| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
People complain about optimization when it results in a clash of playstyles.
If you have 4 players, 1 is playing middle school basket ball, two are playing high school basket ball and the 4rth is playing olympic basket ball it results some or all of he players not having fun.
IT has little or nothing to do with the power level of the wizard, and that in fact probably obfuscates the issues.
People are more likely to see the first rather than the latter, because it requires more system mastery to create a good wizard. Wizard may have a very high optimization ceiling, but their floor is extremely low.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
People complain about optimization when it results in a clash of playstyles.
If you have 4 players, 1 is playing middle school basket ball, two are playing high school basket ball and the 4rth is playing olympic basket ball it results some or all of he players not having fun.
IT has little or nothing to do with the power level of the wizard, and that in fact probably obfuscates the issues.
In the context of a single game I agree with you and in the context of a single game my entire point is moot to begin with (because relative power is all that matters in a single game).
What I'm referring to though are discussions of the game as a whole.
The game as a whole doesnt matter, because each game is in itself is a single game. What matters is that you play characers appropriate for the people you play with.
Most of the power conflicts in the game happen as part of the greater player to player social structure of the game and do not really have Much to do with how powerful the wizard is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a guess but maybe because the kinds of people who want to disrupt games with minmaxed characters generally choose to do so using brute force and big numbers.
In game where Wizards (etc.) exist?
I see ten times as many threads worried about how to "deal" with gunslingers who have managed to jury rig the system into letting them full attack or dual wield or sword+pistol(strange how a build that has its own feat and archetype support doesn't actually work without a lot of effort) or how to shut down AoO optimized Babarians than I do honestly about the entire T1 pantheon combined.
Sure, by spending all his feats and a lot of WbL on a single niche ability he can probably drop a dangerous target in one round. Probably.
Meanwhile the Wizard is dropping a good spell or two and shutting down the entire enemy team in the same amount of time before he goes back to remaking reality in his own image. So why is the first one the most distressing?
Real games vs forum situations.
The guy who just walks around rolling d20s to rek encounters is more fun killing than playing with Treantmonk's God-Wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game as a whole does not matter because not everyone is make the argument presented in the opening statement.
The argument comes up when people of varying playstyles sit at the same table. As an example many of the things I allow as a GM are considered to OP at other tables and some people in this forum.
To continue with another example of table playstyle discrepancy I seem to be more willing to allow a PC to die than other GM's. How willing a GM is to allow a PC to die is also a point of contention, just like point buy vs rolling.
None of theses are "game" problems because they are not really problems, just differences in opinion as to what is fun/not fun.
The game as a whole doesnt matterOf course it does. There are many, many different people playing the game in many many different sessions and campaigns after all.
What matters is that you play characers appropriate for the people you play with.Playing characters appropriate is all well an good, but that still reflects on balance as a whole and only compounds the point of "why do you want one of the worst classes in the game to get worse" because it would lead to even fewer appropriate scenarios.
Most of the power conflicts in the game happen as part of the greater player to player social structure of the game and do not really have Much to do with how powerful the wizard is.Within the context of a game, yes... but again, that's not what I'm talking about here.
your not getting it. what im saying is in most normal structures of game play the power differnce berween the strongest and weakest classes dont matter.
ill try this example i am dming for 4 people right now 3 are long time gamers 2 of wbich have good knowledge of tbe rules and 1 has a learning disability. my fourth player isnt a gamer. he has the basic rules but doesnt engage in any strategic planing and is big on figuring it out on his own.
what this works out as is my strongest player is playg ia rogue and my weakest a wizard. the wizard wont show anyone up and the rogues player wont be holding the group back. the theoretical power of the wizard isnt rellevant to actual play.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I disagree with all of the people twisting, maneuvering, misunderstanding or otherwise adjusting the spirit of the question.
@OP
A lot of the issue comes from two sources.
The first is inheritance. This game has inherited concepts, themes, expectations and designs from predecessors.
The second is vision. The vision of the game, it's design, the overarching everything is based in many ways on the inheritance feature. When everything you design is predicated on this, you are bound to carry over various issues present in preexisting versions.
It is entirely possible to have game worlds where wizards are not only weak, but at best, are only as situationally powerful as a single (or two) maneuver based 3/4 Bab non-caster class.
But this has nothing to do with this games vision.
So why do we complain about optimized mundanes and ignore the fact that the gods exist and leave them be but Nerf the upstart mundane when they try to be extraordinary?
