I don't mean to sound inflamatory, so sorry if it came of that way in the title, but the title does capture the essence of what I want to get at.
I love playing wizards. They are definitely my favorite character class to play and I have played them numerous times in 3.5E and in one ongoing campaign using preliminary Pathfinder RPG rules and have DMed for some more. That said, Wizards have not been a particularly weak class in 3.5E D&D and did not need the boost they received in the Pathfinder RPG.
In fact, saying that Wizards received a boost might be an understatement.
Consider the power-ups the Generalist* Wizard has received in the Pathfinder RPG (excluding universal or associated power-ups, such as skill consolidation [e.g. Concentration is now free with Spellcraft] or races with higher ability scores):
1) Hit Dice increased from d4 to d6
2) 8 Spell-Like abilities of all spell-levels (except 4, but this omission may even be a mistake [though probably not]) over the course of his wizardly career
3) 3 School powers
4) Unlimited casting of cantrips
*Specialists get the same power boosts, plus they effectively lose much of the restrictiveness of having a prohibited school (which I would solve by having them only be able to cast spells from prohibited schools using higher-level spell-slots, but that is not so relevant here and I have started another topic on that matter)
This is very significant power-inflation for the Wizard - a class that really did not need much of a boost. I understant that something is needed to keep the single class Wizard attractive compared to Prestige Classes, but this is overdoing it.
Any ideas as to how to depower the Wizard back to a reasonable level, yet keep the single class Wizard attractive compared to Prestige Classes?
I have one potential solution to the vast power boost that Wizards have received, but I have not tested it and in any case it may or may not take away from Wizard well, being a Wizard:
We could make the Wizard spell-progression top out at 3 prepared spells per level instead of the current 4.
This would preserve the new abilities the Wizard received and thus make remaining single-classed attractive. Also, since Prestige Classes grant levels of progression in previous classes, this would automatically depower the relevant Prestige Classes by an equal amount.
I know I have suggested this fix before, so don't jump on me for doing it again, but now is the right time to suggest it again, since the appropriate forum is now up and running.
Below is what a table of prepared spells would look like if my suggestion were to be implemented:
Please note that in the table below:
Spell level is along the x-axis running from left toright
Wizard level is along the y-axis runing from the top down
The dots are used to ensure that the formatting of the table works correctly on the forum
I think the rest is self-exlanatory, so without further ado, here is the table:
Level..0..1..2..3..4..5..6..7..8..9
................................................
1........3..1..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0
2........3..2..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0
3........3..2..1..0..0..0..0..0..0..0
4........3..3..2..0..0..0..0..0..0..0
5........3..3..2..1..0..0..0..0..0..0
6........3..3..3..2..0..0..0..0..0..0
7........3..3..3..2..1..0..0..0..0..0
8........3..3..3..3..2..0..0..0..0..0
9........3..3..3..3..2..1..0..0..0..0
10......3..3..3..3..3..2..0..0..0..0
11......3..3..3..3..3..2..1..0..0..0
12......3..3..3..3..3..3..2..0..0..0
13......3..3..3..3..3..3..2..1..0..0
14......3..3..3..3..3..3..3..2..0..0
15......3..3..3..3..3..3..3..2..1..0
16......3..3..3..3..3..3..3..3..2..0
17......3..3..3..3..3..3..3..3..2..1
18......3..3..3..3..3..3..3..3..3..2
19......3..3..3..3..3..3..3..3..3..2
20......3..3..3..3..3..3..3..3..3..3
Using this table, each level still provides the Wizard with at least 1 new spell slot, so the Wizard is never left to advancing a level and not getting better at spellcasting.
T table is also, in fact, more standardized than the table used for Wizards in the Pathfinder RPG Beta. The irregularity where in the Beta 9th level spells don't follow the normal spell progression for levels 19 and 20 is removed and all spell-levels now follow the standard progression.
(Note: The same thing could potentially be done to some or even all other full casters [or at least to those that don't cast spontaneously], such as Clerics and Druids.)
|
wizards, clerics and druids devote themselves to their practices
wizards and clerics are already punished for this by having just mere 2 kills + int modifier
wizards, clerics and druids NEED to memorize what spells they would use
sorceres and bards does not, this is rawpower
wizards and clerics have more flexibility than other casters... before chossing their spells, after doing that... that flexibility is ended... in the end sorcerers are readyfor certian situatiosn, but allways ready, with more spells at hand and doesn't needing to say "damn i just used that spell and now i really NEED it!"
so... stop with the idea of Nerfing the wizard as is pretty common... d6 hits points just added survivability...
wizard schools arebetter and more themed based than they were, and the sorcerer's give more spells and add known spells
ok i know i need finishing the posts, but the wizards table haven't changed in a lot of time....
why we don't depower the sorcerer so they have to chose what spells they use? *i know this is why you want to depower the wizard... half of the people who want to nerf the wizard want the sorcerer to beebtter than them, the other half wants their fighter to be better than them*
every caster is already nerfed with the videogame 1 - use, or just a few rounds of service... enforcing the idea of the need for magic items... which i abhor.
wizards, clerics and druids devote themselves to their practices
wizards and clerics are already punished for this by having just mere 2 kills + int modifier
Well, I don't think that that is a particularly important punishment for having full spellcasting. Besides, they have had that number of skill points in 3.5E too and were definitely among the stronger classes and now they got boosted in a major fashion. Something has got to give if balance is to be preserved.
wizards, clerics and druids NEED to memorize what spells they would usesorceres and bards does not, this is rawpower
If you feel sorcerers and bards are more overpowered than wizards, clerics and druids than you can argue for depowering those too, though I don't think that's the case.
so... stop with the idea of Nerfing the wizard as is pretty common... d6 hits points just added survivability...
But I am not nerfing the Wizard - I am merely arguing for restoring him to something closer to 3.5E level (and even the change above will not set him to 3.5E level), where the Wizard was still among the most powerful classes.
why we don't depower the sorcerer so they have to chose what spells they use? *i know this is why you want to depower the wizard... half of the people who want to nerf the wizard want the sorcerer to beebtter than them, the other half wants their fighter to be better than them*
Actually, I am a Wizard player. I like Wizards and am most often a Wizard when in a campaign world that I am not running. Wizads are the favorite class of mine to play.
Still, that does not mean I want the Wizard to be as overpowered compared to the other classes as it is now. Wizard was already among the stronger classes in 3.5E and he got a major power boost in the Pathfinder RPG Beta - probably a bigger power boost than any other class, though that is debatable. I understand the mechanical need (making single-classes Wizards attractive) and the flavor reasons for some of the changes, but that does not mean that these cannot be compensated for by altering something else.
|
|
every new edition actuallynerfs the wizards (and other spellcasters) making spells less efficient, or so limited they are useless outside combat
no i don't think bard or sorcerers are overpowered, but i do believe that the freedom they have is raw power itself... ok mostly the sorcerer... i play a sorcere and she is pretty useless outside her ship, but i play her like that :P)
i don't feel the wizard is overpowered, so punishing him having even less spells to cast and to memorize is too much, yes they have bonus spells due to high intelligence, still... they need to chose between what ever they have
yes now casters have a few more options, but yet still their focus should be a tactical one, what to use now and when, every edition casters, specially wizards get nerfed... i am surprised a wizard's player want to nerf wizards... jaja actually i have a friend (alsoplays wizards) that would be trolling here and leaving sarcastics frases all arund this post, just because of that
something like "yes there is somethign wrong with the game, lets nerf the wizard"
again i do notbelieve the wizard is overpowered
yes, they have infinite cantrisp, just like any other casting class, which most of them are thematic or give a minimum benefit, but lets them get crazy with this minimal, now your spellcastercan freely usehis prestidigitation to have 2 books floating in front of him and moving their pawes while memorizing his spells
the idea of giving them an infinite attack its ok with me, it does small damage, ithas a sacing throw and usually a sword does more damage, so if i have a fighter and a wizard, whywould one of this stop all the party because he has not one way to defend himself or being useful, since his spells are over (i knwo this notto be exactly the true, but many tables see it this way, i have seen it first hand, same with the cleric)
so giving them a bit mroe versatility, don't make them more powerful, just gives them more battery to extend the adventure day.
the idea is to abandon the format of 15 minutes adventure days... cutting short their spells... which will do exactly that. taking about atleast 9 spells or more from the wizard (and the cleric, their spell progressions are the same) would only hurt the class and the party
also considering the skills... the limited skills are a crippling flaw, once their spells are overyou make sure wizard are of very little use, at elast clwerics can do a better fight than them, but without skills they have very little to cooperate to a party.
PS: also this disussion is irrelevant asthe thing about the skills... both those things are considered sacred cows... Jason just mentioned it in other thread
I would say hell no to reworking the number of spells they get.
I don't think the wizard is more "overpowered" than in 3e - all the classes have gotten good boosts in Pathfinder. The bonus school spells aren't really better, just worded differently, than the old specialists. The specialist bonus is pretty sucky, and doesn't replace most first level spells. Everyone gets unlimited cantrips/orisons/thingys now. I don't see a problem.
Apart from improved balance, there is actually an additional boon to having fewer spells per level. It makes high-level character creation a bit less of a chore for DMs who are forced to go through lots of spells to pick for their NPC spellcasters and also makes wizards easier to run in combat at those higher levels. That's probably a matter for another topic though.
yes, they have infinite cantrisp, just like any other casting class, which most of them are thematic or give a minimum benefit, but lets them get crazy with this minimal, now your spellcastercan freely usehis prestidigitation to have 2 books floating in front of him and moving their pawes while memorizing his spells
the idea of giving them an infinite attack its ok with me, it does small damage, ithas a sacing throw and usually a sword does more damage, so if i have a fighter and a wizard, whywould one of this stop all the party because he has not one way to defend himself or being useful, since his spells are over (i knwo this notto be exactly the true, but many tables see it this way, i have seen it first hand, same with the cleric)
The free cantrips are not the main thing that overpowers the Wizard that's for sure (though you would be surprised how some (e.g. detect magic) can be abused when usable at will without additional rules being made up to constrain them) - I just included them in the list for completeness sake of all the new goodies Wizard's get without losing anything from 3.5E.
