Wizards should get a general boost to many of their spells and powers, and maybe a few extra class features in order to make the game less balanced and more fun.
I suppose the easiest way to implement this would be to simply introduce new and more powerful spells, and new archetypes/prestige classes that are better than the base class.
You're not the first one to think that way. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
ah, the good old tradition of the bizzaro-thread.
Hahaha
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In that vein, Sneak Attack needs to be nerfed, and the Fighters Bravery is OP
Wizards should get a general boost to many of their spells and powers, and maybe a few extra class features in order to make the game less balanced and more fun.
I suppose the easiest way to implement this would be to simply introduce new and more powerful spells, and new archetypes/prestige classes that are better than the base class.
Make him a Sorcerer, take away the limit on spells known
Ta-da, Wizzard iz balanzed
In that vein, Sneak Attack needs to be nerfed, and the Fighters Bravery is OP
I disagree with this. I am being serious btw.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks shouldn't get Wis to AC, being able to add two ability scores to the same stat is ridiculously overpowering.
Make him a Sorcerer, take away the limit on spells known
Ta-da, Wizzard iz balanzed
That's more or less what the 3.5 spell points system did.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we should improve the wizard's hit die, triple the wizard's spells per day, give the wizard special magic armor that makes up for their lack of regular armor, give the wizard unlimited-use minor spells and other special class abilities, and make it easy for the wizard to cast even with an enemy swordsman in his face.
Oops too late
I'm not really interested in replying to people who think I'm joking or trolling.
I just want to make sure that people who think class balance is a good thing is not the ONLY voice that's heard.
Maybe we should give wizards the best spell selection, 9th level spells, make him a SAD class, give him some amazing powers depending on what kind of spells he uses and an arcane bond.
Oh, wait...
Wizards, played smartly, are already the most versatile and useful class in the game, tied with Clerics and Druids.
And what the hell is with this nonsense that less balance = more fun?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to make sure that people who think class balance is a good thing is not the ONLY voice that's heard.
Congratulations on transmuting a funny joke topic into an unfunny joke topic. Study alchemy and I'm sure your unique skills will quickly enable you to transmute gold into lead.
I have to side on the "general game balance side". Additionally, high level spells can make things hard enough for the DM as is, so I'm not necesarily in favor of more high level spells or more powerful high level spells as the DM's job is hard enough. I'd like to keep DMs happy and make things a bit easier on them because no matter which side of the table you're on, things always go better if the DM is happy.
As for the wizard, it is a very strong class already and doesn't need to be made more powerful. If you want a more powerful wizard, talk to your DM... Also, let us know how that goes - we'd like a solid laugh.
I think you are in the small minority on this one, and I doubt you will get much support.
I'm not really interested in replying to people who think I'm joking or trolling.
I just want to make sure that people who think class balance is a good thing is not the ONLY voice that's heard.
You sincerely want some classes to be worse than others? Why? To what end?
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.
LOL dude you rang the dinner bell. They're going to be foaming at the mouth in here.
You sincerely want some classes to be worse than others? Why? To what end?I'm not really interested in replying to people who think I'm joking or trolling.
I just want to make sure that people who think class balance is a good thing is not the ONLY voice that's heard.
it takes all sorts
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.
Not really. Just because the Wizard is/should be the most powerful class don't mean I think everyone should play it. I don't with any of my current characters.
I used to play a lot of wizards though, and probably will again
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.Not really. Just because the Wizard is/should be the most powerful class don't mean I think everyone should play it. I don't with any of my current characters.
I used to play a lot of wizards though, and probably will again
But why do you think the wizard should be strongest? Honestly, I don't understand and would like to at least see where you're coming from.
it takes all sorts
No it doesn't.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really interested in replying to people who think I'm joking or trolling.
I just want to make sure that people who think class balance is a good thing is not the ONLY voice that's heard.
Way to start what could be a fantastic thread and make it terrible.
Instead, Fighters should get 9 levels of spellcasting, from all spell lists, but be able to cast spontaneously, with no limit on number of spells known.
