshadowed everyone after a few levels. This is a decades-old issue, not something that's popped up out of the blue.

What spellcasters are great for, in 3e at least, is utility stuff - scry, teleport, invisibility, etc. And in that realm they just ridiculously better than anyone else, and make skills a little useless. But their damage output just doesn't compare to what non-casters can dish out.

High level casters still out damage non-caster, because iterative attacks (which are supposed to help balance damage output) are relatively useless when your other attacks are at 10 or more below your primary attack.

 

[drothgery]

I reject the entire premise. It's funny, before 4e the argument was that damage spells were too weak because they still do the same damage they've always done, but monster HP exploded in 3e. Now suddenly wizards are the uberest of the uber. What spellcasters are great for, in 3e at least, is utility stuff - scry, teleport, invisibility, etc. And in that realm they just ridiculously better than anyone else, and make skills a little useless. But their damage output just doesn't compare to what non-casters can dish out.

Admittedly I run a mostly core game. If you want to allow poorly designed and tested material into your game willy-nilly, that's your own fault.

Err... it's also because we haven't ever had a pure wizard PC; I've run most of the almost-pure wizards and I think wizards are supposed cast fireball whether it's optimal or not. We've never had anyone that played save-or-die/lose spells to the hilt.

 

[Spatula]

Err... it's also because we haven't ever had a pure wizard PC; I've run most of the almost-pure wizards and I think wizards are supposed cast fireball whether it's optimal or not. We've never had anyone that played save-or-die/lose spells to the hilt.

Trust me Dave, the monsters that you guys are facing at 19th level aren't failing saving throws anytime soon, thanks to the way HD scales to CR. There's no way you can push your DCs high enough with core materials.

 

[Spatula]

not the point. The point was the 3e wizard rendered the other party members secondary. 4e at least attempts to make everyone useful on the same level, too early (for me) to see if it's successful.

The 3e wizard controls the battlefield (now its primary role in 4e), does some damage, and provides a lot of out-of-combat utility (now justifiably nerfed / available via rituals). You still need the rest of the party, because someone has to actually deal massive damage that isn't subject to saves for half to a monster in 3 rounds, and someone has to take that monster's hits.

(yes casters have a lot of ways to avoid getting hit. high level monsters have plenty of countermeasures to them, as well)

 

[Mort]

The 3e wizard controls the battlefield (now its primary role in 4e), does some damage, and provides a lot of out-of-combat utility (now justifiably nerfed / available via rituals). You still need the rest of the party, because someone has to actually deal massive damage that isn't subject to saves for half to a monster in 3 rounds, and someone has to take that monster's hits.

I'm not disagreeing with the overall statement (heck I said the same thing) I'm talking about degrees - the 3e wizard (and his high level 1-2e counterparts) was an island; the other members were (too) often secondary and just provided support. And to somewhat disagree the 3e wizard could lay out massive damage if needed and to large swaths of monsters as well.

In 4e the wizard should be one of a group, necessary but not overwhelming - it's a big difference.

(yes casters have a lot of ways to avoid getting hit. high level monsters have plenty of countermeasures to them, as well)

Just to single this out - the problem was if you need specific countermeasures for only one class and you have to figure out ways to control for just that class all the time- that class is too dominating.

 

[Henry]

Suddenly? HARDLY. They've been considered the uberest of the uber since back in the day, when they overshadowed everyone after a few levels. This is a decades-old issue, not something that's popped up out of the blue.

Heh - not only that, I remember design statements from 3E's roll-out that said they were trying to remove the wizard's "suck now, be great later" problem even back then. That's why he (and other casters) got the Cleric's "extra spells" boost at low levels, so he wasn't stuck with being a one-charge magic wand at first level.

 

[Njall]

Trust me Dave, the monsters that you guys are facing at 19th level aren't failing saving throws anytime soon, thanks to the way HD scales to CR. There's no way you can push your DCs high enough with core materials.

Well, Human Wizard, lvl 20, int 18 at 1st level.
23 with level ups.
+5 Inherent.
+6 Enhancement.
That's 34 Int.

Base DC for a 9th level spell: 10+9+2 (spell focus and greater spell focus)+12= 33.

Some examples:
Old Red Dragon, CR20:
Fort: +23, Will +21.
Balor, CR20:
Fort: +22, Will +19.
Pit Fiend, CR20:
Fort: +19, Will +21.
Tarrasque, CR20:
Fort: +38, Will +20.

Aside from the Tarrasque, any other monster fails its fortitude save 45% of the time, and its will save 55% of the time. That's not what I'd call a low percentage of success...

 

[Spatula]

Just to single this out - the problem was if you need specific countermeasures for only one class and you have to figure out ways to control for just that class all the time- that class is too dominating.

It's not countermeasures to a specific class at all. Monsters have counters to high-level magic abilities, which many casters can do on their own, but other classes can also accomplish through items. You can't compare the high-level wizard to the high-level fighter-type without considering their wealth, which is quite considerable in 3e, and the fighter-types get more out of their items. And before that launches another tangent, I'm glad the wealth & relative item values issues has been addressed in 4e and not arguing the rightness or wrongness of it.

 

[Spatula]

<snip>

High-level CRs are not very accurate IMO. I think the numbers are generally few levels too high, but aside from that it's hard to enforce the gradual-attrition assumption of the EL model.

 

[Hussar]

It's extremely suboptimal for fighters in 3e, as well - you need large per-attack damage bonuses (like sneak attack dice) to make the feat and attack-penalty hits worth it, vs using a 2Her and PA, and fighters don't get such bonuses. So nothing has changed as far as the Fighter class and TWFing.

I reject the entire premise. It's funny, before 4e the argument was that damage spells were too weak because they still do the same damage they've always done, but monster HP exploded in 3e. Now suddenly wizards are the uberest of the uber. What spellcasters are great for, in 3e at least, is utility stuff - scry, teleport, invisibility, etc. And in that realm they just ridiculously better than anyone else, and make skills a little useless. But their damage output just doesn't compare to what non-casters can dish out.

Admittedly I run a mostly core game. If you want to allow poorly designed and tested material into your game willy-nilly, that's your own fault.

Yeah. Some people just get hung up terminology and can't see that the whole concept has changed.

Core wizard polymorph's into a Behir. Now he's a grappling master that out damages any class at level 9. Against a single target, he wins. Every time. No save.

You're right, direct damage is pretty weak in 3e. But, there are so many save or die/suck spells, plus "I Win" spells that get around defenses. Web at low levels is pretty much an instant win spell. Evard's Tentacles also incredibly powerful. You certainly don't need to go outside of core to have wizards at the top of the food chain in double digit level games.

I cannot believe that anyone thinks that this is a new issue. EVERY poll on the General Forum put Wizards, Clerics and Druids in the top three of classes. EVERY TIME. Didn't matter if it was 2002 or 2008.

When the same classes are considered the most powerful classes in the game every time the issue comes up, maybe, just maybe, those classes were a bit overpowered.