Boost to wizard power

[Ptolmaeus Arvenus]

Vestrial wrote:

You realize this is a contradiction, right? How can he be more focused on being a generalist? And their generalist nature is exactly what is being complained about-- wizards can do too much stuff.

You missed the point of the metaphor. They are generalists that are more powerful than specialists. Thus the comparison between a simple swiss army knife and an entire nation of people. The swiss army knife can do a lot of things but not one thing very well, you're still better off getting a proper knife or screwdriver. The people of Switzerland can do a lot of things really well when the want to.

Wizards need to be a swiss army knife and not a self-sustaining nation. Understand?

I'm not saying they can't choose to do one thing really well, but there needs to be a trade off for that ability.

[Vestrial]

Rynjin wrote:

Wizard was good with preparation. Not so much when someone knocked over the puny army of demons and monsters he used to conquer the nation and then rammed a magic dingus through his chest for great justice.

Which was precisely my point to begin with. You're talking narrative balance, which is exactly what I advocate. The wizard that takes over the over the nation with his army of ghouls/demons/whatever, is in no sense mechanically balanced with the farmboy. He is vastly more powerful. But he loses through narrative device. He loses, really, because that's the story-- virtuous goodguy triumphs over more powerful evil badguy. It was really not a very good example to illustrate that mechanical balance in an rpg is supported by literary balance, but it was yours, so I went with it.

I think you overstate the wizards ability to end encounters. They certainly can, but for them to do so routinely requires the GM's complicity. Black tentacles can end an encounter... if all the badguys stand in a 20' radius. There are many such encounter ending spells, but their area is rather limited. The GM really has to set the combat up in a way to allow one spell to end the encounter. And despite what you may think, wizards do have finite resources and cannot cast those encounter ending spells all day long.

I do agree that spells shouldn't completely obsolete skills. I don't agree that charm person/dominate do so, however. There are plenty of reasons why you wouldn't want to use either of these in a social situation-- People can tell you're using mojo on the victim, you actually want the victim to be a long-term ally, you're not an evil bastard, etc., etc. Invis is also an iconic spell. I think making the rogue better at sneaking would be a better option than removing the spell. Find secret doors, shatter lock, spider climb, jump, I could do without.

I think specialization should also matter more. I think it would help tone down the power difference a bit if only specialists could get the really big mojo in a particular school. Say anybody could cast charm person, but only the mind mage could get dominate, something along those lines.

You're also sorta exaggerating what I suggested. I already think wizards are more powerful than melee, and I'm perfectly happy with that. I didn't suggest turning them into gods. I just think some of the nerfs to spells were uncalled for, and/or didn't even accomplish what they were supposed to.

[Vestrial]

Ptolmaeus Arvenus wrote:

You missed the point of the metaphor. They are generalists that are more powerful than specialists. Thus the comparison between a simple swiss army knife and an entire nation of people. The swiss army knife can do a lot of things but not one thing very well, you're still better off getting a proper knife or screwdriver. The people of Switzerland can do a lot of things really well when the want to.

Wizards need to be a swiss army knife and not a self-sustaining nation. Understand?

I'm not saying they can't choose to do one thing really well, but there needs to be a trade off for that ability.

So you want wizards to be able to do a lot of stuff poorly. Why would we want to play wizards again?

There is a trade off for their abilities-- hp, bab, saves, they have to wear a dress, they have to be a wizard...

[Rynjin]

Vestrial wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Wizard was good with preparation. Not so much when someone knocked over the puny army of demons and monsters he used to conquer the nation and then rammed a magic dingus through his chest for great justice.

Which was precisely my point to begin with. You're talking narrative balance, which is exactly what I advocate. The wizard that takes over the over the nation with his army of ghouls/demons/whatever, is in no sense mechanically balanced with the farmboy. He is vastly more powerful. But he loses through narrative device. He loses, really, because that's the story-- virtuous goodguy triumphs over more powerful evil badguy. It was really not a very good example to illustrate that mechanical balance in an rpg is supported by literary balance, but it was yours, so I went with it.

But my point was that literary balance and game balance are in no way the same thing.

In the game the magic dingus can still be deflected by the high level Wizard's pool of hit points (regular and temporary) and may miss due to his augment AC (depending on farmboy's class and how good he rolls).

Vestrial wrote:

I think you overstate the wizards ability to end encounters. They certainly can, but for them to do so routinely requires the GM's complicity. Black tentacles can end an encounter... if all the badguys stand in a 20' radius. There are many such encounter ending spells, but their area is rather limited. The GM really has to set the combat up in a way to allow one spell to end the encounter. And despite what you may think, wizards do have finite resources and cannot cast those encounter ending spells all day long.

No they can't, which is how it should stay.

But you said you agreed with the OP. He does not agree that the Wizard should have these limits.

Vestrial wrote:

I do agree that spells shouldn't completely obsolete skills. I don't agree that charm person/dominate do so, however. There are plenty of reasons why you wouldn't want to use either of these in a social situation-- People can tell you're using mojo on the victim, you actually want the victim to be a long-term ally, you're not an evil bastard, etc., etc. Invis is also an iconic spell. I think making the rogue better at sneaking would be a better option than removing the spell. Find secret doors, shatter lock, spider climb, jump, I could do without.

I didn't say remove the spell. I'm all for augmenting the spells so they have an effect on people without the skill, but work BETTER on people with the skill. Like I said in another thread, let Spider Climb give people with the Climb skill a faster Climb speed or something, for example.

Vestrial wrote:

I think specialization should also matter more. I think it would help tone down the power difference a bit if only specialists could get the really big mojo in a particular school. Say anybody could cast charm person, but only the mind mage could get dominate, something along those lines.

I wouldn't mind breaking up the different Schools into different classes or sort of more complex archetypes.

Vestrial wrote:

You're also sorta exaggerating what I suggested. I already think wizards are more powerful than melee, and I'm perfectly happy with that. I didn't suggest turning them into gods. I just think some of the nerfs to spells were uncalled for, and/or didn't even accomplish what they were supposed to.

You said you agreed with the OP, I took that to mean you wanted an even bigger boost in Wizard power.

