Wizards - Too Powerful?

[Andre]

Wizards are my favorite class. But I've often wondered if they are not too powerful. At upper levels, they can (litterally) do anything, far beyond the abilities of other classes. Even before that, limited wish makes them near unstopable - compared to others classes of the same level.

I haven't seen this problem since 1E. In 3.x the biggest issue with spellcasters in general is (IMO) save-or-die/save-or-incapacitated, which is a problem with more than just wizards. A well-balanced party is still the best and smart spellcasters will make sure the meat-shields are well-buffed and capable.

If wizards are too powerful in a particular campaign, there are a number of options to tone them down a bit. Requiring them to take other, non-wizard classes at certain points slows down the acquisition of those problematic high level spells (IMO, if the sorcerer had the same spell progression as wizards, a lot more people would play them - that one level makes a noticeable difference).

Strictly enforcing material components, especially the rare and/or expensive ones, is a pain, but works to limit some spells, such as stoneskin. Ditto with enforcing the extremely costly RAW for adding spells to a spellbook. And frankly, a GM should be throwing a variety of challenges at the party so each member gets a chance to shine - creatures with significant SR, diplomatic encounters, etc. can't easily be bypassed by a wizard.

I've wondered if the game would be better served if straight wizards were relegated to NPC status - the kings advisor who gives the heroes the backing they need for the quest, the powerful arch villian scheming in his (almost) unasailble tower. Any other arcane spellcasting class would be open to PCs - sorcerers, magistars, (maybe even specialist wizards),etc.

But pure, unlimited wizards used by the DM only, forcing the PC's to use more flavorful varients.

Just a thought.

Interesting idea and certainly workable. You might encounter some resistance from your players, as some folks really like playing wizards. Personally, I prefer sorcerers anyway, so I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[ForceUser]

As DM I always make it a point to have some situations that play to a class's strengths, and some to its weaknesses; that way everyone gets their moment in the sun, but no one character dominates the game. As long as a DM keeps that philosophy in mind, no core class is overpowered--thought clerics and druids come close.

 

[Endovior]

Hmm. It depends. If the Wizard in question KNOWS what he's going up against, then he has an advantage. If not, he has a disadvantage. You could say the same (to a lesser extent) of any other class that prepares spells. Therefore, the solution is to give him some information, but not all, so as to always have a significant threat on the side that the Wizard didn't prepare for.

Or just lots of foes with SR.

 

[DrNilesCrane]

I think it varies quite a bit with the indiviudal player as well as the DM, but it seems that the Cleric (and perhaps Druid) really shine even more with every suppliment published, since new spells (unless house ruled by the DM) are instantly available to them where as wizards require research/payment/level-up to add them to their limited selection (which can be physically taken away in the wizard's case).

Add in that clerics in particular are getting more access to arcane spells through domains and the line continues to blur, but leaving the wizards (and sorcerers) still stuck with poor BAB, saves, skills, etc.

I'd argue that the wizards and sorcerers seem to get the short end of the stick, but it really varies by group.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I've never had that much problem with wizards. Or clerics. Part of it is that I assume the bad guys at higher levels can "meta game" too, meaning that they understand the strengths and weaknesses of magic and take pains to mitigate it. The best way for a demon to fight a wizard is to spend most of his time polymorphed into a troll so the wizard preps fire spells.

Plus wizards are fragile and rarely physically buff. that alone makes them a prime target for unintelligent monster attacks (hungry tiger sees a "herd" of adventurers. Per tiger SOP, he identifies a smaller one that doesn't seem nearly as big as the others and seems to sleep a lot. It waits for one of those sleeping periods and pounces, attempting to kill the weakling quickly.) and intelligent monsters know that if someone is wearing expensive clothing that isn't armor they may be a caster that should be killed first.

Plus, assassins IMC like to attack during moments of weakness: the bath or, err, intimate periods.

An assassin I've never used was a tailor.
"You'll need to get out of those gaudy things to try this on."
"Hey, those have kept me alive."
"These ugly things? You shouldn't be caught dead in them. Now put on that waist coat."
"This is kinda tight" *STABBITY* "and it pinches....." *thud*
"

 

[Warehouse23]

Playing a wizard these days, I do not think that they are overpowered. The big problem is in spells per day. I have all sorts of spells in my character's spell book, but never know what the adventuring day will be like. There's nothing worse than being called upon for fire support and discovering that you have nothing left prepared other than tenser's floating disk and an unseen servant. Likewise, the party always wants another levitate spell just when you thought you'd need more combat spells that day.

 

[Markn]

The trick in comparing them is to leave the variables in, but to keep them variable.

Bye
Thanee

This is quite true! There will always be a debate about who is more powerful - the wizard, the druid, the cleric, the fighter (or what have you). The thing I find most interesting in these discussions is that many people say Class X isn't that powerful if you do this to them. Class Y is stopped when you do such and such. I rarely hear that exact same argument against fighters. To me that means by the RAW, by the standard way to play you have to do certain things to keep these classes in line. If you have to encourage fight after fight to exhaust the wizard or do anything special to account for that class then something is not balanced.

PS - I agree with the statment that someone said about a class is only as good as the player/dm who plays it. However, all things being equal certain classes DO come out on top.

