|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few house rules which I have recently implemented. I'm confident that these should resolve some of the problems addressed above.
Craft Points
The optional craft point system from Unearthed Arcana will allow PC’s the ability to craft items throughout an adventure.
Crafting Time
When using the craft skill, progress will be calculated in gold pieces instead of silver pieces. Magical items now take one day to craft for every two caster levels of the item being crafted.
Hit Points
When characters roll for hit points upon attaining a new level, they receive a minimum number of hit points equal to half their hit die.
Spellbooks
Spells now take up one page, no matter the level of the spell. It now takes one day to learn a spell and copy it into a spellbook instead of one day to learn a spell and another day to copy it.
Another change I'm implementing is a total overhaul of the magic items in the DMG. Many prices will be lowered and several items will become more powerful. What's the point of having a blinding shield if the save DC is 13? Why should a healing potion which heals 1d8+2 cost so much more than one that heals 1d8+1? Wouldn't a wand be more useful if the save DC was 10 plus the user's level and ability modifier? If wizards have some decent wands or items to fall back on, then the whole spell depletion problem isn't so drastic anymore.
My take on this is still the wizards is at a defecit as a class, and it isn't because of spell counts or spell lists.
It is because there is no reason to stay a wizard. There are two dozen oodles of prestige classes that let you keep all or most of your spell progression, and give you something useful and flavorful.
So explain to me why someone would take levels 16-20 of wizard instead of 16-20 as an archmage? If you prefer a different example, go ahead and use it.
Yeah a level 17 wizard rocks the house, but so does a level 18 or 19 eldritch knight (I forget how many spell levels they loose).
Two automatic spells per level ain't worth it.
Here I pretty much agree with you. There are some prestige classes out there that basically don't take anything away from the wizard but add in a number of benifits and the idea of not taking them is insane.
Lore master really sticks out here. Instead of getting a bonus metamagic or item creation feat every 5 levels you get some kind of pretty cool bonus every single level. Otherwise the classes are identical. Why would some one not take Lore master? The only possible good reason is because item creation and metamagic feats are pretty sweet for a wizard but still - its hard to justify 1 bonus feat like that versus 5 bonus abilities. Especially considering that lore master gets a lot of benefits to saving throws. Saving throws a great at the higher levels.
|
Another change I'm implementing is a total overhaul of the magic items in the DMG. Many prices will be lowered and several items will become more powerful. What's the point of having a blinding shield if the save DC is 13? Why should a healing potion which heals 1d8+2 cost so much more than one that heals 1d8+1?
I recently picked up the Magic Item Compendium and I have to say I liked what I saw. Now I am an old schooler and against the animae-ification of the game, but I try to keep an open mind when reading new rules if only to understand where the hobby is going or get an idea I can use. The MIC said as much as you just did, indicating that many items are in the DMG are never used because they are so expensive and pale in comparison to the utility of the "prime attribute boosters" that compete for a character's gold. I need to go back through the book to see exactly what they are talking about, perhaps it is bad after all, but it certainly seemed like a reasonable idea. Check it out if you find it on the shelf and see if this helps.
Wouldn't a wand be more useful if the save DC was 10 plus the user's level and ability modifier? If wizards have some decent wands or items to fall back on, then the whole spell depletion problem isn't so drastic anymore.
Magic Staves do this already, and allow the caster to use his caster level for determining effects. Allowing wands to do this as well is an interesting thought.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One suggestion regarding crafting and xp expenditure is to add treasure of some form that can be used for crafting. It's an idea I stole from Ars Magica/Mage where you can find magical power in physical form. You could have it be something like the tears of a basalisk, which can be used as the equivalent of 50xp, but only for the purposes of crafting items relating to stone to flesh/flesh to stone. This makes crafting more palatable.
Unearthed Arcana has a whole list of magical and rare components that can be used to apply metamagic feats to spells without the corrisponding increase in spell slot use. While I do not use this system, the list is extensive and could serve as a basis for this kind of idea.
Supply the essence of a salamander and your wand of fireballs costs xx less XP to create. I like it.
Lore master really sticks out here. Instead of getting a bonus metamagic or item creation feat every 5 levels you get some kind of pretty cool bonus every single level. Otherwise the classes are identical. Why would some one not take Lore master? The only possible good reason is because item creation and metamagic feats are pretty sweet for a wizard but still - its hard to justify 1 bonus feat like that versus 5 bonus abilities. Especially considering that lore master gets a lot of benefits to saving throws. Saving throws a great at the higher levels.
Just as a curiosity, when your wizards take a level in a prestige class with a spell progression, do you still give them the free new spells in their spellbook (2 per level, or 4 with the Collegiate Wizard feat)? I’ve always interpreted them as not doing so, which can be a big deal when spells are costly and research time is hard to come by.
My wizard player has picked up a Ring of Wizardry II which he adores. Costs a fortune but he is a specialist wizard with a high intelligence so he has 5 2nd level spells doubled to 10. That is more cost effective then the pearl of power (5 extra 2nd level spells would cost 45,000 gp) and a ring of wizardry allows one to pick a wider variety of spells compared to a pearl of power which only allows you to get back a spell you already cast.That said these items utility is dependent on the situation. If your wizard never feels like spell power is in danger of being exhausted then there is no use for these items. My players often find themselves forced to keep going even after the point where the wizard would really prefer to rest (put another way I'm not adverse to simply trying to kill the players through sheer attrition) and thus things that allow him to just keep casting are at a premium.
Thank you, I have both a ring of wizardry, and a pearl of power, I love my ring, and rarely use the pearl. Our DM also delights in the long hauls with little time to rest.
As far as feats for allowing more spell slots, the FR. campaign setting has some lovely ones my wizard uses, such as spell casting prodigy. It is hard, however, to find metamagic feats that do not take higher spell slots away.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
After the PHB2, Unearthed Arcana, and Complete Mage have come out, I find the basic PHB wizard to be sorely lacking in power and functionality. The various specialist wizard variants from UA and the PHB2 add a LOT of versatility and survivability to the traditional wizard. Sacrificing the traditional familiar for an alternate ability is a very small price to pay but I do occassionally like to play a wizard who retains the familiar for story and flavor purposes.
As for prestige classing, Loremaster is a strong choice, but my personal favorite is the Incantatrix from the Player's Guide to Faerun. The Master Specialist PrC from the Complete Mage is practically a must for specialists and the Archmage will suit almost any pure wizard concept you can think of.
So like the other hoary old warhorse, the fighter, wizzy as a base class is a bit of an anachronism when compared to the stuff that has come after?
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
So like the other hoary old warhorse, the fighter, wizzy as a base class is a bit of an anachronism when compared to the stuff that has come after?
