With all due respect, your saying that the issue is fixed is entirely your personal opinion. Mine is that the issue is still more or less the same with the new edition. Sure you have at will and encounter powers, but now, all players can be tempted to "nova blast" their more powerful daily powers in the 1st encounter of the day and then simply decide to rest. It is still up to them isn't it ?
So all it relates to in the end is whether or not the game master accepts / tolerates / encourages this kind of behaviour. Please, leave the rule system out of the equation.
I think the whole issue is really about a cost benefit analysis by the players and what the rules pretty much due to influence the cost benifit analysis.
In 3.5 Spell casters that have burned through most of their top two levels of spells really desperately want to stop the adventure and go rest. They are massively weaker then when they began the day and they are very cognisant that. So the adventure needs to be designed in such a way that the characters really believe that there will be huge negatives for them leaving and coming back because they are a hell of a lot weaker.
In 4E your daily powers, while good, are not that much better then your encounter powers and leaving often means giving up Action Points which are at least as good as a daily power and often better. So your giving up a fairly significant amount by walking away.
What a DM has to hand out as a carrot to make the players continue and what he uses as a stick to punish them for leaving is a lot smaller in 4E if the players are paying enough attention to make a rational cost-benefit analysis.
Its in fact small enough that the DM can probably simply design an 'alert' status for his locale. If the PCs press on they get some easy XPs buy jumping guys that had no chance to put on armour and a defence thats simply much more disorganized. Its worth it to press forward even if the Guardian bad ass monster sucked up the Daily powers because...
I agree completely, although I'd note that in my experience we do tend to turn to the Wizard much of the time as our troubleshooter in 4th Edition simply because most of the "dungeon-delving" sorts of rituals are Arcana-based.
Have you played a Wizard? Mage Armor is one of the always-take-it spells at 1st level, and any Wizard worth his salt will spend a bit of his starting gold hammering out a scroll or two of it. You should never be without it. Wizards have armor. It's just magical armor.Sounds to me like someone wasn't talking about optimizing but min-maxing. Yes a wizard in 3.x had a typical order of priority of:
1. Int
2. Con
3. Dex
4. Will
5. Str (personally why I think gnomes and halflings make great wizards)
6. Cha
But the difference in importance between 2 and 3 is very small typically. I have to question anyone that claims a class that can not wear armor has a low priority on dex (yes I know they can, but realistically who does).
Yes I have. Mage armor works for 1 hr/level in 3.x. Yes, if all your encounters happen in that one hour period for your 1st level wizard your golden. But if you have an encounter in the morning, another in the afternoon, and then a third in the evening. Whoops, now either you don't have your mage armor, or you are wasting your first turn each encounter buffing or wasting your resources (scrolls). Also mage armor does what for your touch AC again? Oh yeah, nothing. So when that guy comes up and tries to grapple your wizard (the easiest way to shut down a mage, especially low level ones), you get grabbed because you believed dex was worthless. That other mage does burning hands, well your reflex save sucks since again dex was worthless so you get toasted. The best way to survive damage is to never take damage.
Yes I have. Mage armor works for 1 hr/level in 3.x. Yes, if all your encounters happen in that one hour period for your 1st level wizard your golden. But if you have an encounter in the morning, another in the afternoon, and then a third in the evening. Whoops, now either you don't have your mage armor, or you are wasting your first turn each encounter buffing or wasting your resources (scrolls). Also mage armor does what for your touch AC again? Oh yeah, nothing. So when that guy comes up and tries to grapple your wizard (the easiest way to shut down a mage, especially low level ones), you get grabbed because you believed dex was worthless. That other mage does burning hands, well your reflex save sucks since again dex was worthless so you get toasted. The best way to survive damage is to never take damage.Have you played a Wizard? Mage Armor is one of the always-take-it spells at 1st level, and any Wizard worth his salt will spend a bit of his starting gold hammering out a scroll or two of it. You should never be without it. Wizards have armor. It's just magical armor.Sounds to me like someone wasn't talking about optimizing but min-maxing. Yes a wizard in 3.x had a typical order of priority of:
1. Int
2. Con
3. Dex
4. Will
5. Str (personally why I think gnomes and halflings make great wizards)
6. Cha
But the difference in importance between 2 and 3 is very small typically. I have to question anyone that claims a class that can not wear armor has a low priority on dex (yes I know they can, but realistically who does).
Man, I'm telling you, in practice you're just fine with Mage Armor. A point or two of touch AC isn't going to make the difference if someone wants to grapple you. And really, Burning Hands was a poor choice for an example since it does half damage on a successful save, which is one of the reasons having those extra hit points is great.
Let's say you're a 2nd-level Wizard up against a 2nd-level Wizard. He uses Burning Hands on you. You bumped your Dexterity a couple points so your Reflex save is higher. That might make the difference, but it probably won't. Either way, you're going to take at least half of 2d4.