I would say hell no to reworking the number of spells they get.
Why not? It's not as if there isn't a precedent set with the Cleric/Druid spell numbers being cut back. Besides, it is not really cutting back on Wizard spells, since they now get spell-like abilities from each spell level (except 4th), so it is really only bringing them back to 3.5E numbers of spells. Another way to do it would be to simply remove the spell-like abilities Wizards get, but this would not solve the multiclassing problem and would make single class Wizards relatively unattractive compared with Prestige Classes offering full progressions.
Of course, if you have some other solution, as to how to bring Wizard power closer to 3.5E level yet make single-class Wizards viable compared with full-spellcasting Prestige Class combinations, feel free to present it - I am not dead set in my ways and am open to new ideas.
I don't think the wizard is more "overpowered" than in 3e - all the classes have gotten good boosts in Pathfinder.
Well, the only classes which were more overpowered than the Wizard in 3.5E were the Cleric and the Druid. The Druid did not get a boost in Pathfinder - in fact it was subsantially depowered and the Cleric lost some things too (though he gained the very powerful Channel Positive/Negative Energy ability). The Wizard was right behind these in terms of power, but he lost absolutely nothing - he was only boosted in a major way.
The bonus school spells aren't really better, just worded differently, than the old specialists.
Yes, but everybody gets them now even the universalists! Besides, the specialists had to lose schools to get those in 3.5E, whereas now they gain them without losing anything (just like universalists)! And then there are the other boosts of unlimited cantrips (OK, not a huge boost, but it all adds up), school powers and an upgrade in hit dice from d4 to d6. My point is that the Wizards lost nothing and gained all these new things, when they were already among the most powerful classes in 3.5E.
Why not? It's not as if there isn't a precedent set with the Cleric/Druid spell numbers being cut back. Besides, it is not really cutting back on Wizard spells, since they now get spell-like abilities from each spell level (except 4th), so it is really only bringing them back to 3.5E numbers of spells. Another way to do it would be to simply remove the spell-like abilities Wizards get, but this would not solve the multiclassing problem and would make single class Wizards relatively unattractive compared with Prestige Classes offering full progressions.
Messing with the number of spells they grant is a line that is a big heel no to me. Now I do not think Specialist caster should be allowed to cast from there prohibited schools at all. Also non specialist wizards Should Not gain the extra spells at all.
Spells are what a wizard is, It's his goal that's like saying "Lets cut a few feats from the fighter he gets more now anyhow.
Many spells have been nerfed anyway, whats the point of nerfing the wizard to the point ya might as well play an adapt.
The number of spells should stay. As for the cleric and druid losing spells lets see.
They could.
*Wear armor
*Use some good weapons
* Had a d8 HD
* Had the 2nd best BAB in the game
* Still had more spells then a wizard.
So what did they lose? A few spells to make em even with the base wizard yet they still have
*Wear armor
*Use some good weapons
* Had a d8 HD
* Had the 2nd best BAB in the game
all the wizard gained was more spells and a d6 HD
so why on earth should they gain less?
Well, the only classes which were more overpowered than the Wizard in 3.5E were the Cleric and the Druid. The Druid did not get a boost in Pathfinder - in fact it was subsantially depowered and the Cleric lost some things too (though he gained the very powerful Channel Positive/Negative Energy ability). The Wizard was right behind these in terms of power, but he lost absolutely nothing - he was only boosted in a major way.
I don't know exactly why you feel the wizard is now overpowered. Yes, the class was powerful in 3.5. But it wasn't overpowered; it was a very useful part of the overall party. There were a number of factors that helped balance it built into those rules. While I agree with the assertion that the druid was a very powerful class, it wasn't so fantastic as to make it the only class worth playing.
All the classes have gotten a boost in PRPG. Druids are mechanically different, but I don't think they have been "substantially depowered," indeed my own experience with the new rules has proven otherwise. The rules concerning druids are now more fluid, more consistent, and definitely help the druid play effectively. Clerics have gotten a great boost in domain powers. All the other classes have gotten a bevy of new powers, from rage points to rogue talents. What have these classes lost?
Why then should we hamper the wizard because they have some new abilities? Your argument that it needs to be closer to the 3.5 wizard will have two effects: 1) It will reduce the wizard's power level to the point where it moves from a great class to the weakest class (well, the bard may still have that spot). 2) It will keep the wizard from getting the scaling level powers that are now present in all spell-casting classes.