[Ptolmaeus Arvenus]

Vestrial wrote:

Ptolmaeus Arvenus wrote:

You missed the point of the metaphor. They are generalists that are more powerful than specialists. Thus the comparison between a simple swiss army knife and an entire nation of people. The swiss army knife can do a lot of things but not one thing very well, you're still better off getting a proper knife or screwdriver. The people of Switzerland can do a lot of things really well when the want to.

Wizards need to be a swiss army knife and not a self-sustaining nation. Understand?

I'm not saying they can't choose to do one thing really well, but there needs to be a trade off for that ability.

So you want wizards to be able to do a lot of stuff poorly. Why would we want to play wizards again?

There is a trade off for their abilities-- hp, bab, saves, they have to wear a dress, they have to be a wizard...

So they should be able to do everything really well? Why would anyone want to play anything else?

In short order, they are able to overcome what should be checks to their power. Their absurd flexibility allows them to make up for their weaknesses and soon surpass any mundane class that specializes in the same areas.

I'm okay with wizards have the biggest toolbox with which to approach problems but their needs to be more of a limiting factor if they want to excel in any one area.

[Vestrial]

Ptolmaeus Arvenus wrote:

So they should be able to do everything really well? Why would anyone want to play anything else?

Huh. Aren't you the one that said you never play wizards? They can pretty much do everything really well, and yet people play other classes all the time. In fact, in both my groups right now there is not a single wizard!

[Ptolmaeus Arvenus]

Vestrial wrote:

Ptolmaeus Arvenus wrote:

So they should be able to do everything really well? Why would anyone want to play anything else?

Huh. Aren't you the one that said you never play wizards? They can pretty much do everything really well, and yet people play other classes all the time. In fact, in both my groups right now there is not a single wizard!

That doesn't mean I don't understand anything about them. I've fought them plenty of times and done theorycrafting sessions with friends playing wizards. I know their mechanics and understand the methods for playing an effective wizard.

Also, I'm the kind of guy that was once invited to play a WoD game and wanted to play a vanilla human. Stylistically, I've always found the underdog a more compelling character than the Ubermensch.

Anyway, good for your group but one of the favorite tales the old guard in my gaming group likes to tell is of the game where they set out to break wizards and suceded in filling all of the basic party roles pretty easily.

[Vestrial]

Rynjin wrote:

But my point was that literary balance and game balance are in no way the same thing.

In the game the magic dingus can still be deflected by the high level Wizard's pool of hit points (regular and temporary) and may miss due to his augment AC (depending on farmboy's class and how good he rolls).

Yeah, I think somehow in our debate we lost sight of each other's initial position. I say 'mechanical balance doesn't exist in literary tradition, I don't need it in an rpg.' You say, 'Yes there was, here are some examples...' Then we debate the nature of that balance rather than the initial point, lol.

I agree literary balance and game balance are not the same, nor do they need to be. But I also don't think mechanical balance needs to be the goal for an RPG either (4e is an example of an rpg with nearly perfect mechanical balance. There's a reason we're here, not there). There need to be some constraints on the wizard, though. In literature he can literally be able to melt worlds and it still all works out because the author makes it work. It's harder to work that kind of imbalance in an rpg. But we aren't anywhere near that. I think the current state of things is about right.

Rynjin wrote:

No they can't, which is how it should stay.

But you said you agreed with the OP. He does not agree that the Wizard should have these limits.

I apparently missed his post in which he suggested removing casting limits. I guess I didn't really know what I was agreeing to, lol. That would definitely be untenable, and create an 'all wizard' game. (which might actually be fun, but it's not what we're going for here.)

The only thing I'm really considering doing in my game is retconing some of the nerfs to spells, and buffing evocation in some way.

I do think the wizard (and cleric) are terribly boring classes from a design standpoint. Every caster they've published since core is far more interesting and flavorful. Just look at the level table for either, there's just nothing there. But that's more of a gameplay issue, not so much a balance one. I'd like to give them more tricks that don't really change the overall potency of the class...

Rynjin wrote:

I didn't say remove the spell. I'm all for augmenting the spells so they have an effect on people without the skill, but work BETTER on people with the skill. Like I said in another thread, let Spider Climb give people with the Climb skill a faster Climb speed or something, for example.

That's a pretty cool idea. Maybe increase the benefit depending on the amount of ranks the target has-- Spider climb: Climb rank 1-4: +5 climb. Rank 5-10: Climb speed 20. Rank 11-15: Can climb upside down... etc, etc. I actually like this idea a lot and may play with it a bit more, thanks for the idea. :)

Rynjin wrote:

I wouldn't mind breaking up the different Schools into different classes or sort of more complex archetypes.

I've considered this before. It's how some other games handle it, and I like it quite a lot. It would require a ton of work to implement in PF, though.

[Morain]

I'm delighted and honestly a little surprised to see a few people agreeing with me.

Balance seems to be such a holy cow here on the forums so I'm really glad to see other people who also think class balance is overrated.

[Morain]

LordBOB wrote:

To the OP;

You obviously had to have a horrible time playing a wizard (or be poor at making one) to think they NEED more power than they currently have access to.
While I am not the minmaxer like a lot of people here, i am 99.8% certain that anything your standard monk/fighter/melee toon could come up with, the wizard could do it better

A wizard can summon being's from far away planes, create a pit to the Abyss, Gate in Angel's to do your bidding, Trap you in a Maze for all eternity, Teleport across the world in a blink of an eye, swim in lava, and Shapechange into the foulest monstrosities imaginable.

While I do believe you are trolling just a little bit, I am curious (as is everyone else Im sure) as to why YOU think wizards need more power.

Please enlighten us

I have not had a horrible time playing wizards. I have had a great time, and all my wizards have been among my most powerful characters (only one more powerful was an epic fighter cleric).

I have already answered the why, but in short: It feels right flavor wise, and not only do I think balance is unimportant. I think it is outright unfun.

[Bigger Club]

Well I disagree that inbalance is fun. This would work in a game whem you would go old school with XP needed for certain level changing by class.

Now the reason given is that wizard studies how to manipulate reality and it's forces so he should not be on par with others. Now that might make sense if we are comparing wizard to rogue and fighter for example.

But let's look at some other classes.

Sorceror: The mere lineage allows them to do what wizards do and with lesser limits.(I mean no spellbook or preperation) Altough their focus is much narrower.(Limited spells known) And wizards should trump this because?

