Wizards - Too Powerful?

[Saeviomagy]

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.

So he gets the halfling rogue. Who also, conveniently, is seperated from the herd a lot...

Also note that currently the typical wizard has a secondary statistic of either dex or con. Either stat can be argued as making a character appear 'buff' or big.

Finally - humans probably walk upright because it makes them seem bigger. Which would seem to suggest that the average predator would make judgements purely on height. And all characters have a height statistic... If you want to argue against this, then all characters have a weight statistic as well...

In short - I think that most of the time having an unintelligent foe geek the mage is just being a jerk and using metagaming of the worst sort.

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.

This one I agree with. Geek the mage is a great tactic for an intelligent foe. The typical adventuring mage should probably be taking great pains to NOT look like the archetype... Conversely, he should probably pony up to the party rogue for some neat bracers of AC, and a staff with some nice magical bonuses on it...

 

[ThirdWizard]

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).

Or there are more wizard players than cleric or druid players. Which would be backed up by my own experiences. More wizard PCs = more DMs complaining about those PCs.

Personally, the most powerful PC I ever saw was a cleric. He did end up a level behind everyone, though, because he kept using miracle. Epic game, btw.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

A thought: maybe the NPC wizard is much more powerful than the PC wizard is, due to his tactics. The NPC wizard will not take risks. He'll scry, research, prepare spells accordingly, and when anything unexpected complicates his plan he'll escape. When he takes a single point of damage, or when anybody resists one of his spells, he'll run. And he'll come back later, maybe wear down his opposition with hit-and-run attacks. Wizards can do this better than other classes because of Teleport.

Now, why is the PC hurt in comparison?
1) Fun. Playing a wizard with *total* caution and absolutely exhaustive planning would be boring. Running away every time the going gets tough is not fun.
2) Time. Most of us have limited gaming time and want our PCs to accomplish things. That means less scrying/researching/planning than an NPC wizard would do.
3) XP. You get a very little bit if you fight things that are beneath you, but most players prefer a challenge (for the inherent fun of facing risk and for the faster advancement).
4) Other PCs. You can't ditch the party. In some cases you can, but usually the wizard's tendency to bail is constrained by his allegiance to the party.

The typical adventuring party style - face risks, stay together, make the most of your 4 hours per week - limits the utility of the wizard class.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Now, why is the PC hurt in comparison?
1) Fun. Playing a wizard with *total* caution and absolutely exhaustive planning would be boring. Running away every time the going gets tough is not fun.
2) Time. Most of us have limited gaming time and want our PCs to accomplish things. That means less scrying/researching/planning than an NPC wizard would do.
3) XP. You get a very little bit if you fight things that are beneath you, but most players prefer a challenge (for the inherent fun of facing risk and for the faster advancement).
4) Other PCs. You can't ditch the party. In some cases you can, but usually the wizard's tendency to bail is constrained by his allegiance to the party.

An NPC wizard is more powerful than a PC wizard. Usually the NPC wizard has no qualms about reserving his entire spell list for a single encounter with the PCs, and blowing the whole thing in that single encounter.

The PC's should ALWAYS be worried about the next encounter. Always. That makes a wizard significantly harder to play, and significantly less effective.

 

[magic_gathering2001]

Ive seen the

I finally can see what is wrong with wizards

still if those are peoples only wizard problems then dont bother they arent that big

my group has maybe a single pers on who consistently plays one and he is definitly not the best PC

also there is an oversimplified triangle rogue beats wizard beats fighter beats rogue

and anoter problem with wizards is dispelling and counterspelling and stuff

personally i think rogues are more overpowered tan wizards ecause they can just buy themselves scrolls and such

 

[kigmatzomat]

So he gets the halfling rogue. Who also, conveniently, is seperated from the herd a lot...

Actually, I assumed the halfling rogue (human IMC) uses his hide/move silently and pretty much vanishes from sight when it isn't part of the "pack." Plus, the rogue tends to have a high spot and will see the tiger and a lot of predators will break off when spotted.

In short - I think that most of the time having an unintelligent foe geek the mage is just being a jerk and using metagaming of the worst sort.

Relying on my experience, mages are never as big, fast, or hardy as other adventurers of the same race based on all the mechanical values (height, weight, abilities, etc). The few that are big tend towards "Baron Harkonen/Jabba" big. As far as the size goes, I was assuming "armor makes you look big," as do swords and shields. A wizard, not wearing armor, does not seem as bulky or "hard" as the armored types. Also, the melee types *move* more like predators. It's my experience that the smaller races tend towards a much greater amount of caution (IMC the gnome digs, the halfling climbs) so the wizard may not be the prime physical target but he is the best combination of obliviousness and weakness.

This is of course mooted by smart melee characters who keep a perimeter around the mage. If the mage (or his protective screen) does something stupid, however, he's high on the list.

 

[Markn]

Or there are more wizard players than cleric or druid players. Which would be backed up by my own experiences. More wizard PCs = more DMs complaining about those PCs.

Personally, the most powerful PC I ever saw was a cleric. He did end up a level behind everyone, though, because he kept using miracle. Epic game, btw.

True, but I think that support my point too. If more people have the disposition to play the class there must be something about it...I will grant that their could be other reasons such as nostalgia from reading a novel or from an older edition but those that play the class over and over again have that disposition or personality type.

PS - I have seen other examples of impressive abilities such as a halfling paladin with a lance perform a spirited charge and do 70ish points of damage. That was pretty impressive. I have seen exalted clerics perform 200 points of damage to all opponents and die only to be returned to life the next round. I'm sure others have similar stories too!

 

[Goolpsy]

Well... even if you limit the wizards later spells. Metamagic feats will ensure that the fireball etc. is still able to deal 150 Damage, with ease, at higher levels.

A fighter just need a freedom of movement/Fly item, thought energy resistance would be good too. A fighter with god movement will surely be able to catch any foe, and deal lots of damage.

A full round action by a level a level 20 fighter can easily deal 150 damage, while paladins can do a bit more (Smite Evil) or on level 21 (greater smiting)
And they can do it EVERY round, the wizard noly got power to cast those oversizes fireballs or imbalancing spells 7 or 8 times in total (8th and 9th level spells with bonus)

 

[Li Shenron]

I would never go as far as saying that Wizards are too powerful, but they are definitely THE most versatile class of the whole game. Bards and Rogues can be very versatile too, but the versatility from spells is far wider than the one from skills.

Wizards and Sorcerer are quite on par with each other after all, and no one on these boards would probably dare to say that Sorcerers are too powerful right?

 

[LeapingShark]

For any campaign where it appears the wizard (or other spellcaster) is outclassing the other PCs with more power, the DM can (and probably should) use magic items to bring the fighter up to par. Items give the non-spellcasters (like the fighter) more combat options. For example off the top of my head; a fighter with Winged Boots, Necklace of Fireballs, a Bag of Tricks, and a Ring of the Ram is already a pseudo-wizard.