3. I would rule it fluffwise that there is a universal way to write spells so that no deciphering is needed, and that is how the ones from Ultimate Magic are written for my games if a player wanted one. but since most casters are secretive with spells they mostly have their own shorthand, and that is why the deciphering is needed.
1. A spell is not considered known until you record it into your book though. That does nothing to help you with another spellbook though.
Honestly I think that if the caster is on hand to really help me I should not need to make any rolls. <--This is my not a rules verdict, but how I think the rule should be.
If I kick the caster's but, and take his book then a rule similar to the one from 3.5 should have been made.
The counter argument might be that I would not have to spend the money to record the spells to my own book if it worked that way, but the cost to scribe a spell, if you are not paying for scrolls is really low anyway.
PS:I am thinking house rules are about to come into affect at my own table.
Yeah, but a scroll isn't really the mechanics behind the spell as far as I understand a scroll to work, just the spell itself, but you can still translate it into your book with the mechanics and some study. ---This to me is infuriating---
Yeah, but if you can read his shorthand why are you rerecording the spell? Which is to say detect magic would logically sort it into a universal language which you could then read without the roll. So the difficulty in knowing the spell would come in understanding at least from my perspective.
I didn't think there was enough information to get too upset about it. I would rather there be more information breakdown on how a spell is learned and when a spell is learned other than a vague statement and if there is a universal way to write spells then I'd really like to know about it. So either way the person interpreting it is probably going to read their interpretation as RAW and any editing to be done as house ruling.
There is no universal spell writing, as of now. I do wish there was fluff/flavor to explain the mechanics better though. I should not have to make a spellcraft check from a borrowed book every day to prepare a spell every time I prepare the spell that day if I look it from a realism(verisimilitude) point of view.
I think of it as very like properly understanding the proof of a theorem in mathematics (at university). It's nowhere near enough to read through the proof in a text book or even follow a lecturer working through it step by step on a blackboard. You don't get it till you've worked through it yourself, line by line, with pen and paper, perhaps adding sketches or references to other facts or proofs, or sometimes finding a completely different proof somewhere else. Even copying it down line by line makes the brain process it differently to reading. I don't remember relying solely on a text book for anything. If it was trivial, I'd probably worked on it in a previous course. You have to form your own mental pictures of how the concepts work before you can use them for anything.
Which is the hour that you spend investing in understanding the spell before writing it in your own notes. Is the writing of the notes necessary to know the theorem of the spell? If so then how the heck do the um books work?
Which is the hour that you spend investing in understanding the spell before writing it in your own notes. Is the writing of the notes necessary to know the theorem of the spell? If so then how the heck do the um books work?
.
.Ask there
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care. I'm not trying for an official answer. Any dm worth his salt will make a ruling and move on since it really is a very small factor. I was pointing out that the answer was not so clear cut and really needs elaboration, hence I stated that I was not trying to convince anyone. For some reason I feel compelled to challenge bold declarative statements that lack logical rational even if it is functionally meaningless to me.
Yes I do need a hobby. I know. I'll buy skyrim soon I promise.
Which is the hour that you spend investing in understanding the spell before writing it in your own notes. Is the writing of the notes necessary to know the theorem of the spell? If so then how the heck do the um books work?
Not ever having actually learned a spell and written it in a spellbook, I don't know :) It's only an analogy.
The rewriting would be a combination of your spellcheck (I'd want pen'n'paper to work through it) and and a clear (to you) copy written in your spellbook.
The theorem of the spell souds wrong. I'd think of it more as a series of steps to take or perhaps a recipe in order to first prepare the spell, then cast it using the appropriate components.
Maybe a maths theorem's the wrong analogy. Maybe its closer in a way to cooking: If you want to make meringues or a sponge cake, you have to learn how to beat the egg whites correctly.
I don't have UM, so don't know how they work, so don't know how to extend the analogy. My initial assumption was that the spellbooks were just pre-written ones to equip NPC wizards.
Nah pcs can use them as well as their own spellbooks.
That is what bugs me, we don't have enough to know. I find the cooking analogy to be better. You know how to bake the pie, but you're still unsure of the technique. To me memorizing a spell when you're unsure of the technique is covered by the additional roll to successfully memorize from a book not your own. Once the spell is set in memory functionally it is crafted you just have to eat it now at least to me.