Reducing the number of spells will defeat one of the major purposes of the PRPG updates, which is to make sure that wizards don't run otu of spells in long encounters. Nothing is more frustrating to my players than their casters running out of spells by the second fight of the day.
every new edition actually nerfs the wizards (and other spellcasters) making spells less efficient, or so limited they are useless outside combat
I'm curious, could you explain how you think the change from 2nd Ed.->3rd Ed.,
allowing Single Moves with Spellcasting, removing Casting Time completely,removing 100% success of ANY melee damage to disrupt Spellcasting, etc,
is a "nerf" of Wizards (and other Spellcasters)?
I would agree with the OP that:
Specialists should not be able to gain access to "banned" Schools so easily.
(reducing their "banned" Schools from 2 to 1 is big enough an improvement already, and I'd prefer to keep it at 2)
If players don't want to have School limitations, they can play a Generalist.
This just waters down the trade-off aspect of Specializing.
Generalists really don't need Bonus Spells.
The OP suggested reducing the Spellcasting progression, and I believe Jason has said this is a no-go, for "BW-compatability", I assume.
But if that's the case, adding Bonus Spells to Generalists is like-wise definitely not backwards compatible...
I also think other Abilities of theirs (read: Metamagic) are overpowered/ un-called for.
The Bonded Item Spontaneous Casting (ON TOP of Bonus Spells!?!?)
is more beneficial to the many-spells-known Wizard than the Sorceror.
It also lets the Wizard infringe on the Sorceror's "territory" (Spontaneous Casting)
I don't know how productive discussing these specific issues in one "Wizards are OP" thread really is.
It's probably better to discuss specific powers in their own thread, with "class balance" in mind.
You know, in another thread I mentioned that I thought generalists, if they must get bonus spells, should get them at one level lower than they would normally be (i.e. no bonus 1st level, when the wizard can cast 9th level spells, the generalist bonus spell is 8th level, etc.)
If specialists must be able to cast prohibited spells, how about making them count as one level higher when they are prepared?
|
|
Roman
maybe we are not interested in havin 3.5 Wizards, but Pathfinder RPG Wizards
if you think "Detect Magic" is a problem or overused... you are already overusing magic
its clear you see the Wizard as something it is not... we won't convince you otherwise, i think no one of the ones that have answered the thread believe the wizard is overpowered... and i thank Jason for already overstating in other thread that the spell list is a sacred cow that won't be going, i am happy for that myself
and no, specialist wizard get a spell per level, of each level so 3.5 wizard already had more spells, they know just get a few bonuses spells but they are lower level than the oens they can cast... so its some nice benefit when they get it, but its not that good later
if the "bpnus" its to make NPC easier... there are rules to make cheap, easy and fast NPCs, i prfer my player with full options
I'd rather see a Feat to allow Specialist to be able to cast "Banned School" Spells (also with Level Adjustment)
maybe we are not interested in havin 3.5 Wizards, but Pathfinder RPG Wizards
What is the point of this line?
Pathfinder RPG is not even published, much less fixed in stone, and is derivative of 3.5Does this stand up for rational debate in some country?
Seriously, just ask yourself:
Is the Metamagic "Level Adjustment" system valid?
I.e., since an Empowered Spell takes up a higher level Slot, it's "worth" a high level Spell, right?
So "free" Metamagic is basically letting a Generalist convert low level slots into high level slots.
I fail to see how this is respecting the "sacrosanct" Spell Casting progression.
|
|
The number of spells should stay. As for the cleric and druid losing spells lets see.
¬¬
thanks Jaons this is a sacred cow he is unwilling to move, and i know how dedicatedly he pretects them....otherwise i would threatening for messing with my cleric and promising to make the same witht eh wizard i have been protecting from roman's madness...
also different types of spells... clerics are mostly buffs and protections and helaings, wizards are mostly attacks...
Montalve my point was not that they need nerfed more[ even if clerics should not have heavy armor] but that they have more then just spell power an all a wizard has is his magic.
|
|
every new edition actually nerfs the wizards (and other spellcasters) making spells less efficient, or so limited they are useless outside combatI'm curious, could you explain how you think the change from 2nd Ed.->3rd Ed.,
allowing Single Moves with Spellcasting, removing Casting Time completely,
removing 100% success of ANY melee damage to disrupt Spellcasting, etc,
is a "nerf" of Wizards (and other Spellcasters)?
magic is nerfed powerfully from 2nd edition to 3.0
yes now its fasteryes ITS weaker, and in 3.5 it gets weaker, in pathfinder it keeps close to 3.5....
a wish spell costed you part of your life because IT WAS something
right now is just better than limited spell...
there are many examples... my head wizard could talk for hours of this...
magic is nerfed powerfully from 2nd edition to 3.0
yes now its faster
yes ITS weaker, and in 3.5 it gets weaker, in pathfinder it keeps close to 3.5....a wish spell costed you part of your life because IT WAS something
right now is just better than limited spell...there are many examples... my head wizard could talk for hours of this...