Oracle: Chosen by god, really and somebody who studies really hard should trump that? Doesn't sound right to me.

Paladin: Same as Oracle or alternatively a deity like force of the universe.

Now with that said it's roleplayinggame. One that is based on wargames at that. Games are not fun when players are not on equal ground. Would you play monopoly with people that insist that the player with car token gets double the starting money or since car is faster than some other tokens so it gets to roll 3 dice to move? Just because there is the assuming of a role and telling of a co-op story does not make the game part disappear.

So far only reason(ing) that stands up to any scrutiny is "I wanna". Sure go ahead if you want to not going to affect me. But don't BS yourself into thinking that is anything but that.

[Seranov]

Morain wrote:

LordBOB wrote:

To the OP;

You obviously had to have a horrible time playing a wizard (or be poor at making one) to think they NEED more power than they currently have access to.
While I am not the minmaxer like a lot of people here, i am 99.8% certain that anything your standard monk/fighter/melee toon could come up with, the wizard could do it better

A wizard can summon being's from far away planes, create a pit to the Abyss, Gate in Angel's to do your bidding, Trap you in a Maze for all eternity, Teleport across the world in a blink of an eye, swim in lava, and Shapechange into the foulest monstrosities imaginable.

While I do believe you are trolling just a little bit, I am curious (as is everyone else Im sure) as to why YOU think wizards need more power.

Please enlighten us

I have not had a horrible time playing wizards. I have had a great time, and all my wizards have been among my most powerful characters (only one more powerful was an epic fighter cleric).

I have already answered the why, but in short: It feels right flavor wise, and not only do I think balance is unimportant. I think it is outright unfun.

That's called an opinion, and it is shared by very few people.

Most people would rather not be outshone by their friends. They'd like to have just as many chances to shine and get their fair share of the spotlight. Your idea is pretty much "the Wizard runs the game, and everyone else plays his second fiddle." That's not fun for anyone but the Wizard.

There's no reason to play anything but a Wizard under your idea, and that's beyond idiotic. Additionally, here's no reason a Wizard who can solve every single problem by himself would even be adventuring. He'd have a cushy job as an advisor to a king or something, leaving the dangerous adventuring to someone without cosmic power.

"Game balance" is not a sacred cow, "not treating your buddies like your personal meat shield minions" is a sacred cow. And I hope it's one that stays forever.

[mplindustries]

Vestrial wrote:

(4e is an example of an rpg with nearly perfect mechanical balance. There's a reason we're here, not there).

I am going to explode if I see someone say this as a reason why balance is a bad thing. 4e was not balanced, not by a long shot. 4e had the same mechanics for everything, and it should have been easy to balance because they could have had set formula for everything to make it all equal, but instead, they basically said, "Balanced formula? Bah, balance isn't real roleplaying! We just eyeball it!"

Compare a Ranger to a Rogue or Warlock. Compare a Wizard to a Seeker. There's no balance in 4e, just mechanical similarity. It is in no way what anyone who likes balance would propose as a solution, and mechanical similarity is not the only way to achieve balance.

[Adamantine Dragon]

mplindustries wrote:

Vestrial wrote:

(4e is an example of an rpg with nearly perfect mechanical balance. There's a reason we're here, not there).

I am going to explode if I see someone say this as a reason why balance is a bad thing. 4e was not balanced, not by a long shot. 4e had the same mechanics for everything, and it should have been easy to balance because they could have had set formula for everything to make it all equal, but instead, they basically said, "Balanced formula? Bah, balance isn't real roleplaying! We just eyeball it!"

Compare a Ranger to a Rogue or Warlock. Compare a Wizard to a Seeker. There's no balance in 4e, just mechanical similarity. It is in no way what anyone who likes balance would propose as a solution, and mechanical similarity is not the only way to achieve balance.

It's all relative mpl. In comparison to 3.5 or PF where a wizard is truly a god-like being and a fighter is a dude swinging pointy sticks, 4e is nearly a perfectly balanced system. Everyone more or less sucks in 4e in comparison to a PF mid-level wizard.

I played a 4e campaign with my character starting at level 8 and finishing at level 28. At "epic" level 28 I figure my character was about as "powerful" as a tenth or eleventh level PF or 3.5 character.

Yes my ranger was a better damage dealer then our seeker. But both provided damage in the same ballpark. And to better balance the classes in 4e would have taken some slight tweaking of individual powers, not whole-scale redesign of the system.

So far I've not yet seen a role playing game system more balanced than 4e. And as I and others have said, they achieved that balance by forcing every class to have identical mechanics.

It may be theoretically possible to provide balance with vastly different types of mechanics, but even if you did, I doubt you'd get the majority of people to agree that you've achieved "balance." To many people the difference of mechanics alone would be sufficient to claim imbalance.

[Adamantine Dragon]

Seranov wrote:

Morain wrote:

I have already answered the why, but in short: It feels right flavor wise, and not only do I think balance is unimportant. I think it is outright unfun.

That's called an opinion, and it is shared by very few people.

Most people would rather not be outshone by their friends. They'd like to have just as many chances to shine and get their fair share of the spotlight. Your idea is pretty much "the Wizard runs the game, and everyone else plays his second fiddle." That's not fun for anyone but the Wizard.

Well, mark me down as one of those rare players who has no problem with wizards who master the arcane mysteries of the universe being more "powerful" than "martial" characters who swing pointy sticks. I'm fine with it.

The assertion that this means you should only play wizards implies that you think it is only worth playing the game if you can be as good or better than every other character in the party. That may be a common notion, but it's not one I share. I can play a rogue in a party with a wizard and have a great time with it. But that's because my goal is to play an interesting and entertaining character, not to rack up the biggest numbers on my damage rolls. I'm good with the wizard doing more damage. I figure I'll get a chance to prove my worth other ways than competing with the dude who can wiggle his fingers and literally make time stand still.

Just how I play.

[Roberta Yang]

The problem is that you can't imagine a fighter being anything more than some dude who happened to pick up a pointy stick, and can't imagine a wizard being anything less than a limitless genius demigod who can do everything better even than specialists in doing that one thing.

And then make a system that puts them in the same party and pretends they're equal.