@ Chief Cook and Bottlewasher, ultimate magic spellbooks thing
@ Chief Cook and Bottlewasher, ultimate magic spellbooks thing
As far as I can see, they're intended as NPC spellbooks or spellbooks for new characters perhaps created above 1st level. Where does it say that if a PC finds one or loots an NPC for one, that they can then memorize spells from it freely?
"Each book features a value, which represents what a character must pay for the book on the open market, though finding a seller may be difficult. The character may sell the book for half that value. Any book with a preparation ritual has two sets of costs, one for the book without the preparation ritual, and one for the book with the ritual. Using Preparation Rituals"
If they were only intended to be for NPCs or new characters the line about them being difficult to find on the market would be entirely unnecessary. If they cannot memorize spells from it freely then what on earth are the boons for? NPCs? Rather detailed pricing for fluff.
Oh by the way you've got this book, nope you can't read or prepare spells from, but if you could you'd get this really neat boon, oh well that's a shame.
I see your point. Is there a process for PCs to add a boon to their own spellbook (with these as suggestions)?
Personally, I'd house rule a process for the PC to 'personalise' the book for his own use (deleting the wrong or useless hints and adding their own). Takes time and spellchecks. I don't know what I'd do for pricing, though. Probably discuss with my players what seems fair.
I couldn't find a method to add one hence the mystery.
I would say that the spellbooks in UM are specially prepared, so that the spells are in a kind of common language. Think contract legaleze, the kind of spell format you find all cantrips and magic primers in.
Most wizards record their spells in shorthand that they understand because it makes their book worth more to them and keeps nosy busy bodies from being able to use them without spending hours translating it. Think of it as primitive DRM.
The UM spellbooks on the other hand are actual enchanted items, since they give unique magical bonuses. Thus, their spells can't be prepared in this shorthand, they have to be fully spelled out in common and detailed format. This also explains why there's so few spells in each spellbook, they likely take up significantly more space than a normal spell would, not being encoded in a shorthand form.
Absolutely no problems. So what does read magic do or rather the initial roll to translate their writing/code do effectively?
I can see why the second part would make perfect sense, but it doesn't invalidate the first question. They can be written in full out simple dictation even if the fluff disagrees stating that they are clearly personal spellbooks.
I assume this is the diamond spray being discussed?
Diamond Spray
Source Pathfinder #24 60
School evocation [earth]; Level sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a lump of coal)
Effect
Range 20 ft.
Area cone-shaped burst
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex half; Spell Resistance yes
DescriptionA cone of tiny, sparkling slivers as hard and sharp as filed diamonds springs from your outstretched fingers at tremendous speed. Any creature in the area of the torrent takes 1d6 points of slashing damage per caster level (maximum 10d6). These magical slivers are treated as adamantine and cold iron for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. In addition, this spell bypasses up to 1 point of an object’s hardness per 2 caster levels (maximum 10).
A bit off topic, but what a poorly thought out spell. It should obviously be a conjuration (creation) spell, and likely not require SR checks since it also tests against DR, which spells normally don't. It looks like it may have been intended to give evokers something they could do against golems (noting that it bypass DR/adamantine), but anything with SR or immunity like Golems ignore it anyway...
Likewise, spells overcome DR by default. If you do bend the rules to make it so that DR applies, it is described as magical slivers that count as adamantine and cold iron for overcoming DR, but it's not capable of overcoming DR/magic; even though being a spell makes it auto-pierce DR anyway...
*Confused face.*
Yeah I was totally confused by this spell as well. Someone doesn't understand the DR/golem rules.
The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.
A [insert golem type here] golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance.
Jak in 3.5 there was a special rule made in a splat book* to make someone else's spellbook your own. That rule does not exist in Pathfinder. By the rules someone else's book can not become your book. You must copy every spell from the other book into your book.
The 3.5 rule that is not in Pathfinder
That rule does not exist in Pathfinder.
Mastering a Foreign Spellbook
Instead of laboriously copying each spell of interest from a spellbook into his own, a wizard might instead madke a dedicated effort to master the spell book's particular ciphers and notations.........Mastering a spellbook requires a successful Spellcraft check(DC 25+ the level of the highest level spell in the book) and takes one week plus one day per spell contained withing. If the wizard succeeds, he can use the foreign spellbook as his own, requiring no further Spellcraft checks to preare or copy spells from it...
