Wizards - Too Powerful?

[MoogleEmpMog]

In my experience, wizards are relatively poor at low levels, decent at mid levels, good at mid-high levels, and excellent past about 15th level.

Druids are excellent at 1st level, decent at low levels, and excellent from mid levels on.

Clerics are pretty much good from 1st level on, but never as dominating as either druids or wizards can be.

Sorcerers are better at low levels than wizards, but slower to advance and never quite as good from mid levels on.

Of course, from mid levels on, all four outpace virtually any non-caster...

 

[Nail]

Clerics are pretty much good from 1st level on, but never as dominating as either druids or wizards can be.

Actually, I'd say the reverse is true.

...'course, I play a Clr in our game.

 

[Angel of Adventure]

I would have to agree that a high level wizard can be far more valuable to a party than just about any other class. Yes, the break easily, but their spell selection, IMHO, is the best out there in terms of buffs, invulnerabilites, damage and overall versatility.

I've got a cohort in an epic level game (Orbius in Jester's SH: Great Conflicts, et al.) and he is often the MVP of our games. He's got divinations up the ying (Divine Oracle PrC) and some custom metamagic feats that let him super buff the party, well beyond the abilities of our party Sorcerer and Cleric. Plus, Time Stop always helps to set the battle field and even with many spell slots going to divinations/buffs, he's still got several Save or Die (or be horribly mutilated) spells to kick butt in a fight. Put him inside of a Prismatic Sphere (i.e.: the DON'T TOUCH ME!!! spell) and he's is often out of reach for the bad guys. I would say that the only thing that would make him even more insane would be the ability to cast Epic magic, which is sadly beyond the reach of all PCs in our game (way too much money and XPs).

So yes, Wizards are the most powerful in the game, though other classes do have options that can at least help them keep up, though not exceed the wizard.

-AoA

 

[JackGiantkiller]

Wow.

IME, the most powerful class is Cleric. They fight almost as well as the fighter (better, with two spells and the Persistant spell feat), have cool spells, turn undead, wear armor etc.

A monk of equal level, IME, always wastes the wizard. Always. i've experienced this as both the wizard and the monk.

At high levels, wizards have cool powers. And they can take out large groups of weak foes. But the BBEG, who will almost never fail on a save or die spell, gets whacked by the fighter. Esepcially in 3.5, where higher save dc's are harder to get.

I figure i'll just post my opinions without trying to justify them, for a change.

 

[Thundering_Dragon]

Wizards have awesome, unbridled power and nearly limitless versatility, but that power and versatility hinges on preparation and usage. If a Wizard knows, eight hours or more in advance what they will be facing and the conditions they will be facing "it" in, they are nigh unstoppable. With proper and moderate spell selection, a Wizard will defeat almost any opponent because they have a counter to almost every trick.

The problem Wizards have, and this is why I rank them slightly below Druids and perhaps Clerics, is that they suffer significantly in ambush situations, adventures where the clock is ticking, and wars of attrition. Wizards become significantly less awe inspiring in campaigns where there is more than one significant encounter per rest period. In fact, if it wasn't for the Wizards extremely versatile preparation and retreating spells, they would drop below Sorcerers in my book.

The best bet Wizards have when facing an unknown situation is Teleporting out, resting, casting Divinations and then charging into the breach. So long as they maintain that edge of preparation and foreknowledge, they will always win. So the key is to take that away from them, if you want to limit their power.

It really comes down to the type of campaign you're playing. If the villians are mostly reactive, there are rarely more than one or two encounters a day, and there's never a mission with a pressing need for a quick resolution, the Wizard is virtually a god. On the other hand, if the villians are proactive, actively harrying the PCs, there are three or more encounters during the day, and the party needs to get a great deal done in a short amount of time, the Wizard becomes what he should be, a limited usage big gun.

Until that changes, Clerics and Druids will always maintain a slight edge over Wizards, since they have as much or nearly as much awesome spellcasting power, but also other abilities to fall back on once that runs out, unlike the Wizard.

 

[noeuphoria]

I currently play in an epic campaign as a wiz 8/Fatespinner 5/Initiate of the 7 veils 7. I designed my character as an ultimate defensive caster. With int 33, she can throw up veils that create a save DC 29-or-die effect on anyone who attacks her. And once or twice a game, using sudden metamagic feats and fatespinner abilities, she can create some truly godly effects like a maximized, fully spun sphere of destruction, doing a touch attack each round for 216 damage (fort save DC 35 to take only 30). One the other hand, in a recent fight, she was nearly taken out by some 10th level sahagin with tridents and nets (surprised). It's my experience that high-level wizards can do almost anything well if they prepare; so sometimes it seems like that makes them the best. My wizard, if prepared (shapechange and limited wish for a divine power spell can be a great tank, or just a blaster. But, our sorceror can outblast me no problem, and our paladin/dragon slayer is still a better tank than me. It's the flexibility that's awesome, because the sorceror will always be a blaster, and the paladin will always only tank.

 

[Nine Hands]

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

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.

<snip>

Ahh the D&D game of absolutes is a complete pain especially at high levels. I spoke with a friend of mine and we came up with the idea that there are no immunities, nothing is perfect, instead spells grant you a bonus (+20 to save for immunity to a spell effect or energy resistance 120 for a immunity to some type of element). This works well with what you propose, +20 is a perfect number, which does not diminish the skills of others. Eventually I will drop it on my players and see what happens.

 

[Saeviomagy]

You know, a wizard really is plenty potent with just the spells gained automatically with a new level, IME. Perhaps not as potent as a sorceror, sure, under such an extreme restriction. But more than powerful enough in comparison to other classes.

No, I think you're wrong. I think a wizard with just his 2 level-up spells each level is pathetically weak.

Ahh the D&D game of absolutes is a complete pain especially at high levels. I spoke with a friend of mine and we came up with the idea that there are no immunities, nothing is perfect, instead spells grant you a bonus (+20 to save for immunity to a spell effect or energy resistance 120 for a immunity to some type of element). This works well with what you propose, +20 is a perfect number, which does not diminish the skills of others. Eventually I will drop it on my players and see what happens.

Although you also need to change the spells like I suggested - so that spells that normally, say, target a lock instead target a person who has to open the lock.

Also - fly is still a problem - it's a binary solution to any problem requiring climb or jump, and will usually do for balance as well.