Now, let's say you're that same 2nd-level Wizard up against a 2nd-level Wizard, except this time you bumped your Constitution score a couple points instead. You're almost as likely to make the Reflex save as in the first example (roughly 10% less likely), but your increased Constitution means that you have an extra 4 hit points. If you succeed on the save, you take half of 2d4 damage (for an average of 2.5 damage). If you fail, you take 2d4 damage (for an average of 5 damage).
What does this mean?
If you bumped your constitution score instead of your dexterity, you end up with more hit points after being hit with the Burning Hands, regardless of whether you succeeded or failed on the saving throw. If you succeeded and the Dex-Wizard succeeded, you still have 4 more HP than him. If you failed and the Dex-Wizard succeeded, you still have 1.5 more HP than him. If you succeeded and the Dex-Wizard failed, you have 6.5 more HP than him. If you failed and the Dex-Wizard failed, you still have 4 more HP than him. And keep in mind that you're only 10% less likely to succeed on that saving throw than the Dex-Wizard.
By the way, if you're the Dex-Wizard and you fail the save? You're in trouble. The max damage on 2d4 is, of course, eight damage. Without a Con bonus, at 2nd-level that sends you into negative HP (heck, even 6 or 7 damage stands a chance of dropping you, depending on how you rolled for your 2nd-level HP). Choosing Dexterity over Constitution very well could cost your character his life in a Burning Hands situation.
Choosing Dexterity over Constitution very well could cost your character his life in a Burning Hands situation.
Which is why I said you are approaching this from a min-max and not an optimizing perspective. You don't dump your con in favor of your dex, nor do you dump your dex in favor of your con. You increase both moderately. Optimizing a character does not mean you have to optimize one or two stats. You have a fairly good dex (14 at the least) and a fairly good con (again 14 at the least). You increase your chances of making the save and cover bases if you fail.
Really it sounds like you've played in games where the wizard is just ignored the entire time and thus don't see the reason for these things.
Choosing Dexterity over Constitution very well could cost your character his life in a Burning Hands situation.Which is why I said you are approaching this from a min-max and not an optimizing perspective. You don't dump your con in favor of your dex, nor do you dump your dex in favor of your con. You increase both moderately. Optimizing a character does not mean you have to optimize one or two stats. You have a fairly good dex (14 at the least) and a fairly good con (again 14 at the least). You increase your chances of making the save and cover bases if you fail.
Really it sounds like you've played in games where the wizard is just ignored the entire time and thus don't see the reason for these things.
Having played a lot of 3.5, having a high Constitution ends up being a lot more important to a Wizard than having a high Dexterity. This holds true at low levels and at high levels. And, realistically, you only have room to have one stat at 14 anyway (unless you're using racial bonuses), since you want your Intelligence at 18.
Having played a lot of 3.5, having a high Constitution ends up being a lot more important to a Wizard than having a high Dexterity. This holds true at low levels and at high levels. And, realistically, you only have room to have one stat at 14 anyway (unless you're using racial bonuses), since you want your Intelligence at 18.Choosing Dexterity over Constitution very well could cost your character his life in a Burning Hands situation.Which is why I said you are approaching this from a min-max and not an optimizing perspective. You don't dump your con in favor of your dex, nor do you dump your dex in favor of your con. You increase both moderately. Optimizing a character does not mean you have to optimize one or two stats. You have a fairly good dex (14 at the least) and a fairly good con (again 14 at the least). You increase your chances of making the save and cover bases if you fail.
Really it sounds like you've played in games where the wizard is just ignored the entire time and thus don't see the reason for these things.
Well good luck with 4e. I begin to see more why I feel no interest in it, but why others like it alot.
I'm running a great Pathfinder Campaign using the Beta PRPG rules with my weekly group and I also conduct a 4E D&D bi-weekly sessions at work.
I love running both games even though the rules are a bit different. I do agree that it's the company of my players that makes both of the games as exciting as ever, for even without any specific rules-set, it's the fun of roleplaying that we all enjoy.
Even with the MMO-like rules of 4E, my co-workers really enjoy the world of Golarion (Would love some Paizo support for 4E there...) as I try to spice it up with all the fluff that the Chronicles provide and that's what gaming is all about, no?
|
With all due respect, your saying that the issue is fixed is entirely your personal opinion. Mine is that the issue is still more or less the same with the new edition. Sure you have at will and encounter powers, but now, all players can be tempted to "nova blast" their more powerful daily powers in the 1st encounter of the day and then simply decide to rest. It is still up to them isn't it ?
So all it relates to in the end is whether or not the game master accepts / tolerates / encourages this kind of behaviour. Please, leave the rule system out of the equation.
I think the whole issue is really about a cost benefit analysis by the players and what the rules pretty much due to influence the cost benifit analysis.
In 3.5 Spell casters that have burned through most of their top two levels of spells really desperately want to stop the adventure and go rest. They are massively weaker then when they began the day and they are very cognisant that. So the adventure needs to be designed in such a way that the characters really believe that there will be huge negatives for them leaving and coming back because they are a hell of a lot weaker.