This rule can't exist in PF becuase iirc complete arcane isn't published under the OGL.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care. I'm not trying for an official answer. Any dm worth his salt will make a ruling and move on since it really is a very small factor. I was pointing out that the answer was not so clear cut and really needs elaboration, hence I stated that I was not trying to convince anyone. For some reason I feel compelled to challenge bold declarative statements that lack logical rational even if it is functionally meaningless to me.
Yes I do need a hobby. I know. I'll buy skyrim soon I promise.
Skyrim is awesome. But really, make sure to get it for PC. It's way better.
And grab the mods you like from skyrimnexus. There are some mods to the interface that drastically improve the gameplay on PC, and there's ThuumMic, which is awesome.
Finally, if you dont like plot-protected NPCs, there's two mods which in conjunction make it so all characters can be attacked and killed.
|
|
This rule can't exist in PF becuase iirc complete arcane isn't published under the OGL.
Mastering a Foreign Spellbook
Instead of laboriously copying each spell of interest from a spellbook into his own, a wizard might instead madke a dedicated effort to master the spell book's particular ciphers and notations.........Mastering a spellbook requires a successful Spellcraft check(DC 25+ the level of the highest level spell in the book) and takes one week plus one day per spell contained withing. If the wizard succeeds, he can use the foreign spellbook as his own, requiring no further Spellcraft checks to preare or copy spells from it...
IIRC A new rule could easily be made to fill the same purpose. They cant copy the formatting, but so long as a different name and text are used, theres nothing preventing it.
Its hardly a unique idea, copyright only affects the expression of the idea anyways, and because it's not unique, I'm pretty sure you could develop something separate without violating the OGL.
Sounds like to me, you have a problem with the players not what they are playing..
2 players are doing great, the other three complain.
And if you do something and it makes another player great, then the other (4?) complain?
1. I'm challenging the negation of the first quote which states that a wizard cannot know a spell that he did not record in his spell book.
2. Where did you get this helpful wizard? I've been, theoretically, rolling to read his scratch or using read magic.
3. Preconstructed spellbooks can be found in the ultimate magic book. You find them as loot, or in theory purchase them, and prepare spells directly from them. Preparing spells from them can even give you additional effects if you prepare 3 or more in a given sitting.
I don't see anything in the description of those books that says you don't still follow the normal rules for using someone else's spellbook. Can you show me where it says you no longer need to follow the rules in the Core Rule Book. I'm really not trying to be flippant. I have read it several times but I may have missed it.
Note that I do not own Ultimate Magic. I can only use the PRD.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thread can end now. The more I read what I will have to do to make this work the more I stand by what I said in the original post: I should not have trusted this group to play Pathfinder. I would rather GM a game I don't have to bend over backwards to make work with my s&*+ty group.
It's a shame this is what you've decided to take home from this discussion. There was some really good advice here, even if there was also some unnecessary jeering as well.
But the tone of your final post makes one thing clear:
YOU are not happy.
And an unhappy GM makes the game not worth playing, for you or your players.
I don't think the issue is Pathfinder, which is certainly not a system that requires "bending over backwards" as long as you familiarize yourself with the rules. And it may not even be your players to the extent that's been made out in this thread. I think it's that you need to take a break, and when you do feel like playing, run a game you enjoy and that you have better system mastery of.
If you ever do decide to run Pathfinder again, because you want to and not because players bully you into it, run the Beginners Box or core rulebook only first to ease into it and get familiar with the basics. Part of the mistake you clearly made was allowing advanced classes and 3rd party material when you were not ready to incorporate such things into your game.
Wow, did this thread get overly complicated, even after the OP bailed.
Look, it's really not that complicated. We have:
Wizard — Tier 1, really good player
Oracle — Tier 2, really good player
Rogue — Tier 3, meh
Ranger — Tier 4, decent player
Cavalier — Tier 5, meh
When looking at a group, I also consider the player's ability.
Really Good — up 1 tier
Decent — even
Meh — down 1 tier
You're left with:
Tier 0
Tier 1
Tier 4
Tier 4
Tier 6
Color me shocked! The party is unbalanced?!
