Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andre" data-source="post: 2339699" data-attributes="member: 25930">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. 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andre, post: 2339699, member: 25930"] 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 [I]stoneskin[/I]. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification