Why are wizards always getting nerfed?

[mmu1]

Well, a cleric can easily meet the requirement now, as Alchemy is now Craft (a cleric class skill), and while Spell Focus has been nerfed, the Master Alchemist class hasn't. And you don't need to take the prestige class. Just find some guy with it.

But anyway, I was merely using potions of heal as an example. A cleric could make "gauntlets of heal" that enable the wielder to cast heal three times per day at a relatively low cost. The real point was comparing a wizard's expenses to a fighter's.

- Cyraneth

Make up your mind what edition you're talking about, otherwise your comparisons are meaningless. Magic of Faerun is a 3.0 supplement, talking about applying 3.5 changes to FR spells, feats and classes is just a bunch of wishful thinking that proves nothing on a rules forum.

Gauntlets of Heal 3x day? Yeah, sure, every fighter is going to have this 70,000 gold piece trinket. There's no way a wizard can buy more than one or two wands of magic missile for that, he'll never be able to afford to dish out the damage a fighter does.

 

[HeavyG]

But anyway, I was merely using potions of heal as an example. A cleric could make "gauntlets of heal" that enable the wielder to cast heal three times per day at a relatively low cost. The real point was comparing a wizard's expenses to a fighter's.

Okay, then you won't mind if we invent an item that does Fireball at will too, while we're at it ?

 

[mmu1]

Okay, then you won't mind if we invent an item that does Fireball at will too, while we're at it ?

Admittedly, this is going by the 3.0 DMG, but a 10d6 Fireball at will is actually cheaper than Heal 3x a day.

 

[hong]

How so? Just let him twist off a branch from a nearby tree and use it as a club.

Oh, not this silly canard again.

1) In just about every encounter in every campaign, characters are going to have items commensurate with their level. Encounters that purposefully screw the characters over by destroying their toys are few and far between.

2) A fighter of higher than about 5th level, without his items, is near useless against the sorts of foes he's likely to encounter. It doesn't matter what your BAB is if you can't penetrate DR, it doesn't matter how strong you are if the dragon is flying above and breathing at its leisure, and it doesn't matter how many hit points you have if you fail a save against a hold spell. Even in a straight-up melee bash, many CR-equivalent monsters will paste an unequipped fighter, because they're created under the assumption that a party will be able to use various special abilities to gain a tactical advantage. The fact that a fighter can use a tree branch more effectively than a wizard is thus irrelevant, because a tree branch is still not going to be worth squat.

He might not be able to use Weapon Focus and such, but he still benefits from almost every other aspect of his class: High hit points, attack bonus, many feats that are useful regardless of weapon held.

You've never actually played a fighter, have you? I can tell.

A wizard without his spellbook is reduced to a fancy commoner.

Then play a sorcerer and quit whinging like it's 1999.

 

[hong]

As far as cleric vs wizard, the points above are true but misleading. While balancing a class with roleplaying restrictions is not considered good design philosophy in 3e, the cleric does have this element very easily applied by the very nature of the class. Your spells are dependant on a higher power, should said higher power think you are not acting in their best interests, all spell use could (and should) be cut off. Then the cleric is reduced to a fancy warrior.

This is a factor, but it's not the only one. In practice, the major balancing factor for clerics is that they're usually lumped with the job of being the party medic. A cleric is really only overpowered if they have the time and spells to buff themselves up to max. If they're spending spell slots to cast healing spells, or the other players can lean on the cleric to buff them up instead, then the cleric is a lot less nasty. It's to do with the social dynamic of the group, in other words.

This tends to work best if there's only one cleric around. If you have _two_ clerics in the group, then they can share the healing/buffing duties between them, and they both become much nastier than a single cleric would be.

 

[Darklone]

This tends to work best if there's only one cleric around. If you have _two_ clerics in the group, then they can share the healing/buffing duties between them, and they both become much nastier than a single cleric would be.

Depends how large the group is and how much healing there is

I think it's one of the nice sides being a DM to come up with an appropriate "challenge".

FIREBALL FIREBALL FIREBALL FIREBALL!

 

[Cyraneth]

Oh, not this silly canard again.

1) In just about every encounter in every campaign, characters are going to have items commensurate with their level. Encounters that purposefully screw the characters over by destroying their toys are few and far between.

2) A fighter of higher than about 5th level, without his items, is near useless against the sorts of foes he's likely to encounter. It doesn't matter what your BAB is if you can't penetrate DR, it doesn't matter how strong you are if the dragon is flying above and breathing at its leisure, and it doesn't matter how many hit points you have if you fail a save against a hold spell. Even in a straight-up melee bash, many CR-equivalent monsters will paste an unequipped fighter, because they're created under the assumption that a party will be able to use various special abilities to gain a tactical advantage. The fact that a fighter can use a tree branch more effectively than a wizard is thus irrelevant, because a tree branch is still not going to be worth squat.

