Why are wizards always getting nerfed?

[Technik4]

In general this whole discussion is silly anyway. Wizards are riding the crest of the balance wave of 3e and always have been. While 3.5 nerfed some DCs it also created spells which can circumvent DCs like Scorching Ray. And high level spells always have - Otto's, Power Words, etc.

A high level wizard doesn't need a profession, he can just hire himself out to cast spells. While this is also true of a cleric, lets not forget (please) all the baggage that goes with being a cleric. Your downtime is consumed with communing with your god, living up to their ideals, and possibly furthering their cause/recruiting to your faith/playing a role in the church.

Technik

 

[dcollins]

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...

I disagree and I'll reply briefly. Your points can be broken into a few broad categories:

- More spells (1, 2, 5, 11)
This is a nice but minor benefit. A few extra spells don't make that much difference except to maintain player interest after the first has been cast. Regardless of the number of spells, if those spells are being nerfed the potency is being dialed back.

- Better cast spells in melee (3, 4, 6, 7)
True, but again a very minor benefit. Wizards should avoid melee in the first place, even if the details of exactly how bad it is have been tinkered with.

- Buffs, AC (8, 9)
Buffs help all character types, and seem to be used more for assistance of non-wizards than the wizards themselves. AC stacking in 3rd Edition is in truth fundamentally the same as it was in 1st Ed ( www.superdan.net/adndfaq1.html )

- Haste (10)
Quite true, this anomalous spell did help casters a lot in 3rd edition and has been promptly retracted by the designers.


But, next to the minor benefits noted, so many spells have been nerfed (as noted above) that that far outweighs the other modifications. And finally, the massive, key element is that all of the wizard's damage-producing spells have at best remained the same while hit point have skyrocketed.

Case study, say a 12th level Wiz using fireball on 12th-level Ftr (with 14 Con). 1st Edition: damage 12d6 (avg. 42, note no upward limit on dice in 1st Ed.) versus Ftr average 68 hp = 62% of Ftr hp. 3rd Edition: damage 10d6 (avg. 35) versus Ftr average 113 hp = 31% of Ftr hp. That's reduced the effective damage by exactly half, and this is repeated all up-and-down the line for every one of the wizard's damaging spells. Meanwhile, say, the starting one-handed bastard sword damage for a 1st-level fighter has doubled from 3.5 to 7.5 points on average. Total damage by proportion is, in very broad terms, that the wizard has had his output about quartered compared to the fighter from 1st-3rd edition. There's very little case to be made that the wizard has gotten anything but much weaker from previous editions.

In short, the hugely improved ability bonuses and hit points for all classes, with wizard spell effects overall capped or reduced, is much, much more important than the entire list of minor benefits that was posted above.

 

[Grog]

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.

True, but don't forget that monster damage greatly increased in 3E as well. And given the addition of crits to the game, I think it's actually easier now for a monster to squash a wizard in meele than it was in 1E or 2E.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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

Depends how you measure it.

Crack open G1. There you see lots of Hill Giants, 9HD, average hit points of 45. It will probably take 2 Fireballs to take out a cluster of giants.

Now let's look at 3e. A vanilla Hill Giant has 12HD & 102 HPs. That will take at least 3 Fireballs, more likely 4. That is 2 rounds of spells assuming the wizard is already Hasted.

When it comes to killing things the old fashioned way (grinding down HPs), a Hasted 3e wizard is not really any more powerful than a 1e wizard. That assumes he is 3e Hasted. Otherwise he is vastly weaker when it comes to direct damage.

Where the 3e wizard shines is his save vs. doom spells because they actually sometimes work -- saving throws in 1e increased rapidly at higher levels making these spells too likely to fail.

3.5 has downgraded these save vs. doom spells and took away the SuperHaste effect. Those were both sound enough changes. But I think the designers should have considered tweaking the big picture a little more. It is now a practical impossibility for a wizard to blast a level equivalent CR beasties.

 

[green slime]

I disagree with the hypothesis that wizards are getting nerfed.

All this talk about how long the fighter can keep on hacking up at the front line. The fighter is limited in his prime resource: Hit points. And before people claim that the same is even more valid for the wizard, the wizard is in much less danger, if the meatshield is doing his job. The fighter is up front getting chopped into tiny bits. He cannot stand there all day. IMC, the fighters are the ones constantly going into the negative hps in vicious battles, and require pasting together by potions of cure and wands of dito.

Meanwhile, the 3.0 or 3.5e wizard has a battery of spells to stay out of harm's way, and can still spare a few spells/scrolls/wands to make a difference on the battlefield.

Both characters are neccessary on the DnD battlefield, and both feel that they are contributing (not dominating) to the game.

 

[Norfleet]

Of course, the presence of the fighter simultaneously impedes the effective functioning of the wizard. Now that the fighter is in the way, and therefore taking the damage, the wizard is impeded in his ability to cut loose with a fireball or two.

I contend that a wall of rogues is far more effective for the functioning of a wizard than a wall of fighters is: Unlike a wall of fighters, a wall of rogues is unaffected by a wizard's fireball lobbing, so the wizard is free to cut loose against the opposition with impunity. Furthermore, it's much harder to swarm past a fighting rogue than it is with a fighter: A rogue with combat reflexes has a buttload of AoOs to sic on anyone who attempts to bypass him on an end-run to the wizard. A wall of them forms an imposing barrier. A wall of invisible rogues forms an absolutely lethal barrier. Fighters, despite their heavy HP status, are hampered by the fact that they are low-priority targets: The ability of a fighter to do damage isn't significantly altered by being ignored, and with buckets of hitpoints, they're not a target that can be quickly taken out of action anyway. So enemies are going to rush the wizard, since a wizard flushing his racks remains the most damaging piece on the battlefield despite his inability to effectively damage a single target.

