Why are wizards always getting nerfed?

[Cyraneth]

Yeah, in high level, a spellcaster will have some difficulty. As the saves continu to raise, the spells with saves become less effective, but it is here that spells with partial or half effect with save become effective, or even better with the no save spells. Get rid of the figther for 10 minutes with a maze spell!

Sure, but such spells are far from as effective. Successfully resisted fireballs are reduced to 17 points of damage against 4 ogres or one dragon. Keep in mind that powerful creatures tend to be big, reducing spells ability to affect multiple targets. Especially in 3.5th Edition, where ogres take up a 10-feet square.

For Damage resistance, more and more powerfull energy resistance can be seen, but no one is invulnerable to all energy (and Horrid Whilting is not an energy attack).

True once more, but as stated above, resisted spells are reduced to a pitiful attempt at ending a fight.

For Spell Resistance, your caster level continu to raise, so even with a monster with a spell resistance of 11+level, at equal level, the spell will be effective with a mage with Greater Spell Penetration 70% of the time (up to 80% if you have a archmagi robe, higher with a similar epic item), so you'll need for a SR of 47 to block all spells of a mage of 20th level with Greater spell penetration and archmagi robe. Name one non-epic monster who have such resistance.

Once again I agree, and thus I don't see spell resistance as a problematic mean of limiting spellcasters. It's kinda like an AC against spells.

Yeah, life is harder at higher level for the mage, but with the good spell, he will shift the balance of combat more easily than a figther, and generally, if a mage have difficulty to beat a creature, the figther/rogue/cleric will not neceserly have the same difficulty, and that's the reason of a team. If you spells can't easily affect that big bad guy, let the figther do hgis job and help him by killing all the minion with your area spells.

Finally, that was the point I wanted to drag forth. Either a wizard limits himself to a select few spells (negating his advantage compared to a sorcerer), becomes a second-rate buffer, or settles with neutralizing mere minions, leaving all the action and heroism to the fighter.

- Cyraneth

 

[reapersaurus]

Wizards as they used to be. Powerful, but only in for seconds at a time. No matter how powerful (speaking both 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Edition) a wizard was, we wouldn't last for a prolonged battle. On that field, the fighter will always prevail.

What kind of claptrap is this?
This statement makes no sense to me, so let me ask some questions to understand where you're coming from:

What is "a battle" in your mind? How long does it last?
Since D&D has never had massive-army rules, I can only assume that you're talking about combat encounters.
Since you likely are talking about D&D ancounters, I'll pull a figure out of the sky and say that most encounters are mostly done after the 5th round.
The wizard doesn't even need to cast 5 spells - just a couple would likely significantly change the outcome, since he can tailor his spells to be the most beneficial ones.

BTW: the rogue can only do a few things - that wizard who's teleport is blocked (thereby *gasp* making it MORE FUN for everyone at the table) still has dozens more spells at his disposal. I highly doubt ALL the wizard spells would be useless, not to mention his scroll library'o'utility spells for every occassion imaginable.

I'll stop there for now.

 

[cptg1481]

Nerfed

Because they have pointy hats of course?

 

[reapersaurus]

Cyraneth - you DO realize that you have just agreed to well-proven arguments that obliterate your initial statement?
You opined that only fighter-types are "powerful" (or something like that).

What has just transpired in a very few # of posts is that your statement has been shown to have no basis in game theory (theory, since we're just discussing things here. I'd say practice, but I don't want to overstep myself here. Yet).

You could continue to state your claim/opinion, but unless these contrary statements can be proven wrong, than there's not much point in continuing, other than just idle discussion, or reminiscing about times long ago when D&D was only about wizards above mid-level.

Now, it's about a GROUP of people combining their specialties to accomplish a shared goal, and multiple types of classes taking the spotlight at different times.

 

[Cyraneth]

What kind of claptrap is this?
This statement makes no sense to me, so let me ask some questions to understand where you're coming from:

What is "a battle" in your mind? How long does it last?
Since D&D has never had massive-army rules, I can only assume that you're talking about combat encounters.
Since you likely are talking about D&D ancounters, I'll pull a figure out of the sky and say that most encounters are mostly done after the 5th round.
The wizard doesn't even need to cast 5 spells - just a couple would likely significantly change the outcome, since he can tailor his spells to be the most beneficial ones.

