shallowsoul |
Are spellcasters such as Wizards really as big of problem when defeating encounters as people make them out to be? Now I'm not saying there hasn't been spellcasters who have dominated, but I don't think it's as common as some make it seem.
I can only tell you from my personal experience that sure there are times when they dominate but there are also lots of times when the right spells aren't chosen, no 15 minute work days, and no buffing before each battle.
Kolokotroni |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are spellcasters such as Wizards really as big of problem when defeating encounters as people make them out to be? Now I'm not saying there hasn't been spellcasters who have dominated, but I don't think it's as common as some make it seem.
I can only tell you from my personal experience that sure there are times when they dominate but there are also lots of times when the right spells aren't chosen, no 15 minute work days, and no buffing before each battle.
Spellcasters have always been an issue of potential awesome, more then a guaranteed awesome. As you say, sometimes you dont have the time, the preparation or the resources to be awesome as a caster. It will happen at most tables. The problem is they often do get close to their potential, and when they do its a not just a matter of domination, its a literal game changer.
A spellcaster acheiving his potential in game isnt playing the same game as a non-spell caster. The fighter and rogue act within the situation, the spellcaster changes the situation. Thats narrative power. And while it wont happen all the time, when it does, results are dramatic and they stand out regardless of their frequency. Its very hard psychologically to ignore those moments in favor of the 'average' experience.
Think of it this way. Lets say you have a party. A cleric, a wizard, a rogue and a fighter.
The rogue and the fighter will perform about the same every session. Their skillset is straight forward and just about always available.
The cleric and wizard will only perform at their best when their prepared spells match the situations at hand.
Lets say over 5 encountersthe fighter and rogue perform normally, lets call that 5 out of 10. So their total 'performance' for these encounters is 25. It is however unlikely that they will ever peroform higher then say a 6 or 7. So their feats and actions dont stand out as much.
The wizard and cleric, they are going to probably perform bellow average when their spells dont pay off, and WAY above average when their spells do pay off.
So the wizard maybe spends 3 of 5 encountersat a 3-4. But for 2 encounters when they are doing their thing, they are at a 10, maybe 11 out of 10. So even if their total is only 29, (not that much higher then 25) those 2 10's really stand out in your mind when you think about how things went.
Is this an issue? Sort of, but really I think its a matter of giving non-spellcasters more narrative power so they can hit the high notes now and again
MrSin |
Are spellcasters such as Wizards really as big of problem when defeating encounters as people make them out to be?
So who are these 'people' and what exactly are they saying?
I mean that's pretty vague. it could mean casters have great control of the story because they have access to spells, which is probably not what the fighter is great at, and it could be that casters always dominate in anyone's hands, which probably isn't true.
I can only tell you from my personal experience that sure there are times when they dominate but there are also lots of times when the right spells aren't chosen, no 15 minute work days, and no buffing before each battle.
Might be best to give extra details. Ideally a caster should keep some spell slots open so he always has some flexible spells, conserve, and use buffs before combat if he can and that sort of system mastery goes a long way. They have some pretty amazing potential.
andreww |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The cleric and wizard will only perform at their best when their prepared spells match the situations at hand.
The only real issue with this is that from about level 5 onwards it is really not difficult to prepare a fairly generic spell list of useful spells which will easily apply to pretty much any common situation you might find yourself in. You then fill in any very niche spells with scrolls and/or wands.
Cerberus Seven |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are spellcasters such as Wizards really as big of problem when defeating encounters as people make them out to be? Now I'm not saying there hasn't been spellcasters who have dominated, but I don't think it's as common as some make it seem.
I can only tell you from my personal experience that sure there are times when they dominate but there are also lots of times when the right spells aren't chosen, no 15 minute work days, and no buffing before each battle.
Not in our games. SR, energy resistance, concentration checks, saves, range/positioning issues, and other factors can and do mess with both party spellcasters and enemy spellcasters. This is not to say that the potential power of a well-prepared, expertly-built, and decently equipped high level wizard isn't a terrifying thing. It is, but a good GM knows how to make encounters and adventuring days that one party member's capabilities don't trivialize.