It doesn't suffer as much as the fighter, though. A basic wizard is still a strong and viable option for most campaigns. Many of the 'new' options are merely variants that add functionality in place of the familiar (or in place of some metamagic feats). Meanwhile, the fighter has suffered a severe case of hamstringing thanks to new core classes like the warblade and knight (comprising the offensive and defensive side of being a fighter, respectively).
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Just as a curiosity, when your wizards take a level in a prestige class with a spell progression, do you still give them the free new spells in their spellbook (2 per level, or 4 with the Collegiate Wizard feat)? I’ve always interpreted them as not doing so, which can be a big deal when spells are costly and research time is hard to come by.
Those are in effect "spells known", which you do gain when levelling in prestige classes that advance casting ability.
By about 5th level there should be a pretty impressive stockpile of spell slots and maybe a wand to fall back on when even these begin to finally run out. The wizard, in this case, certainly will see a pretty dramatic decline in power as the encounter wears on but he won't run out of power except in the most extreme situations and the very occasional case where he does run out of power? Well consider it a challenge - I mean your DM has to have set you up to get here. Obviously your supposed to use your wits or something to survive when the combat has gone on beyond round 28.
There are a couple of issues with regard to wizard spells levels. It isn't that the wizard runs out of spells in a single encounter. Monte Cook's point was that the wizard becomes so essential that the party is not willing to go on when the wizard doesn't have access to his best spells. It isn't that the wizard runs out of spells in a 28-round battle, but rather uses his haste and fireball and two scorching rays in a battle and the group does not want to go on without him regaining those spells even though he still has some magical power left, albeit the lower level things (a 2nd level spell or two like invisibility and web and a group of 1st levels: a few magic missiles, a shield and a utility spell). From the player's perspective, he doesn't want to go on either, knowing he cannot contribute meaningfully in the next battle. Thus the "funness factor" is reduced and the game is interrupted to regain spells.
OK here I agree but I think we have smacked into a play balance vs. fun dichotomy.
I did encounter this with my players and I felt I had to 'break them' of the habit of using all their spell power early on. Was this fun for the wizard player? No - not really and I even had one of my six players that 'always' played spell casters switch to a martial class because he hated running out of power. So I understand the problem but there is no viable solution.
Think about what your players really want. What they really want is infinite access to their most power spells. Basically unlimited fireballs when they get 3rd level spells. Well unlimited fireballs sure would be fun for the wizard now wouldn't it? That is what this constant resting is about - the ability to always have fireball, basically. But..uhh...fireball at 5th or 6th level absolutely rocks. Its way more powerful then anything that the fighter, rogue etc. can do in a round. It is just to powerful to say that the wizard can constantly cast his most powerful spells without facing consequences.
Now we could probably design a class that was play balanced and could cast their spells infinitaly. Knocking them back by two spell levels ought to do it. Personally I'd not bother. Your players would never take such a class. Having to wait until 9th level for even infinate fireballs won't seem worth it. So we ultimately end up with wizard players that want to have their cake and eat it as well. They love the fact that when they open up with their best spell its far out of the league of what the rest of the players can do but become unhappy if every single round that can't do that.
I'm making this seem like whining and I feel it sort of is but I acknowledge that it probably does not feel that way for the wizard player. What we have is essentially levels of 'fun' that rapidly diminishes. Your basic wizard encounter goes something like this. Door gets kicked in or whatever and the party appears on the scene. First round everyone does whatever they are going to do. Rogue spends some time setting up a sneak attack and the fighter charges or whatever. Then the wizard goes and its like a tac nuke just went off. Every enemy in the room feels the power of the wizard as he lays the smack down. The problem is he can't keep it up. Maybe next round he lays into all the enemies again with some other power spell but know he's running out of his top tier spells. He keeps it up with spells of the next lower level but if things carry on like this pretty soon he is only as powerful as the fighter - and if the situation keeps going he'll actually be weaker then the fighter - gasp. Perish the thought.
Well, I feel, that is called game balance - but it is rough on 'fun'. I mean very quickly the wizard has gone from extreme highs achieved through ultimate power down to more mundane 'fun' and then he starts heading for sub-par - here lies the dreaded 'not fun'. It psychologically seems worse for the player as well. The 'fun' is clearly dropping every single round. 'Fun' might be hard to measure but it is real and its clearly going down every round.
Still the fighter only gets to achieved these highs intermittently - wait until the fighter player rolls a natural 20 and confirms the crit. You can bet that everyone at the table will hear about this sequence of events! "Whoo-hoo, I confirmed the crit - there is going to be some smack down now - yes siree, Thurigar is going to kick some butt - I can tell you that, hey who stole my yellow damage die?"
The other spell issue is one James Jacobs points out: the wizard has the fewest spells per caster level prepared/available of any core spellcasting class. This, coupled with the lack of options for a wizard that has used all of his "useful" spells means that the wizard can quickly find himself without anything to do. This also limits the "funness factor" of playing a wizard, not to mention that a wizard without spells is just asking to be slain and thus never will see the high levels where the balance starts to tip in favor of the wizard.
Buy a wand of sleep. Its not a perfect solution but it will help. By around 8th level this just sort of begins to go away. By that point the character won't actually run out of spells except in extremes. If it is sometimes a problem there are magic items that will help.
Those are in effect "spells known", which you do gain when levelling in prestige classes that advance casting ability.
Just as a curiosity, when your wizards take a level in a prestige class with a spell progression, do you still give them the free new spells in their spellbook (2 per level, or 4 with the Collegiate Wizard feat)? I’ve always interpreted them as not doing so, which can be a big deal when spells are costly and research time is hard to come by.
That was my interpretation as well.
So like the other hoary old warhorse, the fighter, wizzy as a base class is a bit of an anachronism when compared to the stuff that has come after?
Odd. I found the opposite. Now its important to note that I don't use Tome of Battle and that might well be significant. That said with PHB2 the fighter became the clear winner in the martial classes. Vast numbers of feats when there are tons of great ones to choose from is really pretty potent.
Random thoughts from the above.
I've never run into time issues in my games- I don't tend to run and haven't really played in games where the mission had to be accomplished right now, and if it did, there was plenty of downtime afterwards. Is this unusual? Has this been some quirk of my groups games and thus inflated the value of item craftin in my eyes?
Additionally, I've never seen the costs of item crafting to be that prohibitive, at least not for scrolls and potions (and even most wands). I think you'd almost have to try and lose a level using these feats.
One thing I've kept thinking is: Everyone says the wizard has to spend so much money. But, they don't have to buy magical arms and armor. So, are they actually at a loss? Do they retain an equal amount, more, or less money than a fighter actually has?