In 4E your daily powers, while good, are not that much better then your encounter powers and leaving often means giving up Action Points which are at least as good as a daily power and often better. So your giving up a fairly significant amount by walking away.
What a DM has to hand out as a carrot to make the players continue and what he uses as a stick to punish them for leaving is a lot smaller in 4E if the players are paying enough attention to make a rational cost-benefit analysis.
Its in fact small enough that the DM can probably simply design an 'alert' status for his locale. If the PCs press on they get some easy XPs buy jumping guys that had no chance to put on armour and a defence thats simply much more disorganized. Its worth it to press forward even if the Guardian bad ass monster sucked up the Daily powers because...
While I agree that often the wizard acts as a "problem solver" in 3E, he's not the only class capable acting in that role -- neither is the wizard any more "key" to the party's survival (out of the spellcasters) than the cleric or the druid. The cleric, for his healing and "buffing" spells, is IMO even more important -- when the cleric runs out of spells, *that* is when you really need to call it the day. Also note that most wizard "buffs" and problem-solving spells are low-to-mid level spells, such as Fly, Haste and Dispel Magic. Therefore, I don't think it's actually true if you say that when the wizard has spent his highest-level slots, it's time to rest or the session will end in TPK. As I already noted, it's much more "suicidal" to press on when your *healers* are out of spells. I suspect that's also the case in 4E, too, if you press on even though everyone has spent their "dailies", healing surges and second winds.
There's also another important thing to consider here -- if the DM consciously builds his encounters to take advantage of the party's weaknesses (lack of flight, low WILL saving throws, low AC, etc.), it's no wonder that the spellcasters need to "even the odds". But I personally think that is a sign of "bad" DMing, and not an issue of the system per se. I don't think you constantly need to challenge the PCs, and there's nothing wrong in placing easy encounters in your adventures. For example, if a group of 10th level PCs ambush a party of orc scouts, it shouldn't mean that there's a hundred more hidden nearby, or that all of the scouts are 7th level veterans, right?
Also, you seem to think that only the spellcasters matter in 3E, and while I see your point, it's fair to say that their existence or role in the party does not mean that none of the "martial" classes get to "shine" or play just as an important role to the party's survival as they do. In my group the spellcasters are beneficial to the party for a strategic point of view, but their presence (or lack of it) does not critically affect the outcome of the campaign.
|
So YES, at low levels (1-4) a wizard can indeed be almost as good as a fighter when it comes to archery. This isn't theorycraft but actual game experience talking.
-Polaris
Again - the fighter must have been built like crap for the wizard to even come close.
"Pewpew McArcherguy: Male Ftr4; CR 4;
Medium Humanoid (Human);
hp 32;
Init +4; Spd 30 ft/x4;
AC 18 (+4 armor, +4 dex), touch 14, flat-footed 14;
Base Atk/Grapple +4/+7;
Full Atk
+10 Two-handed (1d8+6;20/x3, +1 Composite Longbow (+3 Str)),
+11 Two-handed, Within 30' (1d8+6;20/x3, +1 Composite Longbow (+2
Str)),
+8/+8 Two-handed, Rapid Shot (1d8+5;20/x3, +1 Composite Longbow
(+2 Str));
AL CG; SV Fort +5, Ref +5, Will +0;
Str 16(+3), Dex 18(+4), Con 12(+1), Int 9(-1), Wis 8(-1), Cha 8(-1);
Skills: Climb_ +9, Jump_ +9.
Feats: Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus (Longbow), Weapon
Specialization (Longbow), Sharp-Shooting."
So YES, at low levels (1-4) a wizard can indeed be almost as good as a fighter when it comes to archery. This isn't theorycraft but actual game experience talking.
-Polaris
Again - the fighter must have been built like crap for the wizard to even come close.
"Pewpew McArcherguy: Male Ftr4; CR 4;
Medium Humanoid (Human);
hp 32;
Init +4; Spd 30 ft/x4;
AC 18 (+4 armor, +4 dex), touch 14, flat-footed 14;
Base Atk/Grapple +4/+7;Full Atk
+10 Two-handed (1d8+6;20/x3, +1 Composite Longbow (+3 Str)),
+11 Two-handed, Within 30' (1d8+6;20/x3, +1 Composite Longbow (+2
Str)),
+8/+8 Two-handed, Rapid Shot (1d8+5;20/x3, +1 Composite Longbow
(+2 Str));AL CG; SV Fort +5, Ref +5, Will +0;
Str 16(+3), Dex 18(+4), Con 12(+1), Int 9(-1), Wis 8(-1), Cha 8(-1);
Skills: Climb_ +9, Jump_ +9.
Feats: Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus (Longbow), Weapon
Specialization (Longbow), Sharp-Shooting."