PPS - At serveral conventions I've seen I have come across high level battles with a best of the best attitude in them. Rarely do I see effective fighters in these combats. Druids actually shine very well at this.

 

[DreamChaser]

PS - I agree with the statment that someone said about a class is only as good as the player/dm who plays it. However, all things being equal certain classes DO come out on top.

All things being equal? There is no equal. I have never met a player who can play every class with equal efficacy. Nor have I met a DM who can challenge all classes perfectly. Admittedly I haven't met every gamer by any means but the sample I have met indicates a trend toward certain people being geared toward certain situations and classes.

IMO, the fact that this debate exists (and is not agreed with or negated universally) is evidence that the wizard is as near to balanced as possible. The thread provides useful suggestions for a person (player or DM) to attempt to adapt to their own weaknesses as a gamer, however.

DC

 

[Markn]

All things being equal? There is no equal. I have never met a player who can play every class with equal efficacy. Nor have I met a DM who can challenge all classes perfectly. Admittedly I haven't met every gamer by any means but the sample I have met indicates a trend toward certain people being geared toward certain situations and classes.

IMO, the fact that this debate exists (and is not agreed with or negated universally) is evidence that the wizard is as near to balanced as possible. The thread provides useful suggestions for a person (player or DM) to attempt to adapt to their own weaknesses as a gamer, however.

DC

These threads are certainly constructive for people dealing with issues within their own game.

I disagree that things can't be equal however. It's true that every group, even every player has their own strengths and weaknesses and are geared for certain class types or campaign types. But, if you view a broad spectrum of players in a broad spectrum of games certain data become repetitive. This thread is evidence of that. Not everyone agrees but a certain percentage believe that wizards are vastly more powerful. Some others think that druids are more powerful while other believe a cleric is the most powerful. All in all, over time I have seen more powerful wizard threads than powerful X threads combined. This means one of two things - Either the wizard IS more powerful or more people are suited to playing the wizard class (and if this is true then that still backs up the wizard being more powerful since more people are inclined towards that class). Again, it comes back to people having to prepare a certain way to deal with the wizard class. Maybe that is how they prepare naturally for a game but then again how many times have you had to change a campaign or series of battles because the fighter was able to get around most obstacles or just obliterate the opponents.

For me, while I think the wizard and wizard type classes are powerful I don't think they are out of hand. I have seen some crazy stuff in most other classes. In fact, I would go so far as to say that fighters and fighter types for the most part are lacking. They seem to take a back door to the other classes.

PS - For the record, in my current campaign I have a rogue/wizard/arcane trickster that is pretty absurd. He has an item improves his sneak attack, a ring of greater blinking and a ring of great invis and boy is that pretty nuts against a lot of enemies.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Strictly enforcing material components, especially the rare and/or expensive ones, is a pain, but works to limit some spells, such as stoneskin.

For some spells this works just fine - but there are a lot of cost-free spells which have a lot of power behind them.

Ditto with enforcing the extremely costly RAW for adding spells to a spellbook.

Any wizard worth his salt gets a boccob's blessed book. And having a large reportoire is NOT generally the problem - the problem is that there are a small selection of spells which are far, far too good.

Namely the 'save or be incapacitated' set.

Also I have a problem with the sheer quantity of spells which 'break the rules' so to speak. The fact that they break the rules tends to mean that they don't mesh well with the party, and make the spellcaster steal the spotlight when they're used.

For instance - silence. It's an absolute "X does not make noise". If, instead, it were "+20 to listen DC's for actions within the area", it would have the same overall effect, but would synergise very well with the skills other party members may have. No longer would a cleric with a silence spell be the epitome of quiet - instead he would merely have a reasonable chance to succeed against a not-particularly perceptive monster, while the rogue is almost undetectable.

Or knock. Currently it cracks any lock. If, instead, it allowed a target a single chance to make an open locks roll with a significant bonus (say +20, that means that it'll hit DC 30 locks on a take 10 with no dex bonus), then it would not make the wizard the automatic lock-opener. Instead a concerted effort made would allow the wizard and the rogue to open the most difficult lock.

etc etc.

In short - we need more spells that are complimentary, rather than replacements for mundane abilities.

I find that by far the best effects from a wizard in the average party can be gained when his spells are used to increase the abilities of other party members.

Finally - fighters have no problem in combat unless you start talking about save-or-incapacitation spells. Even then, there's a great deal of countermeasures (most of which should be supplied by the party spellcasters). The thing about a fighter is that once you have built him, he's set in stone and unfixable. The choices that a player makes in his feats can make or break a fighter. Since the average player seems unwilling or unable to consider options with any foresight, it's very often that a fighter will be overshadowed by the rest of the party. The fact that a mildly powergamed fighter can deal out 100+damage per round, every round at level 10 would seem to suggest that he's not really got a lot to worry about from the team wizard on that front.

Where the fighter falls down is that he has NOTHING ELSE. I think that too many rewrites of the fighter concentrate on combat effectiveness, and few of them consider the possibilities of increase the non-combat options of the class. Upping skill points to 4/level and broadening the class skills would go a long way to makeing the fighter a fun team member.