Also, as to the lose one's spellbook/wizard without one (or out of spells even) becomes a commoner: Well, what about a fighter who loses his sword? Obviously the hp remain, and the AC, but how is the wizard losing his or her spellbook any worse? And if wizards are loosing their spellbooks in people's games, why aren't fighters losing their swords and clerics losing their holy symbols?
Someone above mentioned that their wizard never had the gp to craft, but also that treasure wasn't in abundance in the game they played. Well, that's a game deviating from the RAW, then, and thus the RAW can't really be held accountable. If wealth by level guidelines are followed appropriately, as the game assumes, then such issues shouldn't be a problem (although this argument is somewhat tied in with my second question comparing wizard expenditures with fighter expenditures).
As far as how an expanded spell list favors wizards, it stems from the fact that wizards can, theoretically, as everyone knows, learn every spell on their class list. The wizard's power comes from their ability to shape their prepared spells perfectly to the situation, moreso than any other class. Therefore, more spells on the class list, equal more ability to "perfect" one's prepared spell list, equal more power.
At least, that seems to be the logic most cited. The wizard has more ability to adapt to any situation through greater number of spells known, and as a balance, they cast less in a day. Of course, I'm sure someone will refute this, so I'm not even bothering to attempt making some absolute statement out of it.
Another reason for the low number of spells per day may be arcane magic vs. divine magic. The standard assumption (no idea if it's true any longer with all the splat books) is that arcane magic is stronger than divine magic. Thus, wizards and sorcerers are weaker outside of spellcasting than clerics and druids. It may be that the game desigers felt that, of the two primary arcanists (sorcerers and wizards), the wizard's allotment of spells per day was appropriate considering the nature of the spells they utilize (the presumably more powerful arcane spells, vice the divine).
Agian, just my random 2cp (and that's probably asking too much)
EDIT- IMC, specialists only have to give up one spell school. Two seems overly prohibitive, and no one would ever specialize. I feel comfortable specializing only having to give up one school, but still have to weigh the options, and thus consider it balanced.
Also, early on someone said that wizards need to get over the Gandalf image. However, it seems that many, many people derive great pleasure from playing that stereotype. I consider it a failing of the game if something that is so popular is somehow also inefficient and subpar (I'm not really sure that it is, but if such were to be the case, that would be my opinion).
Why the hell does anyone even bother with bracers of armor? A wizard can almost never get an AC worth mentioning- a mage's AC sucks, and by pouring funds into that area, all you do is mitigate the suckage, not actually achieve "goodness." Considering what one displacement can do, why on earth do people both with AC other than mage armor?
P.S.- I love wizards.
Down time??? Your players get down time??!!
Seriously, although our DM is starting to try to make some changes as far as putting in SOME down time, it's still not really normal in our game, so no surprise that the wizard gets no love. Plus, it's extra bookkeeping for me, since I'm usually the caster. I keep cheat sheets on my spells known with my character sheet so I don't slow down gameplay at the table looking stuff up. Especially important since we're often sharing one Player's Handbook between three people. I just don't have the time to mess with that many spells.
Also, it's easier/cheaper to replace a sword or holy symbol than it is to replace a spellbook. You're talking about crippling someone short term vs long term.
I have to agree with Lynora, losing a spellbook would be far more costly than a sword. Perhaps if the fighter lost an arm, and you had to pay for the regeneration and wait the alloted time until everything was back in order, well, that might be more of a comparison.
Cheat sheets huh? I'm going to have to try that, it beats having four books open in front of me at all times.
Having played a fighter that lost all of his equipment, I can safely say that a fighter without equipment is at a severe disability. Given that all I had was an improvised weapon, I wasn't particularly effective at attacking anything. The only good thing I had going for me was that I had a ton of hit points, and as such, I was pretty adept at taking lots of damage for everyone else in the party until they could figure out how to defeat whatever threat we ran into.
Even at mid levels, a +1 sword is pretty handy given how many creatures have DR/magic. This means that in order to replace a +1 weapon, the fighter has to spend 2300 + gold to get another +1 weapon (if you are just comparing straight gold cost versus equipment).
For that same amount, a wizard can buy a full wand of magic missles, allowing him to do 1d4+1 (x 2) force damage up to fifty times. They could also buy a blank spellbook (15 gp), and quite a few 1st through 3rd level scrolls that he could either use or scribe back into his spellbook.
Honestly, I don't see a big difference between the expenditures. Sure, if you go a long time without being able to pick up new equipment, you are pretty screwed, but then again, if you are a fighter that never gets new equipment, eventually when you fight all of those things with even minimal DR, you are only going to last as long as your hp hold out.
Point taken. As my fighter is only 3rd level, I guess I haven't had enough experience with the class yet. I do remember looking at all the cool weapons and then sighing wistfully as I looked at my actual gp. :)
Random thoughts from the above.
One thing I've kept thinking is: Everyone says the wizard has to spend so much money. But, they don't have to buy magical arms and armor. So, are they actually at a loss? Do they retain an equal amount, more, or less money than a fighter actually has?
In my own experience, Wizards really do get short-changed. Even though they don't have to buy magic armor, there are lots of great items I would like to have purchased, but I never even had enough money to keep my spellbook up to date.
Also, as to the lose one's spellbook/wizard without one (or out of spells even) becomes a commoner: Well, what about a fighter who loses his sword? Obviously the hp remain, and the AC, but how is the wizard losing his or her spellbook any worse? And if wizards are loosing their spellbooks in people's games, why aren't fighters losing their swords and clerics losing their holy symbols?
If a fighter loses his sword he is still an effective character. With an improvised weapon or even bare-hands fighters are still lethal. Furthermore swords and holy symbols are cheap and easily replaced. Have you taken a look at how much it would cost to replace all the spells in a spellbook?
Someone above mentioned that their wizard never had the gp to craft, but also that treasure wasn't in abundance in the game they played. Well, that's a game deviating from the RAW, then, and thus the RAW can't really be held accountable.
I have to disagree here, too. The argument was that other classes are not dependent upon the whims of the DM, and Wizards shouldn't be either. The RAW for every other character puts the power in the player's hands. There are no hard, fast rules for how much treasure each character must receive each adventure, merely rough guidelines, so this is left to DM fiat. You could argue that a DM could arbitrarily deny any class its abilities, but in my experience this doesn't happen - stingy treasure dispersment, on the other hand, is much more common.
Don't want to get too bogged down in this kind of thread but here is what I do to appease and make wizards and sorcerers more appealling --
Sorcerers gain automatically at 1st level Eschew Materials, and an Unearthed Arcana minor Bloodline -- this plays up on the 'idea' behind a sorcerer. I do not make them take the bloodline level at 12th and I buff up some of the abilities a bit.