If you are wasting all your feats on ranged attacks as a fighter, that is a pretty "crappy" build. Seriously, power attack + 2-handed weapon, goodbye. Toss in some weapon specialization for a bit of bonus.
|
|
If you are wasting all your feats on ranged attacks as a fighter, that is a pretty "crappy" build. Seriously, power attack + 2-handed weapon, goodbye. Toss in some weapon specialization for a bit of bonus.
I would not build a fighter as an archer but polaris was comparing a wizard to an archer based fighter. There is no comparison.
BTW - I rarely used power attack. I took it to get other feats but PA is mostly useless. Over time you do more damage with the higher "to hit" numbers.
If you are wasting all your feats on ranged attacks as a fighter, that is a pretty "crappy" build. Seriously, power attack + 2-handed weapon, goodbye. Toss in some weapon specialization for a bit of bonus.
The whole point was to show that an archer-Fighter is obscenely better than a Wizard at using a bow.
And, for the record, an archer-Fighter is actually a pretty devastating build.
Therefore, I don't think it's actually true if you say that when the wizard has spent his highest-level slots, it's time to rest or the session will end in TPK. As I already noted, it's much more "suicidal" to press on when your *healers* are out of spells. I suspect that's also the case in 4E, too, if you press on even though everyone has spent their "dailies", healing surges and second winds.
Healing surges take a while to run out, and second winds come back every encounter. And healers never run out of healing abilities for the day, since they're regained each encounter too. When the party eventually runs out of healing surges, that's when it's time to call for a rest.
Having played a lot of 3.5, having a high Constitution ends up being a lot more important to a Wizard than having a high Dexterity. This holds true at low levels and at high levels.
Having played a lot of 3.5, your preferred style of play will affect every opinion you form of "the system." What is indisputably true for you will be demonstrably false for others. This holds true at low levels and at high levels.
Having played a lot of 3.5, having a high Constitution ends up being a lot more important to a Wizard than having a high Dexterity. This holds true at low levels and at high levels.Having played a lot of 3.5, your preferred style of play will affect every opinion you form of "the system." What is indisputably true for you will be demonstrably false for others. This holds true at low levels and at high levels.
We're discussing combat optimized Wizards here. There are other places to chide others on their insensitivity to playstyles that aren't their own. Here, we're discussing rules-based optimization. If you'd like to participate in that discussion, that's fine.
While I agree that often the wizard acts as a "problem solver" in 3E, he's not the only class capable acting in that role -- neither is the wizard any more "key" to the party's survival (out of the spellcasters) than the cleric or the druid. The cleric, for his healing and "buffing" spells, is IMO even more important -- when the cleric runs out of spells, *that* is when you really need to call it the day. Also note that most wizard "buffs" and problem-solving spells are low-to-mid level spells, such as Fly, Haste and Dispel Magic. Therefore, I don't think it's actually true if you say that when the wizard has spent his highest-level slots, it's time to rest or the session will end in TPK. As I already noted, it's much more "suicidal" to press on when your *healers* are out of spells. I suspect that's also the case in 4E, too, if you press on even though everyone has spent their "dailies", healing surges and second winds.
I completely agree - high level party without a cleric in 3.5 is pure madness. I'm running a 12th level 3.5 game and I toss a save or die effect pretty much every round in a major fight. Its suicide not to have a cleric. That does not, however, diminish the role of the Mage.
My experience has also been that the mage runs out of spells before the cleric. I'd say about every second round the cleric is called upon to do something to fix the current predicament that the party is in while the mage is more likely to be casting a significant spell pretty much every round. Clerics main job is to keep the party healed as well but, between combats thats dealt with using cure light wounds wands, which in my game can be completely drained in two or three combats - but I bet my party have about eight of them kicking around at any given time. So, sure, if the Cleric is out of healing the party has to stop - and I've seen it happen (not enough death ward spells) but usually its the mage that runs out first.
There's also another important thing to consider here -- if the DM consciously builds his encounters to take advantage of the party's weaknesses (lack of flight, low WILL saving throws, low AC, etc.), it's no wonder that the spellcasters need to "even the odds". But I personally think that is a sign of "bad" DMing, and not an issue of the system per se. I don't think you constantly need to challenge the PCs, and there's nothing wrong in placing easy encounters in your adventures. For example, if a group of 10th level PCs ambush a party of orc scouts, it shouldn't mean that there's a hundred more hidden nearby, or that all of the scouts are 7th level veterans, right?
I'm not sure I'd agree with you in this regards. In any case many campaigns are APs and they are consistently tough. I'd also say that most modules are pretty bad ass as well. I think what your describing is not the norm by any means if the available modules and especially the APs are any kind of guide to what the customer base actually plays.
Also, you seem to think that only the spellcasters matter in 3E, and while I see your point, it's fair to say that their existence or role in the party does not mean that none of the "martial" classes get to "shine" or play just as an important role to the party's survival as they do. In my group the spellcasters are beneficial to the party for a strategic point of view, but their presence (or lack of it) does not critically affect the outcome of the campaign.