Because magic.
But why do you think the wizard should be strongest? Honestly, I don't understand and would like to at least see where you're coming from.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.Not really. Just because the Wizard is/should be the most powerful class don't mean I think everyone should play it. I don't with any of my current characters.
I used to play a lot of wizards though, and probably will again
It just makes sense that someone tapping into this reality altering mind boggling power be the strongest. There is more to it than this obviously, but I think for wizards to be what I see tham as they need to be one step above the rest.
Also again to repeat myself. Balance sucks, because sameness sucks and that would just meld all the classes into one indistinguishable porridge where all have the same capabilities just with different names.
I'm not really interested in replying to people who think I'm joking or trolling.
I just want to make sure that people who think class balance is a good thing is not the ONLY voice that's heard.
Way to start what could be a fantastic thread and make it terrible.
Instead, Fighters should get 9 levels of spellcasting, from all spell lists, but be able to cast spontaneously, with no limit on number of spells known.
Because magic.
you're not even trying to make sense or be serious :-(
A wizard can cast any spell they like, from any list.
However, each time they cast a spell of 1st level or higher they must make a 'divine reckoning' check (caster level + 1d20 against a DC equal to 6 + minimum caster level to cast the spell). If the check fails, the wizard gains a reckoning point. Reckoning points can be removed one at a time per casting of atonement, and the wizard must be genuinely regretful of overusing his powers.
If the wizard ever has more reckoning points than his level, the gods decree that he has overused his unfathomable powers and erase him from the world. No coming back.
Maybe they send another wizard in his place.
start their caster progression 2 levels earlier, and when they normally get ninth level spells, instead grant them 10th level spell slots. these slots will be used for meta-magicking spells to 10th level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly agree with the OP, whether he's being facetious or not. The why is easy-- I think it's more interesting, and more true to the literary roots of gaming. Find some examples of literary wizards that are 'balanced' with melee, I dare you.
Conan the Barbarian. Competent fighters in the Lord of the Rings could likely have taken down Gandalf at any time, Saruman too if they ever got into the tower.
Pretty much any story of the "Evil Wizard takes over a country, now our brave farmboy hero must free the land from his evil clutches" variety you could care to name.
There are plenty.
And none of this answers the most important question.
Why should I care about literary wizards when talking about game balance?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite part of the Iliad was when Agamemnon, Odysseus, and Ajax were in trouble but then the day was saved by Cassandra who used her Oracle levels to cast ninth-level spells.
I used to play a game system that had unbalanced power levels for different classes at the same and really enjoyed it. Balance was kinda restored (actually not really at all) with different classes needing different XP amounts to level up. Wizards took about twice the experience of thieves per level.
I especially miss the 1st level thief's 10%chance to find traps and the subsequent 10%chance to remove them once you found them
I still use many of my 1e AD&D adventures though
Find some examples of literary wizards that are 'balanced' with melee, I dare you.
Conan.
Find some examples of literary wizards that are co-protagonists with melee (rather than being the only characters or some deus ex machina guide types for the melee protagonists), I dare you.
Why should I care about literary wizards when talking about game balance?Because roleplaying is basically an emulator of fantasy literature. I play and run games to create epic stories that are fun, engaging, and interesting, stories I'd like to actually read in book form.
And I play games to have fun. Having the Wizard player go "Stand back I got this s~+*" or "You take this one, I don't feel like making you feel worthless just this once" is not fun. It is not fun because it is not balanced.
Mechanical balance is rather boring.
No it isn't.
"Fighter killed 3 goblins with his sword, while the wizard also killed exactly 3 goblins with his ray." More interesting to have the wizard mostly hang back, letting the fighter do most of the work, but occasionally unleash hell and kill a whole horde of goblins when absolutely necessary...
The former is not balance, it is uniformity. There is a difference.