Scavion |
Are spellcasters such as Wizards really as big of problem when defeating encounters as people make them out to be? Now I'm not saying there hasn't been spellcasters who have dominated, but I don't think it's as common as some make it seem.
It requires decent system mastery to show the Caster Martial disparity. To parrot what was said earlier, A Rogue or Fighter plays along the story, a Wizard changes it.
A well-made boom mage puts out damage that easily trumps what martials feasibly put out and they do so at range, multiple times, and in an area. A lot of people will tell you it's better to play Control Wizard and they'd be sorta right except the best solutions kill enemies.
Martials are often kept relevant since they're usually the ones who bring the damage but as soon as you step in with a caster who can do the same, it gets wonky. A wildshaping Druid is disgustingly powerful in melee and is still a threatening caster. A buffed Cleric performs at a level comparable to most martials and has Angels backing him up. A big point is that casters maintain the ability to solve other problems than combat whereas the bad martials usually can ONLY do combat sorta.
The supposed checks and balances of Casting is generally poorly checked or balanced. They can relatively easily avoid concentration checks or maintain a high enough check to make it trivial. SR is silly nonsense when they start to stack caster level increases and alot of Wizards play Elves for a reason. Energy Resistance is meaningless to smart Wizards who roll Admixture or keep an Elemental Metamagic Rod which keeps the descriptor but changes the energy damage.
Rub-Eta |
At my table it's only me and one other (2 out of 6 players) that does any min-maxing. The rest do have some terribly built characters.
With that said: When we play spell casters we don't outshine them because of the classes. In fact, it's when we play martial characters that we really out-pace them.
The two current spell casters (not optimised) mainly serve as utility for what the Long Bow wielding Fighter can't fix. The Rogue have about the same impact (Yes: Our Rogue is more usefull. At least more than one of our spell casters. But the Rogue does have about x2 wealth in magic items as anybody else in the party). And I don't see anything wrong with it. Sure they could have better numbers, but that's not why they want to play.
My Alchemist do about 1/3-1/2 the work the Fighter does and could also replace both casters and the Rogue. But that's because I want to be able to fill every hole they don't feel like filling, or know that they should, when needed.
It totaly depends on what group you play in. In my'n, casters don't have that much impact compared to the one killing everything.
Mojorat |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards being a problem is a function of player dynamics rather than the game. I've rarely ever seen it be a problem other than as a thought experiment.
Currently I'm dming a group of 4 pc wizard cavalier rogue paladin. The wizard is played by my weakest player and the rogue my strongest. Ultimately player system mastery is the biggest issue.
Anzyr |
22 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Suddenly glad I save some of my posts.)
The only reason people don't see how truly overpowered the Wizard can be is due to a number of reasons that I'll list in order of likeliness that you haven't seen a Wizard that tells the universe to go play in the corner while the grown-ups are talking.
1. System Mastery - Most people don't have the system mastery to play an all powerful wizard. I mean ya its cool to have infinite Simulacrums without impacting your wealth by level, but be honest how many people that play do you think know how to do that?
2. Gentleman's Agreement - Once we realize how limited the number of players with the system mastery to play an all power wizard is, we have to take into account Gentleman's Agreements. Sure I could sit down at my friends game and play a Wizard that obviates everything he prepared, but you know what'd that make me? A jerk. Most players who have the requisite system mastery realize this and thus opt not to show up to a game with a character who can say "A God am I" and be completely correct.
3. Level of Game - Let me preface this by being perfectly clear about something... low level wizards are still very strong. But most players do not play games at the highest of levels where the Wizard reaches the zenith of his arbitrary power. If Wizards at the tables you play are only making it to 12th level or so... your missing 8 levels of quadratic power.
4. Houserules - When people talk about the all powerful Wizard, their talking about the kind of Wizard that you can play with the rules that are in the books. That being said, please note that just because a GM can say "Sorry Anzyr, even though the rules let you make infinite Simulacrums of yourself, in my game you can't." does not make Wizard any weaker. The very fact that you need to houserule that (or preferably get a Gentlemen's Agreement) indicates that the class is so strong that you need to change the rules to accommodate it.
