why are wizards so weak?

[Graf]

Properly played Arcane casters are easily the most dangerous class in DnD. Solo or in a group. This is particularly true of Wizards. In most of the games I've run where Wizard players read the rules and put some thought into spell selection they were the most important actors in most every combat.

However it requires both 1) some thinking and planning 2) knowledge of the spells at your disposal.

Its not a class for someone who wants to wander into a game and kick as with their l33t powers with no preperation on the part of the player.

Personally I don't think people should muck around with balance of the game because their players are slackers. If someone can't do decent prep work and is complaining about how they aren't effective give them a sorceror or a psion instead.

 

[Mercule]

I believe Monte Cook had an article on this when he was initially plugging Arcana Unearthed (which has d6 as the lowest HD). He said that while developing 3e they knew d4 was not enough HP, but it was mainly precident that got in the way of changing it. If they upped wizards to d6, then they'd have to up rogues to d8 (since they're supposed to have better HP), and then subsequently upped everyone else's HD.

I don't think you'd have to upgrade everyone. Just bring rogues and bards up to d8, like clerics and druids. The attack tables are the same, anyway. Besides, the 3E rogue seems just as combative as the cleric. If you wanted, you could reverse the ridiculous reduction of the ranger's hit die and put them back up to d10. Definitely something to consider.

Or, just boost wizards and sorcerers. The difference in BAB should still separate them from rogues and bards.

 

[shilsen]

Personally, I've always put dealing hit point damage very low on my scale of goals when playing a wizard. Having to take down an enemy via their hit points is for the weapon-using classes, and that's mostly the only option they have, which is also why I think they should outshine spellcasters in that area. As a wizard, my role is to be controlling the battlefield, hampering enemies, bolstering allies, and taking down enemies without regard to their hit points.

 

[Felon]

This topc has been hashed and re-hashed. Bottom-line: wizards easily have the best offense in the game. Comparing their raw damage output with that of a fighter against a single target is just indicative of someone who hasn't really given the matter much thought at all. Fighters do well in that type of comparison, because that's all they're good at. A wizard possesses universal offense. 100 points of damage hurts a monster. A hold monster spell dooms it.

Now, having said that, I do think it's a little too easy to bend a wizard over with a lousy grapple check or silence spell. Still spell and silent spell are nice and all, but there need to be a few more aggressive options.

 

[Particle_Man]

How about a maximized empowered disintegrate? How about a sonically-substituted maximized empowered fireball? And so on, and so forth.

Maximized empowered Disintegrate: 11th level spell slot.

Sonically-substituted maximized empowered fireball: 8th level spell slot.

Yeah. I see a problem here. These combo's require a high level wizard (15th in the latter case, or Epic in the former). But at those levels, many boss monsters will have high SR, or outright spell immunity, and also more than enough hit points to simply "take the hit" and keep coming at you. Heck magic items providing energy resistance and boosting saves are cheap at those levels. And god help the wizard with that disintegrate if the target has spell turning.

Someone else mentioned Hold Monster. The monster in question will get a saving throw every single round until it succeeds. 3.5 weakened a lot of spells like that.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

If someone can't do decent prep work and is complaining about how they aren't effective give them a sorceror or a psion instead.

I could never, ever play a wizard.

I'm quite enjoying my warmage, though. No planning involved whatsoever, just glorious, glorious slaughter.

Brad

 

[beaver1024]

The reason why wizards are weak is because spellcasting is the only thing they can do and in 3.5 they got nerfed into the ground. Metamagic feats are have also been nerfed into the ground.

The only way they can be viable is if the DM gives them special treatment.

 

[Ringmereth]

Wizards are not 'so weak'. Properly played, a single wizard can wipe the floor with a challenge above his CR. Granted, until about 5th level, melee and ranged classes shine out. But once the wizard gets his 3rd level spells-good stuff like fireball, fly, dispel magic, and hold person-he quickly becomes the most powerful character in the party. At high levels, a good party lives and dies by its wizard: the rest of the party is there to protect the wizard long enough for him to do his thing, and then mop up. The wizard not only has a lot of power to dish out damage with the likes of fireball, disintegrate, horrid wilting, cone of cold, and magic missile, but more importantly, can wreak havok with the opposition with battlefield control spells, buff up his companions, and drop save-or-die effects.

Defensively, the wizard has plenty going for him. First off, he's got his companions to protect him; that's what they're for. Secondly, since most wizards focus on Dex and Con, their saves are okay as well, and it's not too hard to get SR from some source or another. A wizard can crank out great defensive spells (excellent candidates for scrolls): mirror image and stoneskin to counter ranged and melee attacks, globe of invulnerablility, spell turning, protection from spells, and mind blank to fend off other casters, and plenty of other options; not to mention summoning allies to buy time to put up other defenses and flying or teleporting away if things look grim. If he's not reckless, a wizard is not that fragile in mid to high-level play.

And if he's willing to spend some feats and levels on sub-optimal stuff, some arcane caster PrC's are downright broken. A wizard willing to drop a few levels in a divine spellcasting class can take levels in Geomancer (getting medium BAB, good will and fort saves, casting arcane spells in armor with no spell failure, and druid-like traits in exchange for three levels of cleric) or Dweomerkeeper (spontaneous casting of a few spells, casting spells as SLA's (which means no components-gold, XP, focus...), and cheaper metamagic), and streight wizards get Incantatrix (lots of metamagic fun and some free feats), Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil (insanely good defensive SLA's and other abjuration goodies), and Red Wizard (boost your caster level into the stratosphere).

In short, wizards are nowhere near weak if played according to their intelligence (which gives you an RPing excuse to be as munchkiny as you want-if you can think of it, it'd be patiently obvious to any wizard worth his headband of intellect).

 

[apoptosis]

In OD&D I don't think wizard fireballs were capped, and they were doing 1d6 per level which was pretty much equivalent to peoples HD (at least until the Greyhawk supplement. Diaglo could provide more details).

From there on through 1e a wizards 10d6 fireball was still a significant threat to nearly any of the MM creatures (which were doing quite well to have 8d8 hp). Fighters by this time were typically doing, what, 1d8+8 damage a round or so?

I can't speak to 2e, never played it.
Cheers

Strangely, I actually prefer the AD&D way in this particular regard oddly enough..(not going into comparing editions at all just this aspect) and am probably one of the few who did. I guess i liked the lower overall hp and overall melee damage of AD&D..if only it was easy to morph the engine of 3.0/3.5 with the particulars of what i liked in AD&D i would be a lot happier.

I have noticed (in general..i am sure there are enough exceptions to show that i am incorrect) but there has been an increase in wizards number of spells they can cast but a concomitant decrease in the power of the individual spells...i tend to prefer fewer spells per day that are more powerful.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

The reason why wizards are weak is because spellcasting is the only thing they can do

Not true. IT is not literally "the only thing they can do," and if you play a wizard as just a spellcaster, you are greatly shortchanging the character's abilities.

One of a wizard's strong points is his tremendous intelligence and knowledge. This is very important, in combat or out of combat. The wizard is the one who knows things - this has been a feature of wizards in myth, legend, and literature, and it is also a feature of wizards in the game. Weaknesses of creatures, dangers of ancient magic items, meanings of mysterious symbols, etc... good DMs will let wizards use their Knowledge skills (and you should have several) to shine.