[Nicos]

Vestrial wrote:

Ptolmaeus Arvenus wrote:

You missed the point of the metaphor. They are generalists that are more powerful than specialists. Thus the comparison between a simple swiss army knife and an entire nation of people. The swiss army knife can do a lot of things but not one thing very well, you're still better off getting a proper knife or screwdriver. The people of Switzerland can do a lot of things really well when the want to.

Wizards need to be a swiss army knife and not a self-sustaining nation. Understand?

I'm not saying they can't choose to do one thing really well, but there needs to be a trade off for that ability.

So you want wizards to be able to do a lot of stuff poorly. Why would we want to play wizards again?

There is a trade off for their abilities-- hp, bab, saves, they have to wear a dress, they have to be a wizard...

-They are a SAD class so hps are not really a problem after the con modifier and the favored class bonus (Since they do not need more skills, have plenty of those afther all)

- A wizard do not really need a better BAB.

- Wizards defenses are not really bad, they have a lot of ways for improving the AC, not to mention to be invisible, flying or whatever.

- About the saves they can have a reasonable dex and con to help with the ref, and for saves. Not to mention that they can chose feat for that.

And afther all, a wizard that focus in his AC, hps and saves will still be a reality bender full caster.

[Vestrial]

Roberta Yang wrote:

The problem is that you can't imagine a fighter being anything more than some dude who happened to pick up a pointy stick, and can't imagine a wizard being anything less than a limitless genius demigod who can do everything better even than specialists in doing that one thing.

And then make a system that puts them in the same party and pretends they're equal.

Who's pretending their equal? The whole point is they are not. (And some of us are just fine with that)

Kinda presumptuous to assume what we can imagine. I can imagine all sorts of wizards-- from those that can do minor nature magic to help crops grow, cure illnesses, and offer general advice to those who seek it; to earth-shattering demigods who can do pretty much whatever they can imagine; to wizards who don't have much in the way of practical magic, but spend months or years crafting an item of immense power; to those like we have in PF, who are formidable, powerful forces, but who are ultimately rather fragile mortals with limited access to their powers.

I also don't agree that the fighter should just be a dude with a pointy stick. I think it's poor design that the only difference between a level 20 fighter and a level 1st fighter is that the 20 hits harder, more often, and is harder to hit. To me, high level fighters should be master tacticians and generals, leading armies, not just schmucks who hit really hard.

[Vestrial]

Nicos wrote:

They are a SAD class so hps are not really a problem after the con modifier and the favored class bonus (Since they do not need more skills, have plenty of those afther all)

- A wizard do not really need a better BAB.

- Wizards defenses are not really bad, they have a lot of ways for improving the AC, not to mention to be invisible, flying or whatever.

- About the saves they can have a reasonable dex and con to help with the ref, and for saves. Not to mention that they can chose feat for that.

And afther all, a wizard that focus in his AC, hps and saves will still be a reality bender full caster.

So they are SAD. Except that they need dex for ac, con for hp, and wis for will. Ok, gotcha. And also Strength if they want to swing sharp sticks at people.

Wizards don't need BAB. Ok. Unless they want to swing sharp sticks and people. Or shoot them with sharp sticks. Or take feats that involve doing either. Aside from that, you're right.

These are all trade offs for what they get. And if these aren't enough what more exactly do you want them to trade?

[Nicos]

Vestrial wrote:

Nicos wrote:

They are a SAD class so hps are not really a problem after the con modifier and the favored class bonus (Since they do not need more skills, have plenty of those afther all)

- A wizard do not really need a better BAB.

- Wizards defenses are not really bad, they have a lot of ways for improving the AC, not to mention to be invisible, flying or whatever.

- About the saves they can have a reasonable dex and con to help with the ref, and for saves. Not to mention that they can chose feat for that.

And afther all, a wizard that focus in his AC, hps and saves will still be a reality bender full caster.

So they are SAD. Except that they need dex for ac, con for hp, and wis for will. Ok, gotcha. And also Strength if they want to swing sharp sticks at people.

Wizards don't need BAB. Ok. Unless they want to swing sharp sticks and people. Or shoot them with sharp sticks. Or take feats that involve doing either. Aside from that, you're right.

These are all trade offs for what they get. And if these aren't enough what more exactly do you want them to trade?

They are Sad cause they can dump charisma and str and really do not need a very high dex, con or wisdom. They of course benefit from all the statsbut it is not like they depend on that.

besides, why you sahy they need str to hit the enemies? why I wizard needs/wants to hit his enemies with pointy sticks?

low BAB is not a really penalty, wizards rarely use it. And At higher levels the touch Ac from most of monster is terribly low.

Those you list are not really trade off.

[Vestrial]

Nicos wrote:

They are Sad cause they can dump charisma and str and really do not need a very high dex, con or wisdom. They of course benefit from all the statsbut it is not like they depend on that.

besides, why you sahy they need str to hit the enemies? why I wizard needs/wants to hit his enemies with pointy sticks?

low BAB is not a really penalty, wizards rarely use it. And At higher levels the touch Ac from most of monster is terribly low.

Those you list are not really trade off.

Kinda like how fighters don't need int or charisma? Guess they need a bigger trade off for all the damage they do! Bottom line is there is no SAD class in this game. Everyone needs AC, everyone needs HP.

The entire reason wizards dont use their BAB is because it's low. If they had better BAB, you bet you'd see a lot more melee wizards. Why? Because it's a concept someone might like to play. But with their low BAB they can't really because they traded it off for spells. That is precisely what a trade off is. You give up one option for something else. How is this confusing?

And you still didn't answer the question. If what they give up isn't enough for you, just what do you want them to give?

[Lumiere Dawnbringer]

Wanna Beef up Wizards?

Spell Points Variant in Unearthed Arcana, applied to all spellcasters. now wands and scrolls are useless and evocation sucks even more

Wanna Invalidate Martials?

Class Defense Bonus as per Unearthed Arcana

Wanna Eliminate Rogues?

Make Trapfinding a Feat.

[Lumiere Dawnbringer]

Vestrial wrote:

Nicos wrote:

They are Sad cause they can dump charisma and str and really do not need a very high dex, con or wisdom. They of course benefit from all the statsbut it is not like they depend on that.

besides, why you sahy they need str to hit the enemies? why I wizard needs/wants to hit his enemies with pointy sticks?

low BAB is not a really penalty, wizards rarely use it. And At higher levels the touch Ac from most of monster is terribly low.