I give wizard's free reserve feats. Every few levels they get a reserve feat, it is not unbalancing but it does give them a little oomph that is fun for them.
Random thoughts from the above.
I guess its no surprise that pretty much I agree with you. In fact I kind of think the whole debate comes down to - I hate wizards and here is my justification for why. Which is not quite the same thing as saying their really bad. Of course I love Sorcerers and Wizards and therefore don't think the class is unbalanced.
I've never run into time issues in my games- I don't tend to run and haven't really played in games where the mission had to be accomplished right now, and if it did, there was plenty of downtime afterwards. Is this unusual? Has this been some quirk of my groups games and thus inflated the value of item craftin in my eyes?
As a DM I am more then willing to hand out some crafting time after the mission but I'm pretty mean during the mission in terms of down time. The ultimate reason I'm mean is because the players need to be discouraged from resting for a full day after every single encounter. If they are allowed to do that the Wizard becomes too powerful a class. Its essentially near limitless access to his/her most powerful spells. Almost invariably this is easy to justify - essentially whatever the players are doing the people they are doing it to probably won't remain static once they realize they are under attack. Thus the players are pressured to complete their mission before the enemies react by putting all the monsters in the defenders guarding whatever it is they are guarding and making an unbeatable encounter. Essentially the players are like a commando team. When they first hammer the defenders they got them off balance and confused but given enough time the bad guys will react.
Additionally, I've never seen the costs of item crafting to be that prohibitive, at least not for scrolls and potions (and even most wands). I think you'd almost have to try and lose a level using these feats.
Its certainly possible, especially at higher levels. You lose one XP per 5 gp of the item. So if you start spending all of your wealth by level on crafted items you'll start to fall behind. At higher levels your wealth by level starts to get really generous and if you buy crafted items with all of that you'll have to give up levels. That said the ability to double your wealth by levels in magic items can be a pretty powerful ability even if you do find that you loose the odd level. You can more then double your wealth by level guidelines as well. Consider a case where the mage spends all his feats on item creation feats. Then he builds the magic items for the rest of the party so far as that is possible. He makes a deal where he will build each player their magic items for 75% of the price of the item. The rest of the party is happy because they essentially just got 125% their wealth by level in magic items for free more or less. But the mage is getting 25% of each players wealth by level in gp plus his own. That's 175% of wealth by level in a 4 person party. He then chooses to craft all of this into magic items that he desires. This essentially means he know has 350% his normal wealth by level. However the sum of XP he had to give up to do this is impressive. Now this is an extreme example and probably not truly possible but he can certainly make a good try at something like this.
One thing I've kept thinking is: Everyone says the wizard has to spend so much money. But, they don't have to buy magical arms and armor. So, are they actually at a loss? Do they retain an equal amount, more, or less money than a fighter actually has?
I more or less agree. All players will always feel that they don't have enough money. There is always something more that is cool that they wish they could afford. That said a wizard does have to spend a lot on his spell book and that makes it tougher to afford a Ring of Wizardry. There are more then enough cool things out there for a wizard to buy that its certainly possible to begrudge all that money spent on the spell book. I don't think this makes the wizard weaker then the sorcerer but it is one of the reasons I personally prefer the sorcerer.
Also, as to the lose one's spellbook/wizard without one (or out of spells even) becomes a commoner: Well, what about a fighter who loses his sword? Obviously the hp remain, and the AC, but how is the wizard losing his or her spellbook any worse? And if wizards are loosing their spellbooks in people's games, why aren't fighters losing their swords and clerics losing their holy symbols?
Really how friggen often does this sort of thing even come up? If the DM takes away your spell book (and that's what happened the DM decided to lift your spell book) then I guess the adventure was supposed to be about the wizard trying to overcome this really big challenge. If the DM just arbitrarily takes away your spell book because it gives him kicks to nerf you, then your screwed anyway. If you had been a fighter he probably would have arbitrarily decided to have your arms and legs cut off. If your playing in a campaign where your spell book is making saves against being destroyed all the time then you can make a back up - but probably your right to just not play a class with a spell book. In fact in this campaign I'd play a friggen monk. My only advice here is to make sure that your team is not sundering everything in sight. If that's what is happening then the DM is probably just fighting fire with fire. Stop friggen sundering stuff and she'll stop trashing your beloved magic items.
Someone above mentioned that their wizard never had the gp to craft, but also that treasure wasn't in abundance in the game they played. Well, that's a game deviating from the RAW, then, and thus the RAW can't really be held accountable. If wealth by level guidelines are followed appropriately, as the game assumes, then such issues shouldn't be a problem (although this argument is somewhat tied in with my second question comparing wizard expenditures with fighter expenditures).
If money is hard to come by then crafting items should actually get more powerful not less. It essentially doubles your wealth at the price of XP. Well if your in the odd situation where gps are just about as hard to come by as XPs it makes a lot of sense to double your gps at the price of a few XP. The rarer gold or magic is in a campaign the more powerful crafting feats are.
Another reason for the low number of spells per day may be arcane magic vs. divine magic. The standard assumption (no idea if it's true any longer with all the splat books) is that arcane magic is stronger than divine magic. Thus, wizards and sorcerers are weaker outside of spellcasting than clerics and druids. It may be that the game desigers felt that, of the two primary arcanists (sorcerers and wizards), the wizard's allotment of spells per day was appropriate considering the nature of the spells they utilize (the presumably more powerful arcane spells, vice the divine).
I'd say the splat books helped the mage a lot more then the cleric or, especially, the druid. Clerics and druids get far fewer new spells in these splat books (on average) then mages.
Creative Director
|
The thing that's vexed me the most about wizards is that, of all the full spellcasting classes, they get the least base amount of spells per day. Compare how many spells a 20th level wizard gets to cast per day to a druid, cleric, or sorcerer. Eew.
That, and the fact that familiars are hard-wired into the class (although some of the new books give options on how to duck out of the familiar stuff).
That, and the fact that unlike Every Other Class... the Wizard has to spend time and money and experience points to do what it is he's supposed to do. As in, learning new spells; he has to spend money and time to scribe spells into his books, and half of his bonus feat choices? Item Creation feats, which further eat up his time and money and xp. So! While the rest of the party's off having ADVENTURE, the wizard gets to stay home and spend the money and XP he's not getting just so he can do what it is he's supposed to be able to do.
Lame.
PLUS! He's got d4 Hit Dice. He should have more. D4 Hit Dice are so 1980.