5. Fun - I had originally intended to place this higher on the list, but its subjective so I ended up throwing it here. The last reason you don't see all-powerful wizards is because quite frankly its not much fun to play one. Half the fun of the game is knowing that the outcome of a fight depends on the falling of a few dice and well... all powerful wizards don't play dice. Playing the game with the certainty that you will always win gets pretty boring as anyone who has played a game on "god mode" can tell you.
Note: None of the above makes the Wizard any less powerful.
Marthkus |
Anyone else consider that since spellcasters require more rules-knowledge that people with decent system mastery are more likely to play them while your martials may be noobs?
Right now I am in a campaign where I am a fighter in the same team as a druid, ranger, and paladin.
Between the paladin only having 15 strength at 7 and the ranger dealing with softcover/cover and making poor use of her AC, I am the combat powerhouse. Higher AC, HP, better damage, more social skills, my saves surpass the ranger but the paladin has 18 cha so she has better saves. Aside from that my "third-rate" class easily outperforms the other two.
I think a large part of the caster/martial disparagy comes from the likely difference in system mastery.
*Oh and the druid poops out flaming spheres that never seem to hit and may fire a crossbow when "it" doesn't think flaming sphere is a spell you need to concentrate for. "it"s AC does most of "it"s combat contribution.
VampByDay |
I think this CAN be an issue if the gm lets players walk all over them. One way to keep spell asters from roflstomping encounters is to force them to play by their own rules.
Okay, you want to cast WISH? Fine, where are your spell components? No, I know you have the money, but you need to USE that money to buy them. No, I know you didn't buy components last time you were in town.
Marthkus |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this CAN be an issue if the gm lets players walk all over them. One way to keep spell asters from roflstomping encounters is to force them to play by their own rules.
Okay, you want to cast WISH? Fine, where are your spell components? No, I know you have the money, but you need to USE that money to buy them. No, I know you didn't buy components last time you were in town.
I do find that following the rules tends to limit caster power.
Insain Dragoon |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else consider that since spellcasters require more rules-knowledge that people with decent system mastery are more likely to play them while your martials may be noobs?
Right now I am in a campaign where I am a fighter in the same team as a druid, ranger, and paladin.
Between the paladin only having 15 strength at 7 and the ranger dealing with softcover/cover and making poor use of her AC, I am the combat powerhouse. Higher AC, HP, better damage, more social skills, my saves surpass the ranger but the paladin has 18 cha so she has better saves. Aside from that my "third-rate" class easily outperforms the other two.
I think a large part of the caster/martial disparagy comes from the likely difference in system mastery.
*Oh and the druid poops out flaming spheres that never seem to hit and may fire a crossbow when "it" doesn't think flaming sphere is a spell you need to concentrate for. "it"s AC does most of "it"s combat contribution.
The other players being terrible at the game doesn't validate the argument that full casters are balanced. Especially since that Druid is either terrible or intentionally self nerfing.
Mathius |
Wow Anzyr that is the best reasoning I have seen for the overpowered nature of the caster.
Speaking from experience, my high level game became more like shadowrun and less like DnD. Spells were used bypass encounters and many things became trivial. We still had fun but the cavalier was simply a warhead to deliver and the rogue was comic relief and a good UMD. I let the rogue take leadership to make up for it.
As to problems with casters I have had several sessions of game skipped simply by using cloudwalk and control weather.
knightnday |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are spellcasters such as Wizards really as big of problem when defeating encounters as people make them out to be? Now I'm not saying there hasn't been spellcasters who have dominated, but I don't think it's as common as some make it seem.
I can only tell you from my personal experience that sure there are times when they dominate but there are also lots of times when the right spells aren't chosen, no 15 minute work days, and no buffing before each battle.
No. Few things are as bad as the boards make them. As several posters have noted, using the rules and in general working together instead of 'winning' removes large sections of the perceived problem.
MrSin |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Few things are as bad as the boards make them. As several posters have noted, using the rules and in general working together instead of 'winning' removes large sections of the perceived problem.
I wouldn't say it makes them not a problem. Sort of sweeps them under the rogue or makes them more obscure.
Arachnofiend |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
knightnday wrote:No. Few things are as bad as the boards make them. As several posters have noted, using the rules and in general working together instead of 'winning' removes large sections of the perceived problem.I wouldn't say it makes them not a problem. Sort of sweeps them under the rogue or makes them more obscure.