I don't think I really addressed this one way or another. Fighters and other martial classes however don't really 'run dry' in 3.5.
Having played a lot of 3.5, having a high Constitution ends up being a lot more important to a Wizard than having a high Dexterity. This holds true at low levels and at high levels.Having played a lot of 3.5, your preferred style of play will affect every opinion you form of "the system." What is indisputably true for you will be demonstrably false for others. This holds true at low levels and at high levels.Concur,
The fact is (and why I like Elf wizards in 3.5) the best way IMX (please note this) is not to do raw damage dealing but to enable party members and disable enemies.
Thus I find myself in frequent situations where I sit back after doing an initial boost and plink arrows and wait for a situation to arise to get the most bang for my casting buck.
Guess what? Most parties like this...they don't complain at all about haste so Scott Betts, I'd have to say that your experience was pretty atypical. Don't get me wrong. Con is very important for a wizard too....but don't pretend a wizard at low levels is "useless" if using his archery. That emphatically is not the case in general.
-Polaris
P.S. I don't have to show that the low level, high dex wizard is as good as a dedicated fighter-archer. I've already said that he wasn't. The wizard just has to be close at low levels and he is. At first level the difference between +1 bab and +0 bab is pretty minor and that continues for the first four levels or so and it so happens that entry level archery feats can be useful for wizards (ranged touch is not just for damage spells....ask any archmage)
If a significantly lower attack bonus and one quarter of the damage of a Fighter is "close" for you, we're done discussing this. They're not close, as multiple people have explained to you - in detail. More than one person has gone through the effort of creating entire character builds to demonstrate how your argument is flawed. If you're going to ignore that effort and the fact that your argument was shown to be grossly wrong, fine. But carrying on a discussion with someone like that is not worthwhile.
If you are wasting all your feats on ranged attacks as a fighter, that is a pretty "crappy" build. Seriously, power attack + 2-handed weapon, goodbye. Toss in some weapon specialization for a bit of bonus.
I totally disagree with you. Ranged builds are absolutely excellent. Any perusal of the monster manual should show that the vast majority of monsters need to get to you to hurt you. A party that can effectively keep the monsters out of hand to hand combat is extraordinary effective. While one might be able to juice out a little more damage from hand to hand combat builds your opening yourself to having the monsters hit you back.
Also fighters make great archer builds. I've found, as a DM, that when I'm levelling up monsters I always choose the fighter for archery as compared to ranger. At the end of the day shear number of feats wins the day in this regard. If you drop feat after feat onto an archer build you can make a truly stunningly effective archer.
|
|
No I wasn't. I was saying that a wizard using a bow was comparable to a fighter that just picked up a bow (or most other characters). I never said the wizard was better and indeed said the reverse.
So 5 yard penalty for a strawman. Read my initial point more carefully please.
-Polaris
Dude you said this ...
The wizard until about level 7 (at which point he shouldn't be running out of spells anyway) is not that much worse off than an archer oriented fighter at the crossbow or the bow (since I am personally fond of elven wizards).
Not just some FTR but an "archer oriented fighter".
|
|
Most fighters will have a 12 Dex (unless an archer specialist but I'm not talking about an archer specialist!).
Yes you were ...
The wizard until about level 7 (at which point he shouldn't be running out of spells anyway) is not that much worse off than an archer oriented fighter at the crossbow or the bow (since I am personally fond of elven wizards).
|
|
4th level = weapon specialization4th level isn't low level either, and weapon spec is only +2 damage (not a lot).
-Polaris
Dude you said ...
The wizard until about level 7 (at which point he shouldn't be running out of spells anyway) is not that much worse off than an archer oriented fighter at the crossbow or the bow (since I am personally fond of elven wizards). Consider that at level 4 (for example), the wizard has a bab of +2 while the fighter has a bab of +4 and the wizard is very likely to have a better dex (that's especially true with many Elf builds). Furthermore, if the wizard is a ray-caster, the wizard is likely to have PB shot and precise shot anyway.
Is the fighter better at the bow or crossbow than the wizard?Sure.
Is he that much mechanically better?
Actually not really. In fact at first level a wizard can be better at archery than the party fighter. No lie.
Are you talking about levels 1-7 or not? You threw in the specific bit about 4th level.
Frankly I am not sure what your point is anymore.
|
|
Most fighters will have a 12 Dex (unless an archer specialist but I'm not talking about an archer specialist!).Yes you were ...
The wizard until about level 7 (at which point he shouldn't be running out of spells anyway) is not that much worse off than an archer oriented fighter at the crossbow or the bow (since I am personally fond of elven wizards).No I wasn't. I never said Archer specialist. In fact I admitted that the archer specialist would be better...but at low levels (traditionally defined to be 1-3) the wizard is comparable (NOT equal but COMPARABLE). He is.
Also martial characters run out of juice too...it's called hit points and long term status effects.
-Polaris
So what exactly is the difference between an "archer oriented fighter" and "archer specialist"? They sound the same to me.