Even if the OP has bailed: When faced with a situation like this, you *have* to nerf the high tiers. There's just no other way. No kidding, the other 3 feel like they're not contributing — Tier 0 & 1 can do everything they can do, and do it better, and it only gets worse at higher levels!
If you're going to game with a group like this, as a DM, you've got to take the initiative and tell your best players, "Hey, nothing above Tier 3. If you try it, I'm just gonna smack you down."
Wow, did this thread get overly complicated, even after the OP bailed.
Look, it's really not that complicated. We have:
Wizard — Tier 1, really good player
Oracle — Tier 2, really good player
Rogue — Tier 3, meh
Ranger — Tier 4, decent player
Cavalier — Tier 5, mehWhen looking at a group, I also consider the player's ability.
Really Good — up 1 tier
Decent — even
Meh — down 1 tierYou're left with:
Tier 0
Tier 1
Tier 4
Tier 4
Tier 6Color me shocked! The party is unbalanced?!
Even if the OP has bailed: When faced with a situation like this, you *have* to nerf the high tiers. There's just no other way. No kidding, the other 3 feel like they're not contributing — Tier 0 & 1 can do everything they can do, and do it better, and it only gets worse at higher levels!
If you're going to game with a group like this, as a DM, you've got to take the initiative and tell your best players, "Hey, nothing above Tier 3. If you try it, I'm just gonna smack you down."
Thing is, I don't think that's the case (and as an aside, I really don't pay much attention to tiers, but the cavalier seems a solid class, so I don't know why you have it so low).
I mean, I don't think, based on Frustrated's initial posts, that Wizard and Oracle and player were even all that "good." Let alone "Really good."
They both spammed a limited array of spells and abilities. Relying on a one trick pony isn't "good" and I think creative tactics could have shown them to be not as "good" as some folks say them to be.
And in both class' cases, part of the issue seemed to be that the rules for how many of the spells and abilities operated weren't really being paid attention to by the players or GM. Color spray is very close range, so how was the Oracle getting it off all the time--and affecting everyone? Necromancer's Command Undead ability only controls a handful of HD worth of undead and for a limited period of time, so that shouldn't have gotten out of hand. GM was letting exhausted penalty stack from ray of exhaustion which is not how that works--not to mention, a reliable player would have noticed that and not let it happen either.
Honestly? Sounds like nearly everyone didn't know how to play their characters and the GM didn't have enough system mastery to deal with it and correct the problem -- or the "good" players exploited the GM's lack of system mastery (again, letting exhausted condition stack).
And on top of that, the "oracle always knowing the right thing to say" smacks of uncontrolled metagaming. That's not a "good" player either.
I played in a scenario with a Heavens Oracle, and you're right they're very powerful, not just with Color Spray, but also with Moonlight Bridge.
However, I didn't find him overly powerful. Maybe:
1) You're clumping your enemies up too much? When I played, everyone was spread out more and at range with obstacles. Often the Oracle spent his time using Moonlight Bridge, and then spent a lot of time moving up (perhaps he was also lame, armor doesn't help). He was a non-factor a lot of the time, more of a utility character for several combats.
2) He can only use it a very limited number of times per day (7 times per day). If enemies are spread out, this is used up very quickly. Are you making sure it's only used 7 times per day? I find players conveniently "forget" if the ability is really good.
3) Many times color spray can't be used without hitting one or more PCs, or without forcing the PC to cast defensively or taking AoO. Using a spell template, you can more easily see how hard it is to use CP at times, without collateral damage.
4) To get into position for color spray, often the caster makes himself vulnerable. It sucks to be a caster with low AC at level 5, you can get maimed really fast.
5) Casters are very vulnerable to grappling, being surrounded, or even a single opponent with reach or Step Up. You can't cast Color Spray if you're grappled, or even in a Web spell.
6) 15' range is still really short. Anything that can be done to challenge a melee PC will probably be valid for challenging the Oracle (although the bridge will help immensely).
7) Oracles have a weakness (curse). They're actually completely crippling every few combats when a situation comes up that uses them (and the GM / player handles them correctly). I don't know your oracles curse, but you're probably hand waving it and making it too easy on the player.
8) Maybe your point buy is too high? The PC has a 22 CHR, which I'll assume means they started with a base of 18, put their +2 bonus into CHR, and also have a magic item that increases CHR. This means his other stats have to be weak. You have a smart player, but it doesn't mean his PC is that smart. Reign the player in.