Those you list are not really trade off.

Kinda like how fighters don't need int or charisma? Guess they need a bigger trade off for all the damage they do! Bottom line is there is no SAD class in this game. Everyone needs AC, everyone needs HP.

The entire reason wizards dont use their BAB is because it's low. If they had better BAB, you bet you'd see a lot more melee wizards. Why? Because it's a concept someone might like to play. But with their low BAB they can't really because they traded it off for spells. That is precisely what a trade off is. You give up one option for something else. How is this confusing?

And you still didn't answer the question. If what they give up isn't enough for you, just what do you want them to give?

the wizard isn't the guy swinging pointy sticks. he is the guy solving complex mathematics to demasculate reality

the fighter is the guy who swings the pointy stick nonstop

if you want to cast spells and swing pointy sticks at people, half the classes in PF can do that

Cleric
Oracle
Inquisitor
Bard
Magus
Alchemist
Eldritch Knight
Dragon Disciple
Rage Prophet
Witch w/ Prehensile Hair Hex
Summoner
Druid

Want Supernatural Powers that aren't really spells?

Barbarian
Paladin
Ranger
Ninja
Monk
Samurai
Gunslinger

Want the Completely Nonmagical guy who relies on completely thier gear?

Rogue
Fighter
Cavalier

Want to cast spells as your primary niche?

Witch
Wizard
Druid
Sorcerer
Oracle
Cleric

Want 3rd party options that are balanced around Pathfinder?

Dreamscarred press has Psionics Unleashed and Psionics Expanded, both of which have physical paperback copies which can be bought together on Amazon as a package deal for less than the price of one pathfinder core rulebook.

you want a melee wizard? give up some spellcasting and take some martial training like everyone else.

or play with Unearthed Arcana's Gestalt rules and get your ideal wizard that way.

[Nicos]

Vestrial wrote:

Kinda like how fighters don't need int or charisma? Guess they need a bigger trade off for all the damage they do!

Theresa big diference. A fighter who dumps int and charisma will be usseless out of combat. A wizard who dump strengh and charisma will be still a reality bender out of combat, not to mention he will havetons of skills.

Vestrial wrote:

The entire reason wizards dont use their BAB is because it's low. If they had better BAB, you bet you'd see a lot more melee wizards. Why? Because it's a concept someone might like to play. But with their low BAB they can't really because they traded it off for spells. That is precisely what a trade off is. You give up one option for something else. How is this confusing?

It was not what I meant. A fighter have to sacrifice points in str,dex and con if he want to be usseful out of combat, and maybe one or two feats.

Well, maybe figters are not te best example, but all martials (maybe not rangers) suffers more or less from it.

That is a trade off. If A martial want to be usseful in a lot/all situations you have to make some sacrifice, wizards do not.

Vestrial wrote:

And you still didn't answer the question. If what they give up isn't enough for you, just what do you want them to give?

I am fine with magic being the most powerful force in the hands of PCs, but IMHO, it should be more restricted. In 3.x magic is just to easy. You can have wands for those usseful low level spells (trap findind, cure light wounds,...), scrolls for the situational but lifesaver spells, rods are incredibly powerful (dazing, extend, quickend I am looking at you),No to mention the high amounts of spell slots a wizard can have.

a few changes I would do are
- Eliminate the metamagic rods
- reduce the number of bonus slots from high int
- Make casting defensively more dificult
- Eliminate the teleportation subschool because it is just insane.
- Revive the prohibiteds school, not just opposite schools.
- Eliminatefast study
- Put some restriction in the "craft wondruos item" feat.
- Spells that offer invisibility, fly speed or teleportation should be one level higher.

[Ptolmaeus Arvenus]

Morain wrote:

LordBOB wrote:

To the OP;

You obviously had to have a horrible time playing a wizard (or be poor at making one) to think they NEED more power than they currently have access to.
While I am not the minmaxer like a lot of people here, i am 99.8% certain that anything your standard monk/fighter/melee toon could come up with, the wizard could do it better

A wizard can summon being's from far away planes, create a pit to the Abyss, Gate in Angel's to do your bidding, Trap you in a Maze for all eternity, Teleport across the world in a blink of an eye, swim in lava, and Shapechange into the foulest monstrosities imaginable.

While I do believe you are trolling just a little bit, I am curious (as is everyone else Im sure) as to why YOU think wizards need more power.

Please enlighten us

I have not had a horrible time playing wizards. I have had a great time, and all my wizards have been among my most powerful characters (only one more powerful was an epic fighter cleric).

I have already answered the why, but in short: It feels right flavor wise, and not only do I think balance is unimportant. I think it is outright unfun.

Alright, let me use your own argument against you.

I think rangers should be the most powerful class. Thematically, they specialize in being skilled and knowledgable combatants that adapt to their surroundings and foes. The should be able to adapt to and take down any foe they choose. Their favored enemy abilities should be expanded to make them functionally unstoppable against their favored enemies. Favored enemy should also be expanded to include specific classes as targets like fighter, wizard and cleric.

It feels right flavor wise.

[Vestrial]

Nicos wrote:

stuff

So basically, it comes down to this. You say, 'Wizards should have to sacrifice stuff to get the goodies they get.'

I say, 'They do, they sacrifice x, y, and z.'

You say, 'That's not good enough. Fighters have to sacrifice q for goodies they don't even get.'

What does that have to do with it? You're talking about fighters become 'good outside of combat.' Fighters are combat machines. It's what they do. Of course they have to sacrifice something to do something they are not designed to do. That has absolutely nothing to do with the trade offs each class makes to get the goodies they do get. And no, other melee don't have to sacrifice anything to be good outside of combat. Rogues, rangers, monks, hell even paladins, all are good outside of combat. Combat is the fighter's niche. Casting spells is the wizards niche. The fighter gave up 'outside of combat' stuff to become the best at killing things with a sharp stick. The wizard gave up combat strength for his spells. Your list of nerfs does not address the 'trade off' thing at all. You're just listing a bunch of arbitrary nerfs that have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

[Roberta Yang]

"Deal HP damage by hitting things with a stick" is a niche because it's useless outside of combat and doesn't give you much versatility in combat either.