You sir are very correct.
|
|
Montalve my point was not that they need nerfed more[ even if clerics should not have heavy armor] but that they have more then just spell power an all a wizard has is his magic.
point taken
my apologiesstill the clerics of war gods would ask their heavy armor :P
i liekd the idea in other thread to giving differnt types of armor depending on the god.. obviously gods who gave no armor or little armro would requiere a boost somewhere else
I can live with god of war granting heavy armor.
The power of individual spells may have changed,
but if you're looking at Class BALANCE (between each other, not vs. World-at-Large),
all nerf melee as a counter to spellcasting. I haven't even mentioned reducing melee-class Saves vs. magic.
having DC 15 to not provoke AoO while casting a 9th level spell in threatened area while taking a Move Action,
happens to nullify a good part of the advantages of melee vs. spellcasters.
|
|
maybe quandary still... Magic become cheaper, and cheaper, in 3.5 already it felt like that of a videogame... 4.0 was clearly that so hard that i decided not to play DnD any more using alternative rules like Arcana Evolved and others, then i found what Paizo was doing and i felt in love, magic is the same almost hollow feeling...
but the rest is so full of a soul that i just disregard magic and check my old 3.0 when playing.
right, I'm not quite understanding your point there...
(where are you from, anyhow?)
Anyhow, If you want to re-read my previous posts here,
and the specific areas I'm suggesting be further worked on, I think that might be more productive...
(they're as much focused on balancing the Generalist with Specialists, and Wizard vs. Sorceror, as vs. Melee types)
I see the wizard as being right where it belongs, I think the sorcerer and bard need brought up to it's level, not visa versa.
chilo,
si quieres, talvez sera mejor si respuestas en otros hilos de cada tema,
fuera la gran tema "el mago es demasadio poderoso" si me entiendes...
y no aguantes duro a mi critica sobre escribiendo, muchos ingles-hablantes escriben peor...
|
|
chilo,
si quieres, talvez sera mejor si respuestas en otros hilos de cada tema,
fuera la gran tema "el mago es demasadio poderoso" si me entiendes...y no aguantes duro a mi critica sobre escribiendo, muchos ingles-hablantes escriben peor...
jajaja esta bien, no tengo problema con eso :)
ok los revisare, prometidopero si no creo que el mago sea demasiado poderoso, peor quizas si algunas cosas deban ser ajustadas o clarificadas
In fact, saying that Wizards received a boost might be an understatement.
1) Hit Dice increased from d4 to d6
2) 8 Spell-Like abilities of all spell-levels (except 4, but this omission may even be a mistake [though probably not]) over the course of his wizardly career
3) 3 School powers
4) Unlimited casting of cantripsAny ideas as to how to depower the Wizard back to a reasonable level, yet keep the single class Wizard attractive compared to Prestige Classes?
First of all, there's only one thing where you are not correct; the Wizard gains spell slots with fixed spells inside (once they gain them, they choose which spell they "store" in the slot, and they cannot change them anymore), but they are real, regular spells, not spell-like abilities.
Pag. 194: "In addition to these abilities, each school also grants a number of bonus spells. Whenever a wizard attains the listed level, he can choose one spell from his school to prepare every day as a bonus spell. Instead of gaining a spell of the listed level, the wizard can instead choose a spell of a lower level, which he can then prepare twice per day (except for 2nd level). A universalist can choose spells from any school. Once chosen, these spells cannot be changed."After this precisation, I agree that Wizards (one of the more powerful and solid classes ever) got buffed; however, this is also true of all the other classes. What we really have to ask ourself is: are these bufferings too much ?
I think that, in general, these are not really too overpowering (some spells for example - the real deal with Wizards - got toned down, and this is the real method to keep casters in general under control). Unlimited cantrips are there in order to avoid the 15 minute day adventuring: if the Wizard has blown up all his spells and the 1st level supernatural power he has is not a damage dealer (Divinators' Diviner's Fortune for example) he can still "zot" his enemies with his ray of Frost instead of shooting from a crossbow...
The supernatural powers are given with the same idea in mind: a 1st level Wizard, for example, can still do something after his few spells are gone.
Also, the buffed HD was given in order to survive to more encounters (especially at low levels), and it's coherent with the new "HD/BaB transparency" of the system.
Now, after said this, it's true that SOME Wizards got more than others. Generalists come immediately in mind: in 3.5 they never took bonus spells (Specialists did, and this is still reflected in the new system - altough with some tweaks, particularily the "1/day per 2 levels" of the 1st level bonus spell they take at 2nd class level (and this I do not like at all, for example - more spells than a Sorcerer is not my liking)), now they not only take bonus spells, they can even choose from among all the Schools of Magic ! Now, that is (IMHO) overpowering.