Mage armor is badly overrated.
Hahaha, really?
It's good at first level but only for 60 minutes and making scrolls of it seriously eats into your starting money every slot you spend on mage armor is a slot you don't have for something else (like sleep or colour spray to name two).
Which is why you make scrolls. At 1st level you don't need to spend any more than 50 gp on your starting gear as a Wizard, leaving you plenty of gold to start with a pair of scrolls of Mage Armor. When you find yourself entering an area where it looks like monsters dwell, pop that scroll and you're good. By the time you've used them up, you're hopefully rich enough for the experience that you can afford to make a few more.
At BEST a first level wizard is going to have three slots (four is possible only with the most cheesy sorts of builds) and most wizards only have two. That's not good for a DM that actually keeps track of time (mine generally do).
So do I. But most adventures (certainly most published adventures) tend to contain a number of encounters in a relatively local area. An hour goes a long way.
Starting at second level, any wizard can afford thistledown padded armor and by third level will also be able to afford mithril bucklers. Neither has an ASF. By mid levels, the wizard can have a twilight mithril shirt +1 for a grand total of 5,100 gold (dirt cheap compared with bracers of armor) giving you 5AC with no ASF and no ACP (and thus no armor proficiency is needed).
Or you could cast Greater Mage Armor at 5th level, giving you a +6 AC with no ASF or ACP for five hours per cast, and pocket that 5,100 gold for something a Wizard might actually find useful.
So how many wizards have you played?
Lots.
I'm telling you that using archery as a low level wizard is a LOT better than you think it is.
No, it's not.
It's not optimal,
You're right, it's not optimal. It's not even preferred. It's not really even that entertaining. It's mundane. You're roughly as good with a bow as Joe Commoner, and it's certainly not the Wizardly sort of thing to be doing.
If a significantly lower attack bonus and one quarter of the damage of a Fighter is "close" for you, we're done discussing this. They're not close, as multiple people have explained to you - in detail. More than one person has gone through the effort of creating entire character builds to demonstrate how your argument is flawed. If you're going..."Significantly lower attack bonus":
Most fighters will have a 12 Dex (unless an archer specialist but I'm not talking about an archer specialist!).
I was.
EDIT: And, apparently, so were you at various points.
Thus at first level most fighters will be get +2 to attack with a bow. An Elf or even human wizard will have +2 or +3 from Dex alone and a +0 bab.
The attack bonuses look the same to me.
You're right. At first level, a Wizard with a bow sucks just as hard as a melee Fighter, a Cleric, a Druid, a Paladin, or any other character that isn't built for ranged fighting. You're terrible at it. It's an awful thing to have to resort to. You're better off playing a ranged Fighter at that level.
At first level, no figher will be able to afford a mighty bow, and a crossbow is totally insensitive to strength. Thus a 10 str wizard (not totally unreasonable) will do d8 with a longbow....same as an 18 str fighter.
Yep, and that Cleric, Druid, Paladin, etc. They all suck equally hard with ranged weapons at 1st-level. That's why they should avoid using them.
Yes as you go up in levels the fighter gets better of course, but not by an overwhelming margin.
Yes, but the non-ranged Fighter probably will play it smart and avoid whipping out the bow. The difference is, you want to switch to the bow for some reason. The Fighter knows he's terrible with it. Your Wizard is also terrible with it, he just doesn't know it.
Think what you like, but actual play experience is on my side on this one. Low level wizards can be deadly archers. Sure not as good as an archer specialist but enough at low levels to hold their own.
And feel completely inferior to the Ranger, who is dealing more ranged damage. And the Fighter, who is dealing more melee damage. And the Druid, who is throwing wolves at the enemy.
Not just some FTR but an "archer oriented fighter".I also said at low levels, and I am right about that. Archer oriented fighters really start to take off at mid levels. Hint: It's hard to afford strength adjusted bows at low levels.
-Polaris
Really? The 200 extra gold pieces that +2 Strength bow costs is prohibitively expensive to your 4th-level character with a character wealth of 5,400 gold pieces? At 1st-level, yeah, it's tough. Doesn't matter, though. The archer fighter is still significantly better at it. And by the time he hits level 4 (still low level, by anyone's definition), he's ridiculously better at it.
4th level = weapon specialization4th level isn't low level either, and weapon spec is only +2 damage (not a lot).
-Polaris
Okay, I stand corrected. I've found someone who actually thinks fourth level doesn't qualify as low-level.
You're right. At first level, a Wizard with a bow sucks just as hard as a melee Fighter, a Cleric, a Druid, a Paladin, or any other character that isn't built for ranged fighting. You're terrible at it. It's an awful thing to have to resort to. You're better off playing a ranged Fighter at that level.