PLUS! He's SO much more defendant on his gear (spellbook) than any other class. One case of bookworms and pow! You're a commoner with less class skills.
PLUS! Making NPC wizards for adventures is the worst, because you have to put in a familiar, and you have to decide how to handle his spell book, because if you don't, the PC wizard loses out on a big resource. AND: Since their primary stat is Intelligence, that makes their skills for high level wizards horrible to figure out, since that Int score creeps up as they level up, and skill points aren't retroactive.
Wizard is the only class I've never played in 3rd edition, all pretty much because of the above issues I have with them. And almost all players I've seen play wizards in long-term campaigns have had a hell of a time having fun.
Wizards, as it works out in 3rd edition, make pretty good PCs for one-shot adventures when you get to customize a higher-level character. They also make pretty good villains since you can really specialize their spell selection to be perfect for the situation they're encountered in (but that doesn't help the fact that they're REALLY obnoxious to stat up, so much so that most authors seem to opt for sorcerers instead).
But in classic campaign mode? Where you level up and all that? Wizards just suck.
Heh... this turned into more of a rant than a more constructive "how to fix the wizard" post, but I kinda just needed to get all that off my chest. Aaaaahhhhhhhhhh... I feel better now.
I agree about the hit points. Can I get a D6, come on!
Also a few years ago I wanted to make a feat chain called "arcane fire" which was essentially the Warlock's Eldritch Blast. I thought that Wizards should have an unlimited use melee/ranged attack based on magic that increases like a Monk's unarmed damage or a Rogue's sneak attack. Then Warlocks came out and now there's little chance of that happening. I think spell-like abilities with unlimited uses would go a long way toward making the Wizard attractive.
While we're at it (fixing things) the first thing I thought when I read the Beguiler was "this is what a Sorceror should be." Give the player the chance to choose their spells known and keep the Beguiler hit dice, armour and weapons and that's how I envisage a Sorceror. Different enough from a wizard and not overpowered - anyone who thinks armoured/beweaponed Beguiler style Sorcerors would be unbalanced should take it up with the Warmage and Duskblade! Armour AND d10/d8 hit dice.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact I kind of think the whole debate comes down to - I hate wizards and here is my justification for why. Which is not quite the same thing as saying their really bad. Of course I love Sorcerers and Wizards and therefore don't think the class is unbalanced.
Wellllll... I do not hate the class, I really do not. I want to see the class played in my games and I want to see it handled as close to RAW as possible. What prompted me to write this was this odd feeling of (I am searching for the right word here)... weakness ... in the class as it is designed when I last played it and the sudden realization that no one in my group of six chose a wizard to play in the last four of our campaigns. Those two events sent me searching for answers, and I had to dig back to 2005 and a discussion on the Warlock to get to the heart of the matter.
In my playing experience, I found that all my extra gold went to buying and scribing spells (to take advantage of my vaunted diversity) instead of to stat boosters, wands and nifty wonderous items. However, when I actually tried to put my diverse spellbook into action, I found that I did not have enough spell slots to make this work. I would leave spell slots open at each level, which helped some, but since I had so few spells at each level, this meant I had fewer combat spells (of any power level) available when we were attacked. I guess one analogy that hasn't been made that may describe this situation is that if, at every other level, the fighter faced higher and more specialized DR monsters. To combat these, he would have to buy new types of magic slashing and bludgeoing weapons and new magic armor to be effective. That is how it felt to me as I played the Wizard. I needed to buy and scribe as many spells at my new level as possible to have the right spell on hand for a situation.
A second issue, that of hitpoints, was really troublesome to me. My stats were not great and I had an average CON. I looked over my old sheet just now and saw that at 6th level I had 19hp (better than average, btw), which meant that a single fireball or lightning bolt cast by a caster of my level would drop me to negatives on an average roll (6*3.5 = 21hp) if I failed my save and a second would will drop (or kill) me regardless of my saves. Since we faced BBEG's of level +1 or +2, death was a constant fear and since it could come in so many ways and I had so few spells available to protect myself, I was left feeling very vulnerable. Maybe that is how a 6th level wizard is *supposed* to feel, I do not know, but it was not a comfortable feeling.
Regarding solutions proposed thus far (and their relative deviation from core RAW), we have:
Simple: use Craft Points to augment XP expenditures, provide downtime between adventures for the wizard to research and craft items, follow the wealth-by-level guidelines to make sure the wizard has access to enough gold to accomplish at least some of his desires, provide spellbooks as part of treasure occasionally.
Moderate: Introduce splatbook classes and Unearthed Arcana options for the class to provide flexibility and address player's perceived weaknesses with the class. Increase spell lists to include new spells from these sources.
Complex: move to a spell-point system or otherwise redevelop the mechanics associated with arcane spellcasting, provide free feats or other customization to fill in gaps in the class.
Is this a fair summary? Did I miss anything?
|
Had a brilliant idea while catching up this morning.
Ditch the archmage as a Prestige Class.
Roll the abilities into the core wizard. Mainly that is pick a high arcana at 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20.
Suddenly there is a reason to stay a wizard, an appropriate reason since what is an archmage but a darn good wizard.
As for item crafting, how about a graduated scale where the more crafting feats you have, the less xp you need to burn. Dedicated crafters get a discount, Yay for them. It could be as simple as for every extra item crafting feat you have, reduce the base cost of the item by 5% when determining xp use.
Have 3 feats, 10% off, have 5, 20% off. Some of the rare items that require more than 1 feat would get 5% less off.
And it stacks neatly with the crafting skills from eberron, which already can reduce gold, time, or xp use by 25%.
|
|
I do like the presented Reserve Feats [e.g. Storm Bolt] in Complete Mage. They can let a Wizard pack a fair punch in minor skirmishes before a big fight. The only problem is that a big spell is held in reserve, reducing untility otherwise, but not a big cost considering the benefits. My 7th Level Wizard is throwing 4D6 Storm bolts around every round, but he has to close to within simple moving distance to do it.
DD
The reserve feats sound tempting, but my group's 6th level warlock is throwing 4d6 eldritch blasts right now. Giving the wizard an ability on par with the warlock is not the right solution IMHO. I like the uniqueness and challenges the Warlock brings (I have overcome the feeling that the class is overpowered) and do not want to encroach overmuch on the warlock's primary territory.
Does the wizard require more down time than any character with a craft skill?
I might be off base here but I remember sword forging took a pretty irritating amount of time. Don't give a wizard downtime? It will probably lose power. Hit a fighter with disarm attempts, grease spells, or grappling creatures with size bonuses he's probably going to loose power. Force a druid to play on a negative energy plain with no plant or animal life, it is probably going to loose power. You can make a situation unfavorably to many classes.