Very well, let us assume small-scale combat, then. But try putting a wizard and fighter in a row of combat, and make sure the wizard and fighter are equally effective (e.i. kill about the same number of creatures, make sure to survive by downing potions, etc.) and see if the wizard'll keep up. Sooner or later, all his spells and rods, wands, and scrolls will be used up, but the fighter just keeps hackin'.

BTW: the rogue can only do a few things - that wizard who's teleport is blocked (thereby *gasp* making it MORE FUN for everyone at the table) still has dozens more spells at his disposal. I highly doubt ALL the wizard spells would be useless, not to mention his scroll library'o'utility spells for every occassion imaginable.

I'll stop there for now.

So, in other words, every spell should only be usable if it was fun for everyone at the table? If a wizard wants to teleport into an enemy stronghold, let him. Let him bypass all the traps and minions, but he better make sure he knows where to go. He should research the villain's home before teleporting. Otherwise, he'll just end up in a acid pit trap, or in the dungeons. Researching this in turn might not be easy. Scrying spells would reveal a large deal, but they can be warded off, and infiltration is a rogue's job (letting the rogue have some fun too) and a dangerous one to boot. So, you see, it is not a "claptrap" at all.

- Cyraneth

 

[ruleslawyer]

See, it's funny. I actually think that 3.0 represented the biggest powerup to the wizard in D&D history. Let's go through this:

1) Bonus spells by casting stat
2) At least 3 1st-level spells at 1st-level wizard
3) Concentration check (or better yet, defensive casting) to avoid having spells disrupted while spellcasting
4) Spell disruption by a successful attack no longer being AUTOMATIC but instead avoidable
5) High-level spells much easier to obtain due to ease of raising ability scores to qualify (the 17 Int required to gain 8th-level wizard spells, or the 18 required to get 9th-level ones, really hurt in 1e/2e)
6) Moving and casting in same round
7) Most spells distilled down to "1 action" instead of segments, meaning wizards wouldn't always lose initiative when casting high-level spells (as they certainly did in 2e; the average speed factor of a decent weapon at high levels was about 0, whereas a disintegrate or power word stun took 6 or 7 segments to cast. Given that 2e used a d10 for initiative, you do the math.)
8) Ability buffing spells and commonly-available (or easily-created) items mean that, by core rules, wizards don't have to be fragile as eggshells or slow as turtles.
9) AC effect stacking means that wizards can use judicious combinations of spells and items to boost AC to ludicrous levels; and they're the ones who cast the spells and make the items, after all!
10) Haste allowed 2 spells per round AND a +4 AC bonus, a hitherto unprecedented boost.
11) More high-level spells at high levels (4 9th-level spells by 20th level to a 2e wizard's 2!)
12) Low cost/easy creation of casting stat items mean that wizards could raise save DCs through the roof. A 1e/2e fighter needed a flat 6, which could be lowered by protection items and Wis bonus, to save against ANY wizard spell, whether cast by Podunk the Prestidigitator or Arkenius the Archmage. A 3.0 wizard can get save DCs up to about 16 at first level with the right feats, and up to about 32 at 20th level. A character of equal level will probably blow even his good save on a 9 or less at those DCs. Targeted against weak saves? Ouch ouch ouch.

So anyway, I think that 3.0 was a boost for wizards, not a sign of downward nerf. I feel like 3.5 takes the edge off this a bit.

 

[Cyraneth]

Cyraneth - you DO realize that you have just agreed to well-proven arguments that obliterate your initial statement?
You opined that only fighter-types are "powerful" (or something like that).

What has just transpired in a very few # of posts is that your statement has been shown to have no basis in game theory (theory, since we're just discussing things here. I'd say practice, but I don't want to overstep myself here. Yet).

You could continue to state your claim/opinion, but unless these contrary statements can be proven wrong, than there's not much point in continuing, other than just idle discussion, or reminiscing about times long ago when D&D was only about wizards above mid-level.

Now, it's about a GROUP of people combining their specialties to accomplish a shared goal, and multiple types of classes taking the spotlight at different times.