What is your justification that these different cases as you say "suck" "hard"? Assuming a 14 Dex on our wizard that means they have a +2 ranged attack (or +3 if small). Let's look at a typical foe at 1st level, the orc warrior. The orc warrior has an AC of 13, this means that our typical [14 Dex] wizard has 50% chance of hitting the target or 55% if the wizard is small. I would hardly call that "awful". Maybe orcs are just an outlier, let's check out some other common foes:
hobgoblin: AC 15 = our wizard has a 40% chancegoblins: AC 15 = 40% again
kobolds: AC 15 = 40%
I would hardly call a 40-50% chance of hitting sucking. I'm not really sure what you are comparing it to, maybe a 7th level fighter. Whatever it is, I think it is pretty clear you are not comparing it to common foes for 1st level parties, which is the only way to tell if a certain build is "awful" or "sucks".
You're right. At first level, a Wizard with a bow sucks just as hard as a melee Fighter, a Cleric, a Druid, a Paladin, or any other character that isn't built for ranged fighting. You're terrible at it. It's an awful thing to have to resort to. You're better off playing a ranged Fighter at that level.What is your justification that these different cases as you say "suck" "hard"? Assuming a 14 Dex on our wizard that means they have a +2 ranged attack (or +3 if small). Let's look at a typical foe at 1st level, the orc warrior. The orc warrior has an AC of 13, this means that our typical [14 Dex] wizard has 50% chance of hitting the target or 55% if the wizard is small. I would hardly call that "awful". Maybe orcs are just an outlier, let's check out some other common foes:
hobgoblin: AC 15 = our wizard has a 40% chance
goblins: AC 15 = 40% again
kobolds: AC 15 = 40%I would hardly call a 40-50% chance of hitting sucking. I'm not really sure what you are comparing it to, maybe a 7th level fighter. Whatever it is, I think it is pretty clear you are not comparing it to common foes for 1st level parties, which is the only way to tell if a certain build is "awful" or "sucks".
I'm comparing it to the equivalent bonuses other members of the party would receive doing their primary job. For instance, we discussed a ranged Fighter earlier who, at 1st-level, had a +6 to hit with his longbow. That's a spread of +4, which is huge at 1st-level. Compared to that ranged fighter (which isn't even min-maxed), that 1st-level Wizard sucks with the crossbow.
I'm comparing it to the equivalent bonuses other members of the party would receive doing their primary job. For instance, we discussed a ranged Fighter earlier who, at 1st-level, had a +6 to hit with his longbow. That's a spread of +4, which is huge at 1st-level. Compared to that ranged fighter (which isn't even min-maxed), that 1st-level Wizard sucks with the crossbow.
Perhaps, but compared to a typical foe's AC, they do not suck. Your ranged fighter is just better. Not being as good as someone else is not the same as sucking.
I'm comparing it to the equivalent bonuses other members of the party would receive doing their primary job. For instance, we discussed a ranged Fighter earlier who, at 1st-level, had a +6 to hit with his longbow. That's a spread of +4, which is huge at 1st-level. Compared to that ranged fighter (which isn't even min-maxed), that 1st-level Wizard sucks with the crossbow.Perhaps, but compared to a typical foe's AC, they do not suck. Your ranged fighter is just better. Not being as good as someone else is not the same as sucking.
It is when it's a team game.
You look over at the ranger, and he's hitting 65%-70% of the time and dealing comparable damage.
You look over at the fighter, and he's hitting 60% of the time, dealing more damage than you, and getting AoOs in to boot.
You look over at the rogue, and he's hitting 75% of the time and dealing way more damage than you.
You look over at the druid, and he's hitting about as much as you and dealing about as much damage, but his wolf is ripping another enemy to shreds.
It's tough to feel useful to the party when you're out of class features and have to resort to being a commoner with a crossbow.
But none of these really addresses the original point - Polaris asked what was "non-castery" about using a bow. Why shouldn't a wizard occasionally take out a bow and shoot some enemies?
The answer, once again, is this: The wizard should be allowed to do so, but should not be forced to do so.
You can make a caster who shoots a bow. You can make a caster who is *good* at shooting a bow, in fact, if that is your goal to do so! But the bow itself has nothing to do with being a caster, and shouldn't.
Firing a crossbow shouldn't be the most common action taken by a low-level wizard - casting a spell should be.
I would suggest that having wizards constantly casting magic trying to be just as effective as the ranger or fighter is making the wizard, well less magical. If magic is so easy to come by it becomes mundane. There is nothing special about it anymore. Where as mages could be a bit aloft before, now they are just a gritty as any fighter. The mage has less ... class or style.
Now some people like that, but me I expect my mages a little more classy than someone acting like Cartman from South Park running around singing "Finger Bang".
Before anything like damage reduction or energy resistance/vulnerability is taken into account, I'm wondering what 1st level wizard spell, cast by a first level wizard, actually directly deals as much damage as a crossbow?
Good point.
Also I think there might be some difference of views as to what a 1st level (or low level) wizard means. Are they a full-fledged "Wizard" that other wizards see as an equal? Or are they more of a "Novice Wizard" just learning to master the ways of magic and don't really come into their own until later? Also consider, what about multiclassers? If you feel that a 1st level wizard is a full-fledged wizard, then would a figher 1/wizard 1 (wizard taken at 2nd level) also be seen that way?