That was probably a typo but it was still funny.
Charlie Brooks RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32 |
You know, I'm running a 14th-level game and I've had to redesign my adventures a little bit because the spellcaster is feeling useless. With so many creatures having spell resistance or energy resistance, she's run into situations where she feels useless in combat.
Now granted, she's a blaster character, which I understand isn't the game-breaking type of spellcaster people often bring up, but I imagine that most people who play sorcerers are looking to toss around fire and lightning.
Arnwolf |
You know, I'm running a 14th-level game and I've had to redesign my adventures a little bit because the spellcaster is feeling useless. With so many creatures having spell resistance or energy resistance, she's run into situations where she feels useless in combat.
Now granted, she's a blaster character, which I understand isn't the game-breaking type of spellcaster people often bring up, but I imagine that most people who play sorcerers are looking to toss around fire and lightning.
Charlie, I completely agree that a Blaster spellcaster has a very rough time.
Eirikrautha |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, yes, especially in PFS. In fact, I will go so far as to say that by the time you reach 5th-7th level, you cannot survive most modules without at least one competent caster. At which point the game devolves into one of three options:
A. Caster has exactly the right spell to trivialize the encounter.
B. Caster has a spell to make the encounter survivable, so that the rest of the party can kill the mobs without a severe chance of death.
C. TPK.
The only way non-casters can even begin to survive is to become like casters themselves. They must burn WPL on magic items that give them a chance not to be invalidated immediately (potions of fly, ways to combat magical darkness, ways to combat suggestion, etc.). The only non-casters that can hope to live to retirement are the ones who become casters (or their equals) via magic items or class abilities.
knightnday |
knightnday wrote:No. Few things are as bad as the boards make them. As several posters have noted, using the rules and in general working together instead of 'winning' removes large sections of the perceived problem.I wouldn't say it makes them not a problem. Sort of sweeps them under the rogue or makes them more obscure.
I suppose it depends on the game and the players. The perceived problems that I see on these and other boards tend to get short circuited with applications of "no" as well as not giving people free reign to run wild.
I don't see spellcasters as a big problem at all. In part, we generally start characters at first level and when I don't start off the characters at first level, you can't come to my table having bought all the stuff you mini-max to the nth degree. You adventure for the neat doo dads.
Right. Much of the hubbub about wizards comes from speculation and builds that appear whole cloth rather than coming up organically. Not that there cannot be problems with wizards, but seldom to the level that you see online. I may be blessed to have not run across many players that want to outshine the rest of the group or exploit questionable/unclear rules.
Xexyz |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh, I don't have a problem with it in my game. In a more broad sense, I don't have a problem that casters have more power potential than non-casters; I don't need everything to be balanced (and in fact I prefer it not to be) like a video game in order to have fun. Pretty much the same goes for my players. They pick their classes based on what they want to play, not what they think is going to be the most mechanically powerful.
Artanthos |
The only way non-casters can even begin to survive is to become like casters themselves. They must burn WPL on magic items that give them a chance not to be invalidated immediately (potions of fly, ways to combat magical darkness, ways to combat suggestion, etc.). The only non-casters that can hope to live to retirement are the ones who become casters (or their equals) via magic items or class abilities.
An option the rules allow for. Any character can choose to carry their own magic, just in case.
Scavion |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Insain Dragoon wrote:Blood moneyYou're trying to use one or two poorly worded spells to argue the entire class is broken.
That one spell is broken. The class as a whole is not.
Considering casters are made up almost entirely of their spells, if their spells are broken or have the choice of being overpowered, then yes, they are overpowered.
Artanthos |
Artanthos wrote:Considering casters are made up almost entirely of their spells, if their spells are broken or have the choice of being overpowered, then yes, they are overpowered.Insain Dragoon wrote:Blood moneyYou're trying to use one or two poorly worded spells to argue the entire class is broken.
That one spell is broken. The class as a whole is not.
Arguing that an entire class is overpowered because one or two spells were poorly conceived would be the same as arguing martials were overpowered because one or two feats were poorly conceived.
With the level of system mastery needed to truly break the game as a wizard, you could just as easily break the game with a barbarian or fighter.