Fighters shine most in the roles of impromptu landmine disarmament, demolition of magic-resistant constructs, and living projectile weapon. If anyone is suited for being bodily hurled into a pack of angry monsters, it's fighters. Hurl them in and let 'em loose with WW.

All this talk about how long the fighter can keep on hacking up at the front line. The fighter is limited in his prime resource: Hit points. And before people claim that the same is even more valid for the wizard, the wizard is in much less danger, if the meatshield is doing his job. The fighter is up front getting chopped into tiny bits. He cannot stand there all day. IMC, the fighters are the ones constantly going into the negative hps in vicious battles, and require pasting together by potions of cure and wands of dito.

Loss of hitpoints is a universal matter. I'm surprised fighters are the ones doing most of the hitpoint loss: In every tactical scenario I've ever run, through multiple similar game systems, fighters are generally considered low priority targets and obstacles: They're not who you're trying to kill first, they're simply in the way. "Kill the Mage" tends to be a nearly universally favored battle tactic. Fighters therefore represent obstacles and targets of opportunity, not primary objectives.

 

[Norfleet]

Also, hitpoint disparity across classes has increased markedly from 2E->3E. In 2E, after 9th level (10th for wiz & thief), hitpoint gain effectively ground to a trickle: Fixed amount (1-3), not modified by Con. 3E, full HP continues, draining the effectiveness of the old paradigm for HP-targetting spells vs. characters of levels 10+. However, whereas in 2E, a character's physical development became rather clear after about 5th level, a 3E character may only be starting to mature around 10th. Certainly the amount of experience required to get there is nowhere near the levels of older editions.

 

[green slime]

Of course, the presence of the fighter simultaneously impedes the effective functioning of the wizard. Now that the fighter is in the way, and therefore taking the damage, the wizard is impeded in his ability to cut loose with a fireball or two.

IMC... Fireballs tend to be rarely deployed, the Wizard prefering to cut loose with magic missiles as they are very cost effective against SR, don't miss and he has a ring of Wizardry I... More often than not the Wizard excells at taking down combatants at great distances, and often proves to be the most effective during the rounds when he chooses to act (some rounds he doesn't do anything but observe, conserving his power to shift the battle at pivotal points).

Fighters shine most in the roles of impromptu landmine disarmament, demolition of magic-resistant constructs, and living projectile weapon. If anyone is suited for being bodily hurled into a pack of angry monsters, it's fighters. Hurl them in and let 'em loose with WW.

Agreed.

Loss of hitpoints is a universal matter. I'm surprised fighters are the ones doing most of the hitpoint loss: In every tactical scenario I've ever run, through multiple similar game systems, fighters are generally considered low priority targets and obstacles: They're not who you're trying to kill first, they're simply in the way. "Kill the Mage" tends to be a nearly universally favored battle tactic. Fighters therefore represent obstacles and targets of opportunity, not primary objectives.

Well, in a game with two fighters (one dex and one dwarf tank), a paladin, 2 clerics, 1 rogue (archer) and 1 wizard, it is very difficult to get past all the meatshields to the "soft target" which through a high Con and 3.0 toad familiar, is not lacking in the hp department. And while it may be a favoured tactic, not every opponent has the ability to see invisibility, nor ranged attacks to deal with flying foes. So it doesn't really help to talk about it being a "favoured tactic" when the wizard isn't presently visible. Wizards have a variety of ways to protect themselves from harm, from fly to invisibility to stoneskin. Often the wizard has the spells/scrolls/wands to be able to have many of these running at least after a round or two. Given their abilities to appear as they are not (alter self, disguise self) the opposition has to first identify the main threat, which is not always obvious.

In any given fight, do you engage the opponent you see who is in your face with a bloody great axe, or do you scan the sky trying and pinpoint where that magic missile came from, that struck your friend the bard? Because if the dude with the axe hits you again, you are dead... anywhere you can get to in one round, so can the axe-wielder...

 

[Norfleet]

In any given fight, do you engage the opponent you see who is in your face with a bloody great axe, or do you scan the sky trying and pinpoint where that magic missile came from, that struck your friend the bard? Because if the dude with the axe hits you again, you are dead... anywhere you can get to in one round, so can the axe-wielder...

Both, of course. The fighter gains no benefit to attacking you even if such an act does distract you, not that looking for an invisible opponent is a distraction: Since the fighter lacks any capability to actually inflict significantly more damage than anyone else of his corresponding stats and armament, unless you've caught him at an iterative attack breakpoint, he represents a hardened target with average to only slightly above-average threat. Rogues, on the other hand, represent an EXTREME level of threat if ignored, and clerics run pretty high on the list, too. Both are softer, yet more threatening targets which rate a higher priority. Fighter isn't liable to go down no matter how much punishment you can pile on him on short notice, anyway. No reasonable amount of beating is going to take him out, so you're best off waiting for your own side to bust out with a helpful save-or-die on him, whereupon he pretty much automatically fails and becomes either already dead, or a much more attractive target for CdG.

 

[Darklone]

I don't really see the strength of the wizard on the battlefield, that's the fighters domain.

The advantage of the wizard is that he should be able to pick his battlefield. Honestly, an adventuring group usually has to fight on the battlefield of the BBEG, so probably that's the problem of the wizard in the group compared to the fighter?

I fail to see your problems in campaigns till level15. I can see these problems in higher levels, that's one of the reasons why I don't play there.

Around level 10 it proved to be nearly impossible for us to finish a single enemy wizard who kept harassing us. Tactics we used were anticipated and countered. And no, our fighters had no chance to close in for a kill.
That's a nerfed spellcaster?