What is the harm with down time? Is it just too hard to conceive a world where you can't find a month where some warlord/dragon/necromancer isn't trying to screw with things? Besides without downtime in between adventures your PCs would go from peons to gods in a few years. Does anyone else have issues with that?
Wizards are potentially the most powerful class in the game. Why? Because their spell list is filled with extreamly potent spells. Spells that are more powerful and useful than the spells from the druid and clerics list.
They pay for this by being the easiest to mess with.
If its the weak low level thing that bugs you go take a look at low level monks. Heck a first level ranger who wants a two-weapon fighting concept can't even accomplish his basic design model until second level.
First and low level characters suck. They're supposed to. High level characters are supposed to kick ass. I notice that few people have problems with wizards then.
The problem with the wizard is they are way to powerful at higher levels and way to weak at lower levels. I have been thinking a lot about this and have a few semi solutions, but havent finished play testing them yet. This can be covered up or exacerbated by the number of wizards in a group; with one you dont see it much; with three; it is very evident.
|
|
The problem with the wizard is they are way to powerful at higher levels and way to weak at lower levels. I have been thinking a lot about this and have a few semi solutions, but havent finished play testing them yet. This can be covered up or exacerbated by the number of wizards in a group; with one you dont see it much; with three; it is very evident.
I think this point lies at the heart of Monty Cook's view on wizards (as linked on page one of this thread): at first, wizards are extremely cramped by their inability to contribute (i.e. low spells per day, low HPs, becomming a "commoner" when out of spells) to a group and then they become so powerful and thus so essential later on that the entire party revolves around their spell use.
Sadly, this is too big of an issue for me to take on, for it involves rethinking the wizard and its role in the party. This aspect of their nature may be unavoidable until a 4th edition is created. If you learn anything from your playtesting Valegrim, I would certainly like to see it.
|
|
What is the harm with down time? Is it just too hard to conceive a world where you can't find a month where some warlord/dragon/necromancer isn't trying to screw with things?
I don't think anyone has an issue with downtime per se, I think it is more the case that DMs and players alike simply do not think about it being a neccessary aspect to helping the wizard stay viable since the downtime is not required for other classes to be viable.
Ok, so if the new completes books helped the wizzy more than the droods or clerics, is that because the wizzy is still the centerpiece of the game, or the designers realized they had given the farm away in designing the alternate base classes and divine power ups. Look at the 3.0 drood v 3.5- It got a major power up to make it a more popular class. Cleric got a huge bump in powere betwen 2nd ed and 3rd, and its still not as popular a class as its power level would indicate. When starting a new game, the players usualy call Meatshield->Rogue->Sorceror-> secondary meatshield or rogue-> Cleric, but usually drood->Cleric->Wizzy. Since 2002, almost every game has run like that. Is it just that Wizzy is THE advanced PLAYER class? Or that slogging throuhg the low levesl for the eventualy payoff is not a realistic goal of most gamers in an immediate gratification centric world?
|
Contributor
|
What is the harm with down time? Is it just too hard to conceive a world where you can't find a month where some warlord/dragon/necromancer isn't trying to screw with things?I don't think anyone has an issue with downtime per se, I think it is more the case that DMs and players alike simply do not think about it being a neccessary aspect to helping the wizard stay viable since the downtime is not required for other classes to be viable.
Also, some campaign concepts are designed to not allow down time. City of the Spider Queen anyone? And this can be a fun part of the adventure; one of the sources of tension is that you never get a break, or a chance to go back to town, or whatever. It just has an extra impact on the wizard. If this happens to be the campaign you are in, you don't want to play a wizard as written.
|
Contributor
|
When starting a new game, the players usualy call Meatshield->Rogue->Sorceror-> secondary meatshield or rogue-> Cleric, but usually drood->Cleric->Wizzy. Since 2002, almost every game has run like that. Is it just that Wizzy is THE advanced PLAYER class? Or that slogging throuhg the low levesl for the eventualy payoff is not a realistic goal of most gamers in an immediate gratification centric world?
I think it has to do with frequency of useful participation. The fighter is almost always useful and participating, the rogue close behind, being limited by critical immune monsters, but getting the boost of finding traps etc, The sorcerer has lots of castings and they are spontaneous, and is often the party diplomat as well. Druids are more hands on than clerics with their companion and wildshape. Cleric and Bard, while both really good classes are mostly relegated to support roles, and the wizard... when he's useful he's awesome, but too much of the time he is either saving his good stuff for later or he's already used it.
Now, some will say that this only applies in high-combat campaigns, but that's only partly true. The combat part of the game is what most of the rules are written around, and the part that is most affected by character. The role-play aspect is really more determined by the player, so the character choice is still usually more heavilly affected by combat usefulness/ participation. Except, of course, among players who either don't care about combat-effectiveness at all, or who intentionally look for challenges in their character concepts.
The more I play, the more I find is that what players want most is to be able to participate effectively as much of the time as possible.
Craig Shackleton,
The Rambling Scribe
|
A few ideas:
1. Change the Familiar class ability to another bonus feat.
2. Add Obtain Familiar and all Reserve Feats to the list of available bonus feats.
3. Allow wizards to prepare spells from other casters' spellbooks without needing a check. Even spells that aren't already scribed to their own spellbook. Or, possibly require a one-time spellcraft check in conjunction with read magic to attune yourself to the new book.
Now, instead of needing a ton of gp and time to get any use out of captured spellbooks, you can just prepare from them as normal. And you have a backup spellbook if something happens to one of them.
|
|
The more I play, the more I find is that what players want most is to be able to participate effectively as much of the time as possible.
I agree with this point completely. This is another way of looking at the wizard issue instead of from a mechanical standpoint. This game is supposed to be fun. Now we all know that if any character was allowed to run rampant, the game would not be fun, so the discussion of these concerns about wizard's viablility/utility has far less to do with whiners wanting to cast all of their top end spells more often than the class being fun to play in each encounter. In essence, I am refuting Jeremey Mac Donald's claim:
Think about what your players really want. What they really want is infinite access to their most power spells. Basically unlimited fireballs when they get 3rd level spells. Well unlimited fireballs sure would be fun for the wizard now wouldn't it? That is what this constant resting is about - the ability to always have fireball, basically. But..uhh...fireball at 5th or 6th level absolutely rocks. Its way more powerful then anything that the fighter, rogue etc. can do in a round. It is just to powerful to say that the wizard can constantly cast his most powerful spells without facing consequences.