Not counting that the Supernatural abilities that Generalists take are the most powerful at all: with the exclusion of Hand of the Apprentice (which is another "zot" power, but made with a weapon instead of a ray of energy)(although, admittedly, it has a lot of other tactical uses), Metamagic Mastery is extremely powerful AND it is not clear if the Wizard can overload the spell he is casting (that is, add metamagic feats that would make the spell’s effective level higher than the highest level of spell that he can cast normally) - in that case we would be struck by a new version of the woeful "Divine Metamagic Syndrome" - , and Mastery of All Schools is like Spell Focus AND Greater Spell Focus on all Schools of Magic AND Spell Penetration AND Greater Spell Penetration... except that these bonuses DO stack with those of the real feats !
My suggestions are:
1) eliminate the bonus spells given to the Generalist Wizard (they never had it before, they don't lose anything, so don't give them)
2) specify that a Wizard CANNOT apply Metamagic Mastery adding metamagic feats that would make the spell’s effective level higher than the highest level of spell that he can cast normally
3) make the bonuses from Mastery of All School DO NOT stack with those of real feats
I have suggestion only to "tone down" Generalist Wizards because, IMHO, they are the really overpowering Wizards of PFRPG; as for the other Specialists Wizards, my only complain is for the powers they get at 2nd level (maybe giving them 1/day per 3 or 4 class level would be more balancing).
Just my 2c...
|
|
I feel that these new boosts help emphasize the wizard's mastery of arcane studies and make the class much more appealing to take the full 20 levels of (thus reducing the chances of Prestige class dipping).
Perhaps you should examine the sorcerer's new bloodline powers (and heck, all of the boosts the other classes have received) and then re-evaluate your current stance.
i agree
that is why i believe sorcerers have rawpower versus wizards masteryalso lets point that School Focus and Greater School Focus are ridiculous...
in 3.0 they both offered a +2 DC in your prefered school, with mos tlow DC and high saving throws of creatures it was decent... but since 3.5 (and still, which i would elavorate in the Feat section) its hardly worth it, you need 2 feats for a +2 DC to spells, when you culd get feats that would be more usefull... now the only necesary reason to take it is for the requeriments of Prestigue Classes
The wizard as a class is not particularly powerful.
The thing that makes them "so powerful" are in fact a few spells that really *really* -really- need to be toned down, if not outright nerfed and/or done away with.
You can change the class mechanics all you want- but until the Spells are modified you will still end up with a fairly OP class.
It's like how they are trying to fix the fighter without looking at the feats until later.. It won't work, and can't work. Wizards *are* their spells. Until we get to that chapter, no amount of tinkering with the "class" is going to really alter the fact that they are very, very powerful.
-S
The wizard would tear the sorcerer a new one, especially at odd levels, or if the wizard was a generalist:
1. At odd levels the wizard will have at least one spell of higher level than the sorcerer
2. The wizard is also going to have as many spells as the sorcerer, due to his specialty spells
3. If the wizard is a generalist of level 8 or higher, he can cast two spells that first round of choice (with metamagic mastery on quicken spell), and if the wizard is not a generalist he has abjurationist ward or the evoker's energy bonus to fall back on to take less or deal more damage.
4. The wizard could still have one more spell of any type and level if he has an arcane bond that is an item.
1. At odd levels the wizard will have at least one spell of higher level than the sorcerer
2. The wizard is also going to have as many spells as the sorcerer, due to his specialty spells
3. If the wizard is a generalist of level 8 or higher, he can cast two spells that first round of choice (with metamagic mastery on quicken spell), and if the wizard is not a generalist he has abjurationist ward or the evoker's energy bonus to fall back on to take less or deal more damage.
4. The wizard could still have one more spell of any type and level if he has an arcane bond that is an item.
While I see where Mr. Spalding is coming from, comparisons of Wizards and Sorcerers like this are not terribly persuasive. Here's why:
1) Yes, higher level spells are better. But all levels of spells have great damage dealing potential. My wizards and sorcerers both fall back on Fireballs and Scorching Rays long past 12th level, because they are staple spells and plentiful.
2) The Wizard cannot choose his spells as the situation presents itself! The Sorcerer can. The Wizard's specialty spells are set in stone; they are even more limited than the Sorcerer's options. Besides, most rounds both of them can only cast one spell. That's what makes the Mystic Theurge reasonably balanced: no matter how many spells you have, you can generally only cast a round.
3) Yes, this lets the generalist wizard cast two spells a round. It's a one-time thing and a class ability. All classes need something to excel at, this is a good example of that. Sorcerers have a great deal of special abilities too, including resistances and attacks.
4) Any caster can have a lot more spells of any type and level if they have a wand.
The increased number of spells to a wizard is, in my experience, a Very Good Thing. It is not overpowering; it helps keep Wizards in fights, it makes them more willing to memorize buff and utility spells rather than all combat spells, and makes the Wizards the utilitarian casters they were meant to be.
We can concoct any number of scenarios where the wizard will be unbelievably fantastic. That's not going to be helpful.Spells and their uses are a very conditional thing, and every class has situations where they excel.
If you're always fighting on wide open plains where Flight and Invisibility allow spell-casters unrestricted movement, they will always outshine their fellows. But if you move from plains to dungeons, with their tight corners, blocked lines of sight, and multitudinous traps, the spell-casters spend more time using their spells to keep up and less time blasting away. The Fighter or Barbarian just need an enemy in front of them and their weapon in hand.