He is still able to do far more with this improvised tool than a wizard without his spellbook.

You've never actually played a fighter, have you? I can tell.

I've played fighters as specialized as the Master of Chains, Lasher, or Iaijutsu Master. I know very well how bad it might seem when one's favorite chain, whip, or katana is sundered, but you pick up a spare and later a new one and all is good. Possibly have your party's wizard use his XP and craft one for you.

Then play a sorcerer and quit whinging like it's 1999.

Well, if I did so, I would be giving up on the wizard, which is what this thread is all about not doing. If only three-four spells of each spell level are truly effective ('cause of low save DCs or high enemy saves, due to the lack of effect, etc.), everybody would play a sorcerer. One of the wizard's advantages is his broad selection of spells (the other being quicken spell, a fairly minor benefit) and with that gone now that several spells are only useful for skirmishing critters, simple utility (replacable by the rogue or monk to some point), or buffing (put to shame by the cleric, however), there truly seems to be no point to playing a wizard.

- Cyraneth

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

He is still able to do far more with this improvised tool than a wizard without his spellbook.

Have you heard of Spell Mastery, by any chance?

 

[hong]

He is still able to do far more with this improvised tool than a wizard without his spellbook.

Squat times 2 is still squat.

I've played fighters as specialized as the Master of Chains, Lasher, or Iaijutsu Master. I know very well how bad it might seem when one's favorite chain, whip, or katana is sundered, but you pick up a spare and later a new one and all is good. Possibly have your party's wizard use his XP and craft one for you.

At high levels, creating a brand-new replacement can take 7 months and cost 200,000 gp. This is not something you want to do every week.

In our high-level campaign, there's been ONE ADVENTURE where the wizards were deprived of spellbooks, in two years of gaming. And that was because we were doing a converted 2E module, where the dungeon was located in a funky demiplane that sealed up all the extradimensional spaces (handy haversacks, bags of holding, portable holes, etc) that the spellbooks were kept in. You are seriously making a mountain out of a molehill. In practice, it's the fighters who are far more at risk of getting their items broken, unless the DM is specifically out to get the wizard.

Well, if I did so, I would be giving up on the wizard, which is what this thread is all about not doing.

No, this thread is about one person carrying on that his toys have been taking away from him.

If only three-four spells of each spell level are truly effective ('cause of low save DCs or high enemy saves, due to the lack of effect, etc.), everybody would play a sorcerer.

Well, there is also that apparently HUGE, HUGE benefit of no longer being dependent on a spellbook.

One of the wizard's advantages is his broad selection of spells (the other being quicken spell, a fairly minor benefit)

Mmm, cake. I can see that you have some cake. What, you'd like to eat it too?

and with that gone now that several spells are only useful for skirmishing critters, simple utility (replacable by the rogue or monk to some point),

Life's a bitch and then you die.

or buffing (put to shame by the cleric, however), there truly seems to be no point to playing a wizard.

Then play a cleric, and quit whinging like it's 1999.

 

[Majere]

BAH HUMBUG AND HUMBUG BAH
1) How can a Core class be "Nerfed"
Try playing a 6th level party of 2 fighters rogue and cleric. The only thing getting nerfed is your party with no flight,invis, fireballs,haste, slow, scroll library, and all those other handy spells a mage produces. Mages are still CORE and therefore they cant possibly be nerfed. Even in mid levels our planned assualts on monsters/buildings/dungeons revolve about what the mage can produce to get us in/out/about

2) 1.0 and 2.0 Mages are BROKEN
1.0 and 2.0 Mages were sick. Comparing them is just silly.
People are saying :
"Oh no my 20th level mage is NO LONGER the best fighter,rogue AND spell caster in the group with a flight of red dragons under my control". Being a High level non mage was not much fun because everything revolved about the walking demi-god. Welcome to having to be part of a team. It is a party game, learn to party. If you want to the theone and only walking god play something like BGII or NWN.

3) People still play mages
If mages were so nerfed a fighter was ALWAYS the best option people would play fighters and not mages.

4) Clerics
No one wanted to play a 2.0 cleric. They were utterly 1 dimensional. Are you really going to turn to the party and say "Sorry we all died, but I was sick of taking nothing but healing spells every day" ? Clerics are now playable, and the wizard players seem upset there is another genuinely useful spell casting class. Clerics arent fighters, ad arent blow em up merchants, they are buff-boys and healers.

Really, untill mages are as nerfed as bards there is no reason to throw a fit.