LoneKnave |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, no you couldn't. Even at worst the fighter and the barbarian is going to be doing a lot of single target damage. And that caps out at enemy health.
Meanwhile a broken wizard that actually puts his mind to it is reshaping the entire campaign setting if he feels like it.
Well, of course the fighter could take leadership and have a wizard cohort...
MrSin |
With the level of system mastery needed to truly break the game as a wizard, you could just as easily break the game with a barbarian or fighter.
I'd imagine the wizard's ability to bend space and time and generally be god-like has a lot more potential than martials ability to whack things with a stick. Also a lot more easier, a single spell is a lot easier and requires less investment than a feat chain, and feats and combinations only add to the power of a wizard.
That said, there are games where wizards aren't nearly the gods, and fighter's aren't nearly the mortals.
Scavion |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scavion wrote:Artanthos wrote:Considering casters are made up almost entirely of their spells, if their spells are broken or have the choice of being overpowered, then yes, they are overpowered.Insain Dragoon wrote:Blood moneyYou're trying to use one or two poorly worded spells to argue the entire class is broken.
That one spell is broken. The class as a whole is not.
Arguing that an entire class is overpowered because one or two spells were poorly conceived would be the same as arguing martials were overpowered because one or two feats were poorly conceived.
With the level of system mastery needed to truly break the game as a wizard, you could just as easily break the game with a barbarian or fighter.
Yeah no.
A Wizard who wants to smash open your game like an egg on the pan can do so very easily. A Barbarian or Fighter depends on the DM not shafting him with intelligent enemies.
A Wizard can make a timeless Demiplane and do whatever the damn well he pleases.
Xexyz |
Yeah no.
A Wizard who wants to smash open your game like an egg on the pan can do so very easily. A Barbarian or Fighter depends on the DM not shafting him with intelligent enemies.
A Wizard can make a timeless Demiplane and do whatever the damn well he pleases.
So what? How's an extra-dimensional Demiplane going to break my game? How are any spells going to break my game?
Scavion |
Scavion wrote:So what? How's an extra-dimensional Demiplane going to break my game? How are any spells going to break my game?Yeah no.
A Wizard who wants to smash open your game like an egg on the pan can do so very easily. A Barbarian or Fighter depends on the DM not shafting him with intelligent enemies.
A Wizard can make a timeless Demiplane and do whatever the damn well he pleases.
Simulacrum would do it pretty easily.
A Time-less Demiplane essentially gives Wizards an infinite amount of time to accomplish their goals.
Prince of Knives |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A well-made boom mage puts out damage that easily trumps what martials feasibly put out and they do so at range, multiple times, and in an area. A lot of people will tell you it's better to play Control Wizard and they'd be sorta right except the best solutions kill enemies.
I keep hearing variations on this - "death is the best crowd control" being the big one - and I cannot help but wonder how in all nine flaming hells people developed this idea. Generally speaking, killing something is at least a two-round process, and the effort to do so that quickly is considerable. In comparison, making someone fail a save against your hold monster is very easy, and it takes them out of the fight just as completely as if they were dead. So what that they're not actually dead-dead just yet? You've got plenty of time to make that happen.
Scavion |
Scavion wrote:A well-made boom mage puts out damage that easily trumps what martials feasibly put out and they do so at range, multiple times, and in an area. A lot of people will tell you it's better to play Control Wizard and they'd be sorta right except the best solutions kill enemies.I keep hearing variations on this - "death is the best crowd control" being the big one - and I cannot help but wonder how in all nine flaming hells people developed this idea. Generally speaking, killing something is at least a two-round process, and the effort to do so that quickly is considerable. In comparison, making someone fail a save against your hold monster is very easy, and it takes them out of the fight just as completely as if they were dead. So what that they're not actually dead-dead just yet? You've got plenty of time to make that happen.
Well I've seen optimized damage dealing Wizards put out enough damage to put a Pit Fiend down to about 20-30 hp and that's if he saves twice.
Insain Dragoon |
Scavion wrote:So what? How's an extra-dimensional Demiplane going to break my game? How are any spells going to break my game?Yeah no.