It has already happened in my games: Now that the party doesn't need to stop and rest so often, the martial classes, with the inexhaustible attacks and combos, high ACs and great hit points, are much more useful and tend to really help carry the party.
Even though I think the wizard would win in an out and out arcane duel, I think it's a fault with the sorcerer, not the wizard.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
I see the wizard as the standard that things should go to, not that the wizard needs to be brought down.
Even though I think the wizard would win in an out and out arcane duel, I think it's a fault with the sorcerer, not the wizard.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
I see the wizard as the standard that things should go to, not that the wizard needs to be brought down.
My misunderstanding. I'm sure I'll see you on the Sorcerer threads then!
Absolutely :D, check out my new direction thread, that's where I'm working my ideas currently.
|
|
The wizard as a class is not particularly powerful.
The thing that makes them "so powerful" are in fact a few spells that really *really* -really- need to be toned down, if not outright nerfed and/or done away with.
now we will have Wizards without spells!
cof cof actually every edition nerf the spells... why not do it like 4E where the magic is so nerfed that it resembles more a MMORPG than a RPG
everyone loves MMORPGs anyway!
ok now without sarcasm
half of the fighters feat giveso little bonus that the only reason one takes them is because they are needed to complete afeat tree to get an interesting ability after... lets say 3 to 6 feats...
spells are nerfed every edition, resembling more a videogame than the magic of fantasy
i know the rest of those around... but i play RPG to let my imagination fly, to live the adventures i read in books
for playing videogames i have both my PC and my 360, if i prefered to play like that i would stop buying books and buy more videogames (don'tget me wrong... i buy enough from both than there are games and books i have not even opened, yeah i am an addict, so what=)
i remember there is a line a friend always use around a lot of forums of this type "there is soemthing wrong with the sysmtem! lets nerf the wizard!" also exchangeable by "lets nerf the paladin" or "the magic"
i want magic that is more congruent with fantasy, not with mechanics to make happy those who don't play either the wizard or who are lazy
PS: yes ihave everything against 4E for resembling WoW that much...
I didn't actually say to nerf all their spells. Just a couple. (far few than most seem to believe, actually.).
Some spells though *do* need to be toned down. Wizards shouldn't be able to single handedly mow through all opposition. No class should. the wizard should need the group just as much as the group needs the wizard. Currently- it is not so. And I love my wizard. I love my sorc too.
But the DM shouldn't be forced to resort to "well that just doesn't work!" in order to keep campaign cohesion. Currently- they do. Or at least a handshake and gentlemen's agreement to not break the system.
I love the arcane casters and I play 'em alot- but they do need some of their spells toned down.
(they also need their evocation spells toned /up/, for that matter).
-S
No more nerfing of the wizard, please. If you look, the wizard used to have 9 castings per day when peaked out. Now it's four, bonuses not withstanding. Having had his utility cut in half, the poor wizard can stand to have some life put back in. The arcane school powers and bonuses do just that.
If you take away anything else you may as well tell him to hold the torch for the adventurers that actually get to do something.
...or take Bonded Item for free Spontaneous Spell of max level.
....or take Bonded Item...
...Because...???
The Wizard is going to run out of spells in a "direct confrontation" with a Sorceror?
Please stick with your variety of spells theory, seriously...
Some spells though *do* need to be toned down. Wizards shouldn't be able to single handedly mow through all opposition.
Thematically, I don't have a problem with Wizards (and other casters) having over-the-top effects. Just so long as it also requires an over-the-top amount of effort/resources/time to do so.
Case in point, look at the CG animation "Dead Fantasy" and "Dead Fantasy II" (just Google it, should be there). All the characters pull off moves and powers and attacks that are pretty much on par with each other in terms of effort required and resulting effect. But when what's-her-name (the purple ninja from Dead or Alive) goes up to the top of the ruins and begins casting that ninjutsu, at the end of the process, she destroys the entire battlefield (a feat probably equaled only by that winged chick). It's all right, though, because it also took her about thirty seconds to do it, and everyone was either trying to stop her or defend her (depending on which side they're on) and let her finish the ninjutsu.
So when the Fighter's standard action is "I swing my sword" and the Wizard's standard action is "I cast [enter Mass Save-Or-Die spell here]", then we have a problem.
Exactly, that's what 2nd Edition's Casting Time mechanic (and greater susceptability to interrupt) modeled so well.
Maybe Pathfinder doesn't need to return to EXACTLY that,
but achieving the same ends by other means, would be appropriate.
|
|
I didn't actually say to nerf all their spells. Just a couple. (far few than most seem to believe, actually.).
Some spells though *do* need to be toned down. Wizards shouldn't be able to single handedly mow through all opposition. No class should. the wizard should need the group just as much as the group needs the wizard. Currently- it is not so. And I love my wizard. I love my sorc too.