"Casts spells" isn't a niche when your spells let you do anything you want better than anyone else possibly could. "Casts illusion spells" might be a niche, but wizards don't need that level of specialization. Their "specialty" is "everything". Except that's not a specialty.

[Nicos]

Vestrial wrote:

Nicos wrote:

stuff

So basically, it comes down to this. You say, 'Wizards should have to sacrifice stuff to get the goodies they get.'

I say, 'They do, they sacrifice x, y, and z.'

You say, 'That's not good enough. Fighters have to sacrifice q for goodies they don't even get.'

What does that have to do with it? You're talking about fighters become 'good outside of combat.' Fighters are combat machines. It's what they do. Of course they have to sacrifice something to do something they are not designed to do. That has absolutely nothing to do with the trade offs each class makes to get the goodies they do get. And no, other melee don't have to sacrifice anything to be good outside of combat. Rogues, rangers, monks, hell even paladins, all are good outside of combat. Combat is the fighter's niche. Casting spells is the wizards niche. The fighter gave up 'outside of combat' stuff to become the best at killing things with a sharp stick. The wizard gave up combat strength for his spells. Your list of nerfs does not address the 'trade off' thing at all. You're just listing a bunch of arbitrary nerfs that have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Wizards are really good at combat. I really do not see why you say they have to sacrifice combat strengh for his spells.

Non-full spellcaster are usseful outside combat, but not nearly at the level of wizard utility (wizars are like skill monekys + spells)

[Lumiere Dawnbringer]

Roberta Yang wrote:

"Deal HP damage by hitting things with a stick" is a niche because it's useless outside of combat and doesn't give you much versatility in combat either.

i agree it's not a niche, it's merely a sub niche within a bigger niche.

it's not just "deal HP damage by hitting things with a stick"

it's "deal HP damage by hitting things with one specific stick that you specialized so deeply in, that using another stick drops your damage by 80 percent"

Roberta Yang wrote:

"Casts spells" isn't a niche when your spells let you do anything you want better than anyone else possibly could. "Casts illusion spells" might be a niche, but wizards don't need that level of specialization. Their "specialty" is "everything". Except that's not a specialty.

this is a problem with the vancian spellcasting system as published, a wizard can change their prepared spells on a daily basis as well. it's a case of "Which role do i wish to outshine today?"

the easy way to fix this is to put a limit on the wizard's spells known. but that simply turns them into another sorcerer. making it fairly redundant.

drop the wizard class, make sorcerers the default arcane caster.

unlike a wizard, a sorcerer actually has to build a niche.

[Roberta Yang]

It doesn't help that most of the wizard's weaknesses have been eroded over the years.

Daily limits? With the addition of school slots, bonus slots from Int, faster progression, and easier access to magic items, the wizard's spells per day at a given level have tripled since AD&D, and that's not even counting cantrips, school powers, etc.

Can't cast when some guy with a sword is in your face? Nope, now you can by making an easy concentration check.

Lack of armor and hit points? The d4 has improved to a d6, which is effectively a d8 when you factor in favored class bonus. Powerful long-term low-level defensive spells like Mage Armor largely make the lack of armor a formality.

Even the prohibited schools from 3.5 are gone, because it would be a tragedy if wizards couldn't literally do everything.

Meanwhile, fighters have lost a lot over the years. Their saves have gone from above-average to terrible, the skill system has made them awful outside of combat, the specialization system and magic item treadmill make them entirely dependent on their single favorite magic sword to even be effective in combat, and they no longer gain an army and a keep at high levels (while the wizard got a tower and like two apprentices) and are no longer expected to take on a role as leader or warlord or king (while the wizard was just expected to sit in his tower studying and come out for adventures once a year).

[Lumiere Dawnbringer]

Roberta Yang wrote:

It doesn't help that most of the wizard's weaknesses have been eroded over the years.

Daily limits? With the addition of school slots, bonus slots from Int, faster progression, and easier access to magic items, the wizard's spells per day at a given level have tripled since AD&D, and that's not even counting cantrips, school powers, etc.

Can't cast when some guy with a sword is in your face? Nope, now you can by making an easy concentration check.

Lack of armor and hit points? The d4 has improved to a d6, which is effectively a d8 when you factor in favored class bonus. Powerful long-term low-level defensive spells like Mage Armor largely make the lack of armor a formality.

Even the prohibited schools from 3.5 are gone, because it would be a tragedy if wizards couldn't literally do everything.

Meanwhile, fighters have lost a lot over the years. Their saves have gone from above-average to terrible, the skill system has made them awful outside of combat, the specialization system and magic item treadmill make them entirely dependent on their single favorite magic sword to even be effective in combat, and they no longer gain an army and a keep at high levels (while the wizard got a tower and like two apprentices) and are no longer expected to take on a role as leader or warlord or king (while the wizard was just expected to sit in his tower studying and come out for adventures once a year).

i agree with this.

the wizard's Scrolls and Wands are so damned cheap. and it costs pocket change to add a new spell to your spellbook.

and mage armor, not only lasts for several hours, but it provides all the bonuses of a nonmagical chain shirt with none of the penalties.

evocation hasn't improved, but all the other schools are nastier. especially conjuration.

in fact, every wizard who specializes in conjuration now has a swift action negate grapple free card usable over 10 times per day that has none of the drawbacks of dimension door and all of the advantages

the wizard no longer has any weaknesses. unless they are deliberately built in a suboptimal matter.

[Ragnarok Aeon]

If wizards are really supposed to be the all-powerful world-altering super mind, why ever have them at level 1. What's the point of levels if they don't mean anything. Beef up the wizard, make it a prestige class. That's what wizards in literature are, people who spent most of their life studying to gain great power, not usually the adventuring heroes who just happen upon a quest. Most don't usually work with people who do everything for you nor do they usually keep a bunch of bums who can't keep up with them. I mean some do, but those are always such awkward times.