Weak str can always be exploited through stat damage (undead or poisons) or combat maneuvers, low con means he gets wrecked easily, low Dex hit easier and balance checks across uneven terrain (or forces him to use the bridge wasting time), low Int I've already mentioned, low Wis he can be controlled easily as well (other casters will also have Improved Init etc) and maybe even turned on the party (for extra fun).
9) Maybe combats need to be more challenging in general.
Also, just because an opponent is stunned or blinded, doesn't mean the combat is over necessarily. The Oracle still has absolutely no DPS, SOMEONE has to reduce the opponents in HP, and that's the ranger and rogue!
Also, it's not a bad thing that a PC wins some combats very quickly. Imo it let's you move onto the good stuff, which is roleplaying.
You could always nerf (CHR / 2) or remove Awesome Display, that would solve the problem. Yes, your player found one of the most broken abilities that hasn't been nerfed yet, in the game. Maybe you should talk to your player if they're in the habit of always trying to make broken characters.
Regarding charisma, yes there is some redundancy with two CHR players. However, one can help (assist) the other and it doesn't hurt to have several well spoken PCs in the group. Everyone can get some face time, just like in real life. The oracle will be better at speaking to "good NPCs" and the rogue might be better at speaking to the underworld or shadier NPCs?
Also, I'd like to mention that the Oracle has limited skill points, the rogue should have several skills the Oracle doesn't have, especially Bluff and Sleight of Hand. A rogue doesn't JUST talk, a rogue has several roles. Maybe your campaign is just combat heavy, and the PCs are just efficient at killing everything?
Anyway, Awesome Display is a broken ability, but it's still possible to give everyone something to do, without having to make enemies specifically designed to beat the Oracle.
Jak in 3.5 there was a special rule made in a splat book* to make someone else's spellbook your own. That rule does not exist in Pathfinder. By the rules someone else's book can not become your book. You must copy every spell from the other book into your book.
The 3.5 rule that is not in Pathfinder
That rule does not exist in Pathfinder.
Mastering a Foreign Spellbook
Instead of laboriously copying each spell of interest from a spellbook into his own, a wizard might instead madke a dedicated effort to master the spell book's particular ciphers and notations.........Mastering a spellbook requires a successful Spellcraft check(DC 25+ the level of the highest level spell in the book) and takes one week plus one day per spell contained withing. If the wizard succeeds, he can use the foreign spellbook as his own, requiring no further Spellcraft checks to preare or copy spells from it...That was sort of my point to Jak. He thought the Pathfinder rules allowed for that to happen even though the rules does not exist in PF. I was also pointing out that not variation of that rule exist.
This rule can't exist in PF becuase iirc complete arcane isn't published under the OGL.
Again, it seems everyone is forgeting that the CURSE is supposed to be that the character is somehow impeded in his ability to interact. If you make up excuses as to why he is not impeded, then there is no curse.
It's like saying, "My curse is that I drink too much and I get into trouble, but it turns out I'm a Kenendy, so it never really affects my life after all."
I think that the OP has said that the oracle has the tongues curse, as you might know that curse is only active during battle.
|
|
Well Terquem, they're playing the curse properly. During combat he speaks and understands only his curse languages. That's what the curse does.
What I'm still wondering is how colour spray, even one buffed by Awesome Display, can take care of every encounter. Especially indoor encounters. The GM was talking about the gnome's war pony? I know it's medium sized, but you still can't bring that thing into a building, that's stupid.
Well now that's not much of a curse now, is it?
Especially when half the party speaks the 'cursed' language. I changed the curse to be a random language every time combat is invoked, and one that isn't spoken by anyone within a 500' distance.
Talking in combat is normally a very important time to talk. The key is "no" OOC talking during combat about anything going on within the game.
What I'm still wondering is how colour spray, even one buffed by Awesome Display, can take care of every encounter. Especially indoor encounters. The GM was talking about the gnome's war pony? I know it's medium sized, but you still can't bring that thing into a building, that's stupid.
My guess is allowing the mount to be used as an unfettered extension of the player character. Handle Animal and Ride are probably not being used (or used improperly), especially since an oracle of the heavens has neither as a class skill (unless granted through a trait). He also cannot handle the animal as a free action because that's the provenance of druids and rangers.