Monty Cook uses the word "fun" in his article (thanks DitheringFool, for the link) a number of times, and those that have read Dungeoncraft while he was at the helm know that he uses the word there as well. We DMs have to think like game designers at times; we need to concern ourselves with fun, for that is the reason players are coming to our tables. Sitting out of battles or other encounters or not using your core abilities to either "save yourself for later" or because all abilities have been expended is not fun for the player, and this may well be why warlocks and sorcerers are more prevelent than mages in some games, especially at lower levels.
I love the idea of arcane spellcasters in the game and do not want to see them fade because players perceive (rightly or wrongly) that the greatest class to wield magic is also the least fun to play.
It occurs to me that perhaps the biggest part of the problem lies in philosophy rather than in mechanics. Thirty years ago there were no APs, no "adventure series", nothing like that. Read some of the stories the old-timers (Gygax, Arneson, et al) tell and you'll find that their players routinely would leave a dungeon, go do something else for a while, take a short vacation, then maybe come back to the dungeon a month or two later. Obviously, with the contemporary gaming scene being what it is, that's no longer possible unless you deliberately try to run one of those old-school campaigns.
Consider, for example, the last two or three chapters in the AoW saga. Starting with Kings of the Rift, the players have to dive into a city under siege - not much chance of getting a break there. Then they have limited time to track down Dragotha before he comes to take them out or finishes his task of freeing Kyuss - again, not much chance of a break. Then, immediately upon destroying Dragotha, Manzorian tells them "it's begun" and they have to rush off to stop the Wormgod. While all of this makes for good storytelling and great adventure-writing, it doesn't leave much time for rest, research, or magic item crafting.
All that is to say that if you're not playing an old-style campaign, then there's not much you can do to fix the wizard. Most games today are built with the assumption that the audience his hooked on action and 15-second soundbites. It's assumed (and rightly so) that unless something is happening, the audience is going to sleep. While I rather like some of the suggestions I posted earlier, perhaps the best thing to do for the wizard is simply to let him speed up. Maybe he can pick up just any old ring and enchant it overnight. Maybe he can cast some sort of de-fatiguing spell, sit down for fifteen minutes, and then prepare a full selection of spells without having to rest overnight. Maybe he has a spell that allows him to rest "offplane" while little or no time passes in the regular world. Maybe you can justify d6s or even d8s for hit points since it takes some sort of stamina and toughness to channel magic through your body.
Or maybe - just maybe - there's not really anything wrong with the class at all. Maybe you just have to be a good DM and slow things down a bit. A good DM + a good player = a good game. Any class works within that formula. The game companies can't tell us this since they have to sell to the customers they have, but it's possible to become a more skilled player and thereby make any class work great - especially if your focus is making a good character rather than a good character build. In the old days we used to talk about skill, experience, and character as more than just mechanical game constructs. Unfortunately, none of that is marketable.
Mr. Jacobs complaints above are not about the class itself. Rather, I think it would be more accurate to say that they're about the class's viability in the sort of adventures he has to design and market. Within that context, he's right: they suck. Outside of that context, he's wrong.
Sorry for the rant. Just had to get it off my chest.
|
Contributor
|
Yowza!
I missed Jeremy's post about players wanting unlimited fireballs at 6th level.
Just wanted to say, I don't want that as a player, nor do I want that as a DM. With my current spell point system, the PCs have unlimited cantrips/orisons
Funny thing, my party is right now 6th level. They are delighted by unlimited Disrupt Undead, Ray of Frost, Acid Splach, Detect Magic, Stabilize, and similar. These spells essentially mean that there is always some combat spell they can cast when they've blown their points or want to save them for later, and a bunch of small things that normally just slow down the game don't. No more stripping the furniture from the dungeon becasue the party is out of detect magic spells, and then having to go back and do crazy bookkeeping to figure out which cloak they took because it might be magical.
Unlimited fireballs would just create the same problem for everyone else. Suddenly, the fighter and rogue can't jump into melee, becasue they are just going to interfere with the fireball that's always coming.
Now, I'm considering revising my system so that at very high level (let's see, my proposed system would require a concentration roll of 45, I'm guessing if you focused on this task you could get it at 12th level) a wizard could cast a 5d6 fireball (almost) at will. I've played fighters who could reliably dish out that much damage to an equivelant number of foes in a round at twelfth. I'd want to test it, but I'm only in the primary planning stage, so right now I feel pretty on target.
Also, using my theoretical new system, I'd estimate that the same 12th level wizard could cast about 4-5 of his highest level spells before he tapped out his spell points reserve, limiting him to his unlimited castings of third level spells. I personally like this tradeoff.
The bottom line is that every class needs an always available utility that is representative of their class. Otherwise they may as well be twiddling their thumbs.
Really, I have been playing my wizard for almost ten years now and have always had fun with her, even at the lower levels, perhaps I just happen to have an awesome DM, or perhaps I just love the mage. The only complaints I have about my wizard are the hp and the feats. Why should I have to give up spell slots for something cool like quicken, I don't see the fighter giving up anything for the extra attack cleave gets him. Perhaps I'm way off base here, are there any feats that fighters take with like penalties?
Sure- Power attack, BAB for damage, Combat Expertise; BAB for AC are the first two to spring to mind. BUt I see your point too.
|
|
This topic, and specifically the issues raised by BubbaGump above are the whole reason my group has turned to Spell Points. I've always had a big issue with the need in the game for the party to camp out wherever they are for eight hours so the wizard can change out a spell, or recover a bunch of spell slots when he still has arcane power stored up in the form of spells he's memorized but simply cannot use. No one else in the party needs to rest, and half the time they refuse to, meaning the Wizard gets to travel with the group as a spectator until the beef takes some damage. Other casting classes end up with similar issues, though spontaneous casting helps the Cleric and Druid at least exhaust their magical energy before needing to rest.
When you're working hard to create a tense and fast-paced atmosphere for the adventure, taking 8 hour cat naps in the middle of the story really stinks. It may be, as Bubbagump suggests, that more skilled DMs can find a way to make this work while still weaving an intense and dynamic storyline. I have found that I usually cannot. I think the fact that my players are older and more mature now than back in the day has contributed to this. They have a more refined sense of what is realistic behavior in their enemies. They may appreciate that the Mind Flayer (who has been scrying them, and knows that they're in his lair) lets them take an 8 hour timeout before facing him, but the story nevertheless suffers because they know that the Mind Flayer with an Int of 22 is making an incredibly stupid tactical mistake. It cheapens their sense of victory when they finally overcome him.
So we're trying Spell Points, and I have to say that our adventures are flowing more naturally. By the time the casters are tapped out of mana, the party is pretty beat up physically. It has meant that they can tackle more of an adventure between resting than they used to. So for my issues with plot disruption, the spell point system is working great. How the thing scales as the group gets more powerful will be something I'll (obviously) be watching closely. In a sense, we're still playtesting the rules changes, so I'm not convinced that the system we're using is a perfect answer, but so far so good.