But none of these really addresses the original point - Polaris asked what was "non-castery" about using a bow. Why shouldn't a wizard occasionally take out a bow and shoot some enemies?
The answer, once again, is this: The wizard should be allowed to do so, but should not be forced to do so.
You can make a caster who shoots a bow. You can make a caster who is *good* at shooting a bow, in fact, if that is your goal to do so! But the bow itself has nothing to do with being a caster, and shouldn't.
Firing a crossbow shouldn't be the most common action taken by a low-level wizard - casting a spell should be.
I would suggest that having wizards constantly casting magic trying to be just as effective as the ranger or fighter is making the wizard, well less magical. If magic is so easy to come by it becomes mundane. There is nothing special about it anymore. Where as mages could be a bit aloft before, now they are just a gritty as any fighter. The mage has less ... class or style.
Now some people like that, but me I expect my mages a little more classy than someone acting like Cartman from South Park running around singing "Finger Bang".
If you needed your Wizards to be crippled at low levels in order to feel special, that's really a shame. There's nothing more mundane for a Wizard than having to resort to a crossbow.
If you needed your Wizards to be crippled at low levels in order to feel special, that's really a shame. There's nothing more mundane for a Wizard than having to resort to a crossbow.
Well different expectations. I find the real shame is making a character's abilities that are suppose to feel ... well "magical", end up feeling just as mundane as shooting a crossbow. Yes crossbows are mundane if you're just going to be doing something just to be doing something, you might as well do the mundane thing.
I think some of the lesser, orb spells do, but yes, that's an excellent point and a major reason why I'd rather shoot arrow than use magic missile as a low level (1-3) wizard most of the time. Arrows are cheap and typically do d8 damage. That's better than most low level spells.
Gosh, really? You'd rather fire off a 1d8 damage arrow that hits 40% of the time than a 1d4+1 fireball that hits 100% of the time?
Hmm...4.5 average damage less than half the time, or 3.5 average damage every time. Which one seems like the better choice? The only downside, of course, is that the better choice (magic missile) is only usable twice. Which is the problem with Wizards at low levels.
Save your spells for things that really matter.
Yeah, like combat.
I am telling most of you here and now that a wizard should not feel compelled to cast a spell every combat round to feel "castery".
I certainly feel a lot more comfortably castery when I'm doing something relevant to my class every round.
Once you've hasted your friends (and perhaps enlarged them), any extra damage you do with your archery is gravy....and there is no reason to blow your magic...and IMX (smart players), the other characters won't want you to unless it's really, really important.
Oh, totally! Once you've tossed a couple of buffs on your friends you can feel free to kick back and relax! Heck, high-tail it back to the loot wagon and stick your crossbow into the hireling's hands. He'll be just as useful as you would have been, standing in the back, hitting one enemy every three rounds.
Seriously, Mage armor is badly overrated. It's OK for a level one wizard I guess until he can get better but that's about it.
Well that and fighting incorporeals.
You've just made my point. Even at low levels, a good use of sleep, colour spray, enlarge person, or the like will be far more appreciated than a magic missile.
Of course it will.
Enlarge the fighter (melee) and any extra damage you do with your arrows is just gravy.
Sure, except you're still sitting there for the rest of combat, firing a crossbow like any Joe Commoner could do and hitting maybe once every three rounds. Two-thirds of the time you might as well not be on the battlefield.
To be a 'castery' wizard does not mean you should be casting all the time. That's a misnomer.
I disagree. If I'm a Wizard and I command arcane powers, it's more fun from a thematic perspective if I'm able to make regular use of those powers.
As for mage armor scrolls, they cost 25 gp a pop which means you can't generally afford them out of the gate and the one-level XP gravy train doesn't kick in until fourth level so burning XP is simply bad for you all around.
They cost 12 gold 5 silver to scribe (which, as a Wizard, you can do). And one experience point. Go kill a kobold.
Thistledown is only about 500 gold which will be cheaper than the scrolls you wind up using.
No it won't. To even match the Thistledown you would have to scribe 40 scrolls of mage armor. By the time you've blown through that many encounters, not only will you have a 1st-level spell slot to spare for a long-lasting Mage Armor, but you'll have access to Greater Mage Armor.
Greater Mage Armor is a waste of space. By the time you get it, you can do better (mirror image or greater mage armor....that's not much of a choice.....and mirror image is lower level!)
Except that you can cast both, and Mirror Image runs out after a couple attacks.
Also by wearing ACP -0/ASF 0% armor, the wizard can later in his carrier add other things on it (like total fortification) that you can't generally afford to do with bracers and opens up another slot for a wizard.
Or he could spend his money on useful things.
Seriously, Mage armor is badly overrated. It's OK for a level one wizard I guess until he can get better but that's about it.
You really, really don't know what you're talking about.