The latter is not balanced because that is essentially the Wizard going "Oh, you're fighting for your life? Cute." *Fireball kills everything, everyone else is obsolete*
Balance would be the Wizard having a niche he fills in which no one is better than him, but he not making other's contributions obsolete. The Wizard already makes many skills obsolete once he hits about level 7, we don't need him having too much of an impact on combat on top of it.
For me the question is 'why should I care about balance when it's not an issue in the stories?' That there are compelling reasons to play each character type and the players all have fun is the only 'balance' that matters to me.
Why are there compelling reasons to play each character type? If the Wizard is the character that can handle everything with a snap of his fingers, why is everyone else even there? You said it yourself, the Wizard is usually there to be the Deus Ex Machina to show how utterly pathetic and worthless the rest of the cast is compared to him. That kind of Wizard is the sort of character whose very existence is a plothole. "Why are we trying to finish this quest?" "I dunno, Filbangus the Wizard was bored this week I guess". That is terrible f!~#ing writing, and it's not fun to play either.
Wizards can be powerful They already are powerful. Possibly a little over the edge, but still close enough I'll give 'em the benefit of the doubt about being balanced.
But you (Or, Morain) want to upset that even more because "Duh, Wizzard shud be powerfuller than every1 else"? No.
Your examples of balance are a bit silly as well. The evil wizard who takes over the country is 'balanced' with the farmboy who later slays him? How does that even make sense? The wizard took over a country. Could the farmboy do that?
Quite easily now that he's killed the dark oppressor over the land.
Does balance equate to 'dies when farmboys stick swords in him?' The farmboy also never kills the wizard without assistance from one of the tropes I mentioned: Magic dingus, aid of another wizard, or sneaky backdoor into the wizards tower to catch him unawares, etc, etc.
Ah, of course. The old "I'm going to cover all my bases with contrived reasons why your example doesn't count" schtick.
"He killed the Wizard." "Doesn't count, just being able to beat him in a fight isn't enough."
"Oh he took him off guard, sorry, doesn't count. It only counts if he runs headlong at the Wizard like an idiot so the Wizard can zap him."
"He used the magic sword of cutting on the Wizard, doesn't count. He should've used a butterknife."
I've never liked that one.
balance=/=sameness
In theory.
In actual practice there has as yet been no way to provide "balance" without achieving it through "sameness". So in practice so far at least "balance == sameness".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play martials, I love playings martials. I pretty much flatly refuse to play anything with 9 levels of spells. Why do I do this? Time and again, I have been shown that casters (Wizards in particular) can and will render martials obsolete. I play martials because A) I don't want to have to play a caster to be relevant and B) I despise the idea that a single class can beat any situation.
My quixotic quest means I am getting better and better at building martials to ruin the days of casters and I'm well aware of my options for doing so.
This does not mean I am okay with how powerful casters are.
Essentially the primary argument I'm seeing in favor of giving wizards more power is that they spent their lives focusing their OCD into piercing the veil of reality and bending to their will. That's fine and dandy, 'cept the ranger, the fighter, the rogue and the barbarian have been doing the exact same thing in their respective fields. This should be reflected in gameplay and frankly the same reasoning can be applied to any of them.
The rogue should be unseeable because he has spent his life learning how to move in the shadows and strike unseen.
The ranger should be a king of the wilds, moving swiftly to hunt his foes down, because that's what they do.
The barbarian should be a typhoon of terror because their rage lets them shrug off all but the most dire of blows.
The fighter should be able to stand up to any threat with skill and tactics on his side.
The wizard should not be able to do all of this and ten other things by breakfast.
The point is not to have an ego trip, the point is that they are all supposed be excellent in their respective fields and have different options when it comes to handling in game problems but in the end be on about the same level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems to me all those things are achievable and well-represented by mechanics. Since you don't want the wizard to do all of that and ten other things before breakfast, I'll ask you the same I asked Rynjin, what do you want the wizard to do? What's his niche?
To be focused, to be more of a swiss army knife as opposed to the nation of Switzerland.