5th level oracle mounted on a war pony:
- The pony only knows the attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel tricks.
- DC 10 Handle Animal check and a move action to get the thing to go indoors or underground. Probably repeated checks the further away from an outdoors environment you try to take it.
- DC 10 Handle Animal check and a move action to get it to attack humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or animals. This should include moving up close enough for its rider to throw a color spray at them... ponies dislike standing next to something trying to kill it or its rider whether they are lashing out with their hooves or not.
- DC 25 Handle Animal check and a full-round action to get it to attack any other type of creature. Have fun moving your super awesome pony up to a target this round. If you're alive after it chews on you, it'll let you color spray to your heart's content next round.
- DC 5 Ride check at the start of each turn to guide the war pony with his knees, otherwise the oracle has to use one free hand to guide his mount.
- DC X Ride check to not fall off every time he gets hit.
- +2 Will save and 13hp (17hp on advanced template) on the war pony mean enemies can do many, many humorous things to the oracle while he's mounted.
Well now that's not much of a curse now, is it?
There aren't much of benefits from this curse so i say that it's ok.
That rule does not exist in Pathfinder.
That was sort of my point to Jak. He thought the Pathfinder rules allowed for that to happen even though the rules does not exist in PF. I was also pointing out that not variation of that rule exist.This rule can't exist in PF becuase iirc complete arcane isn't published under the OGL.
I didn't think that sort of rule existed in pathfinder. I don't see any rules addressing making another person's spellbook yours. I did point out how such an activity is necessitated by um. To me this looks like an oversight. I figure either someone overlooked adding the defining values that determine when a spell is learned or someone cut it out for space reasons thinking that most everyone would understand. They did until we got to um which gave us contradicting actions. I figure there was an oversight in the beginning or an oversight in the end. Either way it doesn't really matter much as the process when compared to wbl is very very slight and cheap and most campaigns don't limit you that heavily on time and its easy to go "well the um spellbook you found is magic enjoy."
My statements were to the effect that under time and wealth constraints an argument could be made after all what isn't expressly forbidden is allowed. I've also said a good dm will make a ruling and move on, expressly forbidding it or allowing it. Either way is fine. It just is an unclear spot from paizo.
I'm up now.
As far as the op is concerned as his function from what I read last night he seemed to be looking for justification for his decision to quit. I say bless him. He wants to quit then he probably shouldn't be running a campaign in the first place. If he wants to come back undoubtedly someone will be here to help.
As far as the tongues curse is concerned it can be somewhat of a problem. Mostly because by necessity of taking it he's either stating that during stressful situations, I would milk that as a dm, that he is going to be incomprehensible and will not be able to understand anyone until level 10 or his team mates are going to have to pick up a language. Either way he isn't really netting much benefit from the affliction. Also consider if he's ever on a date, trying to smooth talk information out of someone, or even trying to explain his actions to the guards he better hope they speak celestial.
Hiya DH I'll keep that in mind for skyrim. I've never been fond of the mysterious unkillable plot characters so I'll be on the lookout for that mod.
|
|
Terquem, it's called a curse. It is not, however, meant to be a downside. It's meant to be flavourful and interesting, and that's why each curse with the bad brings something good with it. Tongues has a pretty insignificant bad side, but its good side is just knowing more languages, which can be reproduced with a third level spell. If you compare that with haunted or wasting, it's a pretty meh curse.
when anyone says, "there really isn't much of a benefit from his curse"
I would like to point out that the benefit is that he gets to be an Oracle
You are wrong.
Casters has always been prime targets for the enemy NPC/mobs in almost any game I ever played. In our group, playing a wizard is accepting often and violent death, since any smart oponent will focus on the wizard. Oracle qualifies for this as well.
And of course, we as players, do the same. Wizards are a high value target, comparing the damage you have to do to them with their effectiveness. So they die fast. After a few sessions, your casters will divert their resources towards survival and towards acoiding attention. They will need the rest of the party to do this.
Archers and rouges are good for killing wizards.
How is a rogue good at killing wizards?
How is a rogue good at killing wizards?
stealth, sniper archtype, heavy crossbow? that's how i'd go for an opening shot.
EDIT: add poison for extra goodness. wizards aren't good vrs poison.