But the DM shouldn't be forced to resort to "well that just doesn't work!" in order to keep campaign cohesion. Currently- they do. Or at least a handshake and gentlemen's agreement to not break the system.I love the arcane casters and I play 'em alot- but they do need some of their spells toned down.
(they also need their evocation spells toned /up/, for that matter).-S
Selgar my opinion is that your DM needs to apply the right challenges for your party, including your character
if the problem is that you feel your spells are too good then he is not giving you the proper challenges...
does he uses creatures with spell resitances? spell immunities? areas without magic?
there are a lot of things out there that a wizard is unable to confront
a wizard might be able to bring down oposition, but a single rogue could kill him in a single sneak attack...
not everything about wizards is about firepower
...Because...???
The Wizard is going to run out of spells in a "direct confrontation" with a Sorceror?
Please stick with your variety of spells theory, seriously...
actually in most of the cases is just about initiative
usually the one who shots first, winis not like that with almost all clases?
|
|
Exactly, that's what 2nd Edition's Casting Time mechanic (and greater susceptability to interrupt) modeled so well.
Maybe Pathfinder doesn't need to return to EXACTLY that,
but achieving the same ends by other means, would be appropriate.
i agree wholeheartedly
i am of the poeple who believe that you needto channel the power, but also you need to be able to deliver, most of the sopellsare so toned down that asking that for the wizard is overkillit also depends in how evil is your DM
and yes that effect in Dead Fantasy is what i have in mind when channeling power, yeaers ago i came to an idea, stillneedto work it... similar to spell points but i changein how to spend them
the point is magic is power and demands sacrifice... if the chicks from Final Fantasy would have stopped Ayane, the onslaught of all that energy reunitedwould have been able to kill her...
of course considering that in that video hitting with bullets and swords does nothing else push away and knock down characters well its not a good way to describe a dead scene :P
They seemed to be able to do "strange and marvellous things" in 2nd Edition,
and most posters here seem to agree that the balance was more in Melee's direction in that Edition.
Anyhow, this thread is beat to death. Go do something productive!
Like report people who look funny as terrorists, or sell yourself into debt slavery!
Actually Mont, in the games I'm in we have the "handshake and gentlemen's" agreement not to break the game. Therefore the DM doesn't have to arbitrarily add in Dead Magic zones to stop us, and creatures who otherwise *have no ability to stop us* aren't arbitrarily granted that ability.
It doesn't come up in our games because we don't let it. Those who Do play full casters restrain ourselves so that we do not run over everyone else, and everyone has a chance to shine.
And yes, it's alot of fun.
But should the full casters have to hold back in order for the others to have fun? Should the rules continue to support a system where the full casters have to *intentionally gimp themselves* for the fun of all? I don't think so.
I love wizards. I love sorcs. I've played 'em both.
My Sorc made a mistake. He took a SOD spell.
Why is that a mistake? Its a mistake because its a choice that is extremely hard to remove. It makes Your life harder because if you Do not use it (for group fun) then you've wasted one of your few spells known.
If you Do use it, then eventually the DM has to smack it down. Which means the DM has essentially canceled out one of your rare things. (i.e. spells known). Damage spells are worthless so that wasn't really much of an option (even though myself and the wiz had been using them most of the campaign as part of the gent's agreement thing).
So the DM can either negate one of my spells (not that the sorc gets many) or I can Not use it. Neither choice is particularly useful. The Wizard at least can just buy another scroll and memorize something else. I think I would rather the spells be relatively balanced.
In my current campaign my wizard has also taken steps to not be Mr Superman. He's a halfling (so no int bonus) and has a sub-optimal spell selection. Why? Not because I couldn't have chosen other spells- but because with the right ones I can easily route the campaign. That's no fun for me or anyone else.
Now I'm not advocating that every spell be rewritten. But some spells are over the top, and others (evocation, i'm lookin at you!) need some serious buffs.
However, in no event is "changing the wizard" going to be effective unless it also encompasses looking at their spells.
Spells are their primary class ability.
Whether or not we agree on which spells need to be changed- I think everyone can agree that spells as a whole need a very careful looking over, and that only when that is done can we declare any full caster to be fixed, OP, underpar, or whatever.
-S
Selgard: If "by gentleman's agreement" you're agreeing to not use a certain spell because it's "too powerful",
then I would certainly think it appropriate to swap that spell out for an "OK" Spell,
since your house-rule is by the agreement of all,
and why should you be punished for not realizing the spell's inappropriateness when you chose it...
just a suggestion...
I love wizards, probably my favorite class for a variety of reason. I am typically loath to cry nerf on something. When it can be done I prefer that worse options me be made better instead of tearing down something else. All that said I was very surprised to see the changes made to the class in Pathfinder, I really don't think they should be given all the things they were given. Some things are ok, as I think they do more to make the game fun at lower levels for players, such as the increase to HD and the small freebie attack many schools give. However actually notable bonuses really need to be rescinded, IMO.