As to my agreeing, I only did so to a certain degree, also stating why Velmont's arguments were only partly true, but still, to a certain degree, true.

- Cyraneth

 

[Cyraneth]

Cyraneth - you DO realize that you have just agreed to well-proven arguments that obliterate your initial statement?
You opined that only fighter-types are "powerful" (or something like that).

What has just transpired in a very few # of posts is that your statement has been shown to have no basis in game theory (theory, since we're just discussing things here. I'd say practice, but I don't want to overstep myself here. Yet).

You could continue to state your claim/opinion, but unless these contrary statements can be proven wrong, than there's not much point in continuing, other than just idle discussion, or reminiscing about times long ago when D&D was only about wizards above mid-level.

Now, it's about a GROUP of people combining their specialties to accomplish a shared goal, and multiple types of classes taking the spotlight at different times.

As to my agreeing, I only did so to a certain degree, also stating why Velmont's arguments were only partly true, but still, to a certain degree, true.

- Cyraneth

 

[Cyraneth]

See, it's funny. I actually think that 3.0 represented the biggest powerup to the wizard in D&D history... (Look for original post for full message.)

True, they were upped since 2nd Edition, but back then, they had to be truly careful as well... Anyway, let me go through your points:

1) Clerics were granted bonus spells for high Wisdom in 2nd Edition too. Wouldn't it only be fair if the classes with only the ability to cast spells to gain the same advantage?
2) Clerics had that back then as well.
3) Concentration is a brilliant idea. Now wizards have a chance at actually surviving a close encounter.
4) See 3.
5) Kinda depends on how easily available high-level magic is in your campaign.
6) Makes for a mobile wizard. Good thing.
7) Just as with Concentration, this increases a wizard's chances of survival from nil to something in a close encounter.
8) Neither do fighters have to be dumb as boards, or clerics nimble as rocks. That point really goes for all classes.
9) But they don't got monopoly on magic items. Clerics craft too, and their buffing abilities far exceed (and always have) a wizards.
10) Well, not anymore. Nerfed as well.
11) That was needed as well, but then again, if they can't affect an opponent ('cause of saves), they're wasted anyway.
12) That "through-the-roof" increase is a necessity now. With only simple opponents having poor saves, a wizard needs a high ability score to have any hopes of his spells affecting the monsters. While it doesn't matter much if a fighter's sword swing misses, it does if a wizard's spell fizzles or just doesn't affect the creature.

- Cyraneth

 

[Technik4]

Very well, let us assume small-scale combat, then. But try putting a wizard and fighter in a row of combat, and make sure the wizard and fighter are equally effective (e.i. kill about the same number of creatures, make sure to survive by downing potions, etc.) and see if the wizard'll keep up. Sooner or later, all his spells and rods, wands, and scrolls will be used up, but the fighter just keeps hackin'.

They won't though. A wand has 50 charges when created. Lets say I create 3 wands, a wand of maximized magic missiles (11th level caster), a wand of fireball (10th level caster), and a wand of lightning bolt (10th level caster). Thats 150 actions, or over 15 minutes of constantly blasting mooks (because, lets face it, mooks are the only thing that are possibly going to be fought in one of these hypothetical "small-scale combats"). Each wand has the capacity to kill at least 5 low-level soldiers of any race, and the wizard can still move that round. The wizard will slaughter those things faster than an equal level fighter, hands down. This is before actually using his spells mind you.

For such a skirmish I would memorize lots of spells which affect battles quickly and definitively, walls, smokes, mass teleports, mass buffs. If something gets too close, it gets blasted. Keep in mind for 1 feat I made all those wands at half-price, and while it may represent a large portion of my total gold for my level - 1) Once its gone I will be below the gp limit, so presumably I will acquire more to "keep up" and 2) The experience/prestige of stopping a horde of hypothetical creatures from over-running a kingdom will be more than enough to regain exp and gold used making the items.

And yes, granted the wizard will use a lot more expendable resources (those wands, maybe a few scrolls for things that may come up) but the fact is he will be far far more effective than a fighter, probably even a fighter that is higher level than he is because there really are only so many guys a fighter can hit in one round. I'd give a fighter/archer the best shot at catching up, but of course, they need arrows.

Technik