[Ptolmaeus Arvenus]

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

If wizards are really supposed to be the all-powerful world-altering super mind, why ever have them at level 1. What's the point of levels if they don't mean anything. Beef up the wizard, make it a prestige class. That's what wizards in literature are, people who spent most of their life studying to gain great power, not usually the adventuring heroes who just happen upon a quest. Most don't usually work with people who do everything for you nor do they usually keep a bunch of bums who can't keep up with them. I mean some do, but those are always such awkward times.

Really all he is talking about is flavor, he should really just houserule that wizards get to start 5 or 10 levels higher than the rest of the party.

[thejeff]

Wizards get Mythic tiers! Nobody else.
That should give the right flavor of wizards being all powerful.

[meatrace]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

mplindustries wrote:

You sincerely want some classes to be worse than others? Why? To what end?

To make it even more crystal clear that the One True Way to Play is for everyone to be a caster, a la Ars Magica. If you want a game allowing you to play anything else and not be a gofer/caddie for the casters, that's BadWrongNoFun.

OMG it's a Kirth!

Where you been? We need you in OT, man. Even if there's nothing good going on there right now.

[meatrace]

thejeff wrote:

Wizards get Mythic tiers! Nobody else.

That should give the right flavor of wizards being all powerful.

Hmm...I like it, I like it, but how about this: all other classes are playing E6, wizard goes to 20!

[Paulicus]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this.

If we're going to set the power levels of classes based on who feels like they should be strongest, should the best classes be clerics/oracles and maybe other divine casters, since their power comes from deities, rather than the guy in robes holed up in a tower with his books?

[Adamantine Dragon]

Paulicus wrote:

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this.

If we're going to set the power levels of classes based on who feels like they should be strongest, should the best classes be clerics/oracles and maybe other divine casters, since their power comes from deities, rather than the guy in robes holed up in a tower with his books?

The counterargument to this is that since divine casters have to ask permission for their spells and gods are presumed to be wise, then divine casters would have some limits to what they are allowed to do, while arcane casters are only limited by what is possible using the laws of the universe. Which might well include the process by which the gods became gods.

[Vestrial]

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

the wizard no longer has any weaknesses. unless they are deliberately built in a suboptimal matter

lol, there's so much hyperbole on this thread. No weaknesses? Except lower hp and defenses across the board. (mage armor is cool, but it's also set at +4 for your entire life. Mage armor is great for what it is, but magic armor quickly leaves it in the dust) But they have all these awesome defensive spells! Yeah, they do. And if he's burning rounds throwing up defensive spells, he's not shutting down the enemy, is he? And even his best defensive spells are easily countered.

All this talk about wizards being the best at everything is patently false. They have buffs and spells that let them get by at certain roles out of combat. None of which make them better than characters that are actually dedicated to that thing.

[Lumiere Dawnbringer]

Wizards only have a D6 compared to the D10 of most martials. a loss of only 2 hit points per level.

a fighter needs
strength for offense
dexterity for ranged attacks, armor class, reflex saves, and doesn't want initiative
constitution for hit points and fortitude saves
wisdom for perception checks and will saves
and at least a 13 intelligence if he wants to do anything besides stab things with a pointy stick. because most of the better manuever feats require a 13 intelligence.

the only stat a fighter can dump without penalty is charisma.
while not as mad as a ranger, paladin or monk, a fighter is still pretty mad

a wizard needs
intelligence for all things wizardy
constitution for hit points and fortitude saves
dexterity for initiative

a wizard can dump
wisdom because they already have good will progression, and +5 perception can be bought for 2,500 gold or crafted for 1,250
strength because they can buy a cheap pack ox for pocket change
charisma because all it affects is social skills, and the only charisma skills worth investing in are diplomacy and use magic device, both of which can be maxed cheaply on a wizard's high skill budget

armor class declines in importance past 7th level when everything hits the tank on a 2 or better, and wizards can more easily afford extra constitution due to having more potential dump stats.

[Roberta Yang]

Wizards can also easily afford to put their favored class bonus into HP, since they already have a mountain of skill points and their alternate favored class bonuses mostly aren't that important. Fighters have few skill points and often spend their favored class bonuses on resisting combat maneuvers like trips and grapples, so they're less likely to put their bonus into HP than the wizard is.

Which means the HP gap is even smaller than the hit dice make it look.

Also, a lot of good defensive buffs are long-lasting, so the wizard can benefit from them without spending actions in combat.

Vestrial wrote:

They have buffs and spells that let them get by at certain roles out of combat. None of which make them better than characters that are actually dedicated to that thing.

Except that's not true at all? Most skills can be blown out of the water by a low-level spell. Climb and Swim? Fly is better (though Spiderclimb will do in a pinch). Disable Device and Perception? Find Traps and Dispel Magic cover the closest thing the rogue has to unique class features. Stealth? No matter how sneaky your rogue is, the guy who can turn invisible can do it so much better that you may as well not even bother trying. Social situations? Hello, Charm Person.

And that's not even getting into the part where Wizards get about as many skill points per level as actual Rogues do, which makes them highly effective at a wide variety of tasks without even casting a single spell.

Wizards don't just "get by" outside of combat by any stretch of the imagination.

[Vestrial]

Roberta Yang wrote:

Except that's not true at all? Most skills can be blown out of the water by a low-level spell. Climb and Swim? Fly is better (though Spiderclimb will do in a pinch). Disable Device and Perception? Find Traps and Dispel Magic cover the closest thing the rogue has to unique class features. Stealth? No matter how sneaky your rogue is, the guy who can turn invisible can do it so much better that you may as well not even bother trying. Social situations? Hello, Charm Person.

And that's not even getting into the part where Wizards get about as many skill points per level as actual Rogues do, which makes them highly effective at a wide variety of tasks without even casting a single spell.

Wizards don't just "get by" outside of combat by any stretch of the imagination.

Do you know how any of these spells work, or do you just read the name and assume they just do what the name implies, without fail? Find traps gives 1/2 CL bonus to perception, for rounds/level. As I said, he can 'get by,' in a pinch, but he's certainly 'blowing the rogue out of the water,' who has a better bonus and can use it all day long.