And I play games to have fun. Having the Wiard player go "Stand back I got this s+%$" or "You take this one, I don't feel like making you feel worthless just this once" is not fun. It is not fun because it is not balanced.The wizard has to manage finite resources. So he only acts when the party really need him to. Sounds like you have played, or do play, with some real jerks and have a serious chip on your shoulder about wizards. I've never seen that sort of interaction at any table.
1.) He's got a pretty hefty amount of resources at his disposal.
2.) This is my interpretation of how you want Wizards to be. They are already a powerful class, and you are advocating making them even stronger.
No it isn't.Yes it is.
No it isn't.
=p
So once again we're back to you having experiences with really rude players. Typically, my players decide as a group who's going to do what, and that includes whether or not it looks like we need some serious mojo to get through an encounter, or whether the wiz should save his resources for later.
My point being, why should the Wizard be the encounter-ending class? It's not okay to boost the class up to the point that your only choice is literally "Do we let the Wizard do everything now, or do we let him do everything later?"
So what niche should the wizard fill? You don't want him to be better at damage (even if it's only occasional at best), you don't want him to be better at skills, so tell us, what's his roll?
Preferably he'd be the utility class and the terrain controller. There are a lot of spells that exemplify this, like Fly and Teleport to facilitate travel (utility), and things like Wall of X and Black Tentacles and the like for terrain control.
What he should not be able to do is completely obsolete skills like Diplomacy (Dominate/Charm), Climb (Spider Climb and to a lesser extent Fly since it serves other purposes), and Stealth (Invisibility)
Because a) the wizard can't handle everything with a snap of his fingers
But he would be able to if his power were increased like you're advocating, and in the examples you put out that's what he was doing.
and b) players don't pick characters based on raw power. (at least none with whom I play). They create a concept, then build the character around that. As long as the mechanics support their concept, and it's fun to play, balance is really a non-issue.
The mechanics support their concept because the class is worth playing. There are things it can do that others can't do well, but there are also things that they can't do that others can do well. THAT IS BALANCE.
Having one class, which already has pretty much every option at his disposal at high levels, and making that even MORE powerful is not balanced in the slightest, and it would obsolete every other class.
There's a difference between "Some classes are kind of better than others but I'll sacrifice a little effectiveness for my concept" and "This class literally makes all other classes superfluous, so I'm automatically making a conscious choice to limit myself to an inferior option for my concept".
And I didn't use the Deus Ex term at all. I said the wizard is often a 'guide' type character. There's a big difference.
You used "guide" in the sense of a character with foreknowledge of events and the power to go with it. If that character does not step in to help the party at some point, that is generally a plot hole unless there's an excuse as to why he's occupied. You can't have a PC that wanders off and does his own thing 90% of the time to have a reason for the other party members getting to act.
And if your "guide" ever showed up to help the party when it was bleak and yadda yadda, that WOULD be a Deus Ex Machina. It's not always bad, but it IS often bad.
Ah, of course. The old 'my argument is horrible so I'm going to get snippy and condescending' shtick. Classic stuff.
How is my argument horrible exactly?
So let's run through your argument:
Wizard takes over entire country (a feat the farmboy couldn't possible do, but that's irrelevant).
Blast, if only there was some king, um, what Artie? Arthbert? I'll think of it eventually I'm sure.
But I guess that one doesn't count because the magic sword of cutting invalidates that, no?
Farmboy kills wizard by <whatever means. Irrelevant that he needs help.>.
Ergo, Farmboy and wizard are 'balanced.'Well hooray, wizards and melee in pathfinder are balanced! Fighter sneaks into wizards room for the coup de grace, balance achieved.
When did I say Wizards and martials in Pathfinder were balanced with each other?
We were talking about literary Wizards, weren't we? That topic you decided was relevant to the discussion we were having about balance in Pathfinder?
In literary terms, they are balanced. One kid with a magic dingus uses skill and guile to overcome the Wizard (who by all rights should at the very least have 10 times as many magic dinguses plus spells, and a lot more guile) and save the land.
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.