I wonder how much of this problem could have been fixed simply by allowing the Wizard to choose a spell each day (and possibly at each level?) that can be cast spontaneously? I'll have to stew on that thought for awhile.
I found that my idea of wizards clashes a bit with the default class. I give players of wizards 6 skill points a level. All knowledge skills are class skills for a wizard. I also give wizards the unarmed combat abilities of monks, but the progression stops at fifth level. The two mundane solutions given here do not break the wizard class, but they give excellent roleplaying opportunities. I justify the former in that wizards is the class of choice for the greatest minds on the planet. The latter makes sense to me in that I believe the somatic components work best as exacting katas that involve macro and micro movements. tracing patterns into the air seems a good way to discipline the body for more martial applications.
A third idea I am dabbling with is to give wizards their intelligence bonus to hit with rays and targeted spells. If I find this to be broken, I will discontinue it.
Please give me feedback on these solutions.
I love the idea of rolling the Archmage PrC into the wizard.
As an aside, I have my own take on other classes too.
More thoughts.
Remember that Cook's article also said that resource management isn't something that the game should lose, and resource management seems to be near the heart of the wizard dicussion. Not sure what the overall point is, but I haven't seen anyone reference this element of his article yet and I just thought I'd throw it back out there.
Additionally, yes, it is the DM's role to craft adventures with his players and party in mind. No, that doesn't mean build in a nice break period for the wizard in every encounter or adventure; sometimes they get shafted. It's kind of the reverse 15 minutes of fame, where everyone gets a time to feel weak, just as they get a time to feel strong.
However, overall, there should be enough downtime in the campaign as a whole for the wizard to do his stuff. That's the DM's job and problem, not the player's or the wizard's.
Also- so, the icky part of the wizard is the spells per day? How, then, is converting to a whole other system (spell points) more logical than simply increasing said number of spells? Give them a druid's alotment (specialists get the cleric's, with the extra "domain slot" being for their specialist bonus spell). Ding, problem solved! See how that works out from a game balance perspective.
Alternately, perhaps the solution doesn't lie in their use of magic at all. Though some people may gnash their teeth at the very thought of it, think of Gandalf. What's that? He has a sword?!
Maybe wizards should actually get the ability to use a very limited list of weapons with moderate proficiency; obviously no where near a fighter or even a rogue or cleric, but mayhaps in line with a bard. I'm not thinking about increasing their BAB, per se, but instituting some class feature that allows them to be at least noticeable with a melee weapon.
Just another 2cp.
A third idea I am dabbling with is to give wizards their intelligence bonus to hit with rays and targeted spells. If I find this to be broken, I will discontinue it.
I find this to be an excellent idea! I think it would make a great feat for Wizards, like what Weapon finesse has done for rogues.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
As can probably be seen by my posts, I'm basically on the fence as to the wizard's power. I don't think it would break the class to give it a d6 HD and an ability or two other than spellcasting that is relevant, because (i) I don't think it would increase their power very much and (ii) it would force them to give up more when they take a prestige class.
So, instead, I'll just toss a question out to the pro-status quo camp: do you think the wizard gets nerfed by an adventure like Redhand of Doom. Without giving away any significant spoilers, the adventure takes place over a very compressed timeframe and takes characters from 5th level to 14th level (I think). A wizard in this adventure is going to have a hard time keeping their spellbook up to date and crafting is going to be virtually impossible. The adventure paths all have similar points in them as well, where multiple adventures blend together with little downtime is available. Is the wizard not seriously hindered by these adventures? If so, is it a fault of the adventures or the class? Or, is item creation just a sideline ability, like turning undead is for a cleric? Is the wizard a viable class if they only ever get their fixed number of spells per level and are never able to scribe additional spells?
Or maybe - just maybe - there's not really anything wrong with the class at all. Maybe you just have to be a good DM and slow things down a bit. A good DM + a good player = a good game. Any class works within that formula. Mr. Jacobs' complaints above are not about the class itself. Rather, I think it would be more accurate to say that they're about the class's viability in the sort of adventures he has to design and market. Within that context, he's right: they suck. Outside of that context, he's wrong.
One word: wow. You said everything I was thinking, far more clearly and eloquently than I could have hoped to. 100% dead spot on.
Alternately, perhaps the solution doesn't lie in their use of magic at all. Though some people may gnash their teeth at the very thought of it, think of Gandalf. What's that? He has a sword?!Maybe wizards should actually get the ability to use a very limited list of weapons with moderate proficiency; obviously no where near a fighter or even a rogue or cleric, but mayhaps in line with a bard. I'm not thinking about increasing their BAB, per se, but instituting some class feature that allows them to be at least noticeable with a melee weapon.
Just another 2cp.
I don't think it's a question of the mage being able to wield a weapon, we already have a small list of weapons we are proficient with. It's the armor vs spell failure that should be worked on. If you want to send a mage out in Gandalf style,( may I someday reach the epic level he is ) we need to work on the HD and AC. Being able to survive the first hit would be a good thing for a mage wading into the fray.
I have GOT to learn to type faster!
|
|
So, instead, I'll just toss a question out to the pro-status quo camp: do you think the wizard gets nerfed by an adventure like Redhand of Doom. Without giving away any significant spoilers, the adventure takes place over a very compressed timeframe and takes characters from 5th level to 14th level (I think). A wizard in this adventure is going to have a hard time keeping their spellbook up to date and crafting is going to be virtually impossible. The adventure paths all have similar points in them as well, where multiple adventures blend together with little downtime is available. Is the wizard not seriously hindered by these adventures? If so, is it a fault of the adventures or the class? Or, is item creation just a sideline ability, like turning undead is for a cleric? Is the wizard a viable class if they only ever get their fixed number of spells per level and are never able to scribe additional spells?
Not sure about the Red Hand of Doom, but we are running Age of Worms and one of the characters is an artificer. A big part of the artificer is to create items and I am finding out that it takes quite a bit of time to create magic items. As the DM I have had to make sure that I allow time between adventures to create magic items so that he can utilize his class. I still limit the amount of time, but feel that it is my job to allow him to utilize his class.
If the adventure is specifically a really long adventure where the group would never have an opportunity to go "home", then, yes, a wizard would be a poor choice for that adventure. But generally, I feel that it is the DM's job to do their best to make the adventure fit for all the characters.
EDIT: It looks like others have basically said the same thing. Basically if the DM can't force it in the campaign, the player should be warned ahead of time that they might want to choose a different character type.