A Wizard who wants to smash open your game like an egg on the pan can do so very easily. A Barbarian or Fighter depends on the DM not shafting him with intelligent enemies.
A Wizard can make a timeless Demiplane and do whatever the damn well he pleases.
Blood Money
HasteCreate Pit
Summoning
Planar Binding
Demiplanes
Emergency force Shield
Color Spray
Grease
In a hurry and off the top of my head these are some very powerful spells that make GMs hate life.
gnoams |
A wizard can only "Smash open your game," if the GM lets them. I can definitely see wizards causing problems for new and inexperienced GMs, who will not know what to expect and prepare for. They definitely can cause issues for people who want to run published material as written with no adaptation to fit their players (such as with society play).
I have never had any issues with spellcasters breaking any home game I've run from 2nd ed to pf, from first level to 20th.
People here seem to be talking like the PC wizard is the only game in town. Like there isn't countless beings far more powerful than your one wizard. Like nobody will stop you from doing whatever you please. Spellcasters are powerful people to be sure, but in a world with actual living gods, they're a far cry from the top of the food chain.
Scavion |
Pretty much the only way to keep a super 9/9 spellcaster from ruining your game is gentlemen's agreement or enemy spellcasters.
Yep. And using Enemy spellcasters is really difficult to balance since the idea is generally to challenge the players not just flat out kill them.
And considering how binary a lot of spells are, especially at higher levels, a lot of fights end up becoming coin tosses.
Covent |
I would say that a Wizard is a game changer if several things are true.
1.) The wizard's player has average or above system mastery and no wish to play at a level below that player's ability, ie. deliberately playing a less powerful version of a class or taking a less powerful option on purpose.
2.) The game is run close to RAW and the DM/GM does not use Fiat on unexpected uses of spells or combinations of spells that follow RAW. This of course does not mean that making a decision about unclear rules such as how to heal the synthesist summoners ediolin at release is fiat, it is not. Fiat in this case would be something like "No, you cannot Teleport back to town at night for a safe place to sleep, while traveling."
What makes a Wizard so powerful however is the fact that in the Spells class feature he has modular class abilities.
Basically it is not spell-casters that have a huge amount of power beyond what they should, it is the breadth and depth of power invested in spells and their availability that affects game play.
This does of course apply more to the arcane spell list than the divine due to the fact that at most levels the arcane spell list has more "Good" options.
It does not hurt that every time a new book is published spell options usually increase while non-spell options are usually trades rather than options.
I wrote a post about spells that I feel are game changers when acquired and will link it Here.
TL;DR: Spells are the real power not the wizard class, and short of house-rules or Fiat it is difficult to deal with a competent or above player playing a Wizard.
Disclaimer: All of the above is of course simply my opinion and in no way definitive. I try to use logic and numbers as much as possible however as I am human I can of course have and express bias at one point or another.
gnoams |
I assume that there is indeed a gentlemans agreement between spellcasters regarding the use of high level magic. Being a high level spellcaster is like carying around a pocket full of nukes. They're there as a threat but you really don't want to use em cause as soon as you do, the other guy is going to as well and that doesn't end well for anyone.
Xexyz |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blood Money
Haste
Create Pit
Summoning
Planar Binding
Demiplanes
Emergency force Shield
Color Spray
GreaseIn a hurry and off the top of my head these are some very powerful spells that make GMs hate life.
You just listed a bunch of spells, none of which have the ability to ruin my game.
Pretty much the only way to keep a super 9/9 spellcaster from ruining your game is gentlemen's agreement or enemy spellcasters.
Again, how? You people just keep making these vague claims about how spellcasters wreck games like it's self-evident or something. And "Gentlemen's Agreement?" Um, the entire concept of a role-playing game is a Gentlemen's agreement. Every session ever played has a bevy of implicit agreements that make playing the game even possible. You say without a gentlemen's agreement a spellcaster is going to ruin my game? No. Without a gentlemen's agreement here's what happens:
GM: You're on the way to your dungeon when a great wyrm red dragon swoops out of the sky and breathes on you. Then, a Gate opens and 10 balors swarm out to attack you. You're all dead.
Players: WTF??? We're all level 1!!!
GM: So? Nothing in the rules says that can't happen.