Dispel magic? It's harder to dispel a magic trap than to disarm it. CL 10 trap: 10th level fireball. DC 21 dispel, DC 36 disarm. Caster is rolling d20+10. Rogue is rolling +20 without even really trying. The wizard can't even touch a rogue who actually focuses on disarming. (not to mention dispel does nothing for mechanical traps)

Fly is better than swim? Lol, not when you're under water. Fly is definitely better than climb in 99% of situations, but it's also a 3rd level spell. 'Climber' is also not a role anyone tries to fill. It's a purely situational skill that everyone has to deal with when it comes up. The wizard can also cast fly on others to help them overcome the difficulty as well.

[Roberta Yang]

Vestrial wrote:

Find traps gives 1/2 CL bonus to perception, for rounds/level. As I said, he can 'get by,' in a pinch, but he's certainly 'blowing the rogue out of the water,' who has a better bonus and can use it all day long.

Rogues get the same bonus from Trapfinding - 1/2 level - not a better one. And they need to spend a talent to get the auto-detect ability.

Vestrial wrote:

Dispel magic? It's harder to dispel a magic trap than to disarm it. CL 10 trap: 10th level fireball. DC 21 dispel, DC 36 disarm. Caster is rolling d20+10. Rogue is rolling +20 without even really trying. The wizard can't even touch a rogue who actually focuses on disarming. (not to mention dispel does nothing for mechanical traps)

I don't know what form of math you're using, but where I come from it's easier to hit a 21 with a +10 bonus (need to roll 11 or higher) than it is to hit a 36 with a +20 bonus (need to roll 16 or higher). The rogue can pull ahead, but it takes investment.

Remember, skills are theoretically the rogue's primary class features. The fact that the wizard can easily match them with low-level spells and still have a mountain of high-level spell slots left over is a bad thing.

[Vestrial]

Roberta Yang wrote:

Rogues get the same bonus from Trapfinding - 1/2 level - not a better one. And they need to spend a talent to get the auto-detect ability.

And it's a class skill for the rogue, and the rogue will have at least +5 goggles. How is the wizard 'blowing him out of the water?'

Roberta Yang wrote:

I don't know what form of math you're using, but where I come from it's easier to hit a 21 with a +10 bonus (need to roll 11 or higher) than it is to hit a 36 with a +20 bonus (need to roll 16 or higher). The rogue can pull ahead, but it takes investment.

I'm using the fat-fingered school of math. I meant to put +30. But that's probably exaggerating- 10 ranks 3 skill, 2 circumstance, 5 competence, 6 dex, so 26. Not meaningfully better, but that's with little investment.

Quote:

Remember, skills are theoretically the rogue's primary class features. The fact that the wizard can easily match them with low-level spells and still have a mountain of high-level spell slots left over is a bad thing.

No, skills are not in any way the rogues 'primary' class feature. Like every class they have a bunch of class features for which a player might choose to play the class. Skills are just one of them.

And spells are still limited use. Skills are always functional. This is a rather big difference. The rogue can always keep an eye out for traps. The wizard can only do so if he expects one is there in the first place.

But what you seem to be saying is you'd like to revise your position to 'Wizard's spells allow them to compete with skilled characters' rather than 'blow them out of the water?' I agree, and have no problem with that. My initial statement with which you had issue is that 'Wizards can get by at certain roles. They cannot beat a character dedicated to said role, however.' This is accurate, and perfectly acceptable to me, given the limited use of spells. If wizard could wake up in the morning and put on his rogue buff, social buff, and nature buff and be good at that stuff all day long, I'd agree there's a problem. As it stands it works just fine. (with some exceptions. I think jump and spider climb should work more like find traps)

[Lumiere Dawnbringer]

you don't even need trapfinding to find traps. not even magical ones. you just need it if you want to disable them with a skill check.

want to know how easy it is to disable a trap that doesn't automatically reset?

use a wand of 'mount' to set it off. triggers every pressure plate, pitfall trap, and ranged attack trap.

what untellegent wizard wouldn't have multiple wands of 'mount' for setting off and revealing traps

[Morain]

Who cares about traps? I can't remember dying to one since 2nd ed. AD&D.

[Morain]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Paulicus wrote:

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this.

If we're going to set the power levels of classes based on who feels like they should be strongest, should the best classes be clerics/oracles and maybe other divine casters, since their power comes from deities, rather than the guy in robes holed up in a tower with his books?

The counterargument to this is that since divine casters have to ask permission for their spells and gods are presumed to be wise, then divine casters would have some limits to what they are allowed to do, while arcane casters are only limited by what is possible using the laws of the universe. Which might well include the process by which the gods became gods.

I like this AD :)

[Roberta Yang]

Vestrial wrote:

And it's a class skill for the rogue, and the rogue will have at least +5 goggles.

Why does only the rogue get goggles? Are the goggles a rogue class feature?

Meanwhile, you know who can actually make those +5 goggles? Hint: It's not the rogue.

Vestrial wrote:

No, skills are not in any way the rogues 'primary' class feature. Like every class they have a bunch of class features for which a player might choose to play the class. Skills are just one of them.

Rogues get like two class features: skills and sneak attack. Also some talents but they're mostly just worse feats. If the wizard can match the rogue's skills (she can) and contribute more in combat (she definitely can), then what does the rogue offer?

Vestrial wrote:

And spells are still limited use. Skills are always functional. This is a rather big difference. The rogue can always keep an eye out for traps. The wizard can only do so if he expects one is there in the first place.

The wizard can always keep an eye out; he's just a bit better at doing so with a spell.

Vestrial wrote:

But what you seem to be saying is you'd like to revise your position to 'Wizard's spells allow them to compete with skilled characters' rather than 'blow them out of the water?'

Depends on which skills you're talking about. The wizard may be merely on par with the rogue for finding/disarming traps, but remember those aren't the only skills I listed. Another is Stealth, which is arguably the most iconic rogue ability - but a second-level spell blows it out of the water, both numerically (+20 is insane) and in terms of where it can be applied (invisibility removes the need for dim light or broken line of sight). Then there's Climb and Swim, which are both invalidated by Overland Flight, which by that point the wizard probably has up all day. (Sure, if you're already underwater, Swim might matter... but how did you get underwater in the first place if you can fly?) And let's not forget Escape Artist, which the wizard can do better with another common long-term spell, Freedom of Movement.

[Morain]

On the other hand, once a cleric gains what one book I can't recall the name of "the spark of divinity" and can cast spells under their own power. Then the sky's the limit for them as well.