Part of this game heritage is in the class system, the roles they play and the fact that those roles change over time (represented typically by levels). Over time the mundane's role is to protect, harm, distract, deal with threats or problems reliably, etc. It pays to have diverse mundanes.
As the game progresses, the magic system becomes more relevant. This is for a number of reasons. First, compare a mundanes advantages over time. They tend to acquire a fixed set of mundane but situationally useful abilities at a constant rate. Some things are easier for them than for casters (like dealing damage since it costs nothing to attack, so attacks and therefor damage are infinite. The same is true with skills). A caster always has a very finite number of tools at their disposal. The vision of the game usually says that having a limited set of omnipotent tools is fair compared to having a unlimited use of situationally powerful tools.
Second, the power of spells forces monsters and threats to be capable of dealing with them to some degree. Since, at this point, the best answer is with magical defenses, high end martial lethality (just in case you can get your claws around the casters throat) and spells of their own, all of the later game issues are forced to look at the magic system first and foremost. You cannot afford to ignore them. You can ignore (at least for a while) being hit by virtually anything at least once. However, nobody can typically afford to fall under the full effects (and later, many partial effects) of any spell.
As players we usually experience the game up to level 9 or so. At this point, things tend to be reasonable, balanced, and dicey. Magic finally comes into its own but doesn't dominate. Mundane characters tend to shine to death around this point since they can do so much of what they are meant to do and do it about as well as mechanically possible at that level by that time. In fact, mundanes tend to be well rounded specialists at this point.
But when we get to the levels beyond 12, magic is king. Casters have enough spells to always contend during every encounter. The power of those spells increases substantially as they break or make new rules with each new spell they gain access to (to better word it, spells of higher level tend to break existing rules or create new ones where there were no rules before, or even the existence of various spells or magic is the reason an entire ruleset is present to begin with).
At this stage of the game, a players role has changed. People complain because they realize at this point that they live in an oligarchy and that the casters are the aristocracy.
Once they try to catch up, join their ranks, etc, and they see the vast difference in wealth, the players feel somewhat cheated. Not jealous. The mundanes must put in much more effort to acheive results, often at much greater risk than a caster.
To conclude, I say this: as in real society, the wealthy tend to be held less accountable for unfairness in practice, while specific ones are punished on occasion in any meaningful way.
But when the poor do something unfair/lawful the punishment is swift and consistent. The poor make up most of the prison populations. Most of us are the poor/mundanes and we have our hands full keeping our peers in line and making sure that they follow the law and that if a law is being abuses, that it is changed. Meanwhile, as in real life, we only have our general resentment to show for the unfairness of the distribution of wealth. Since this is a game and any of us can simply choose to be wealthy (a caster) at any time, it is very easy to ignore the imbalance and focus on 90% of most expected gameplay.
I believe that this is the kind of response you were actually looking for.
*had to edit a horribly and probably offensively misspelled word*
I think the problem is the title of the post. I think it should have said "some people"..
With that said some people find even mundane optimization to be OP due to their style of play or not understanding the rules too well.
As an example I submitted a warrior(NPC) class with 14 str and power attack. Actually I just posted the results, and it was said that it did too much damage. However in most games that character would not be particularly useful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think another part of the reason optimized martials get more notice is that the things they do (Namely, tons of damage) are a lot more obvious. The top-tier casters usually avoid doing raw HP damage (Though exceptions exist) in favor of more indirect effects like summoning, battlefield control, and buffing/debuffing. To a lot of people, "I kept five enemies from being able to attack this round" is less impressive than "I did 50 damage with my big sword."
I think another part of the reason optimized martials get more notice is that the things they do (Namely, tons of damage) are a lot more obvious. The top-tier casters usually avoid doing raw HP damage (Though exceptions exist) in favor of more indirect effects like summoning, battlefield control, and buffing/debuffing. To a lot of people, "I kept five enemies from being able to attack this round" is less impressive than "I did 50 damage with my big sword."Pretty much this. If I incapacitate an entire encounters worth of enemies with a well placed stinking cloud and then the paladin runs up and cuts them down one per round some people see the paladin as the star of the show rather overlooking the fact that they are essentially dealing with mop up.
To say nothing of all the many, many spells whose effects are simply impossible to replicate through mundane means. You'll never swing your sword hard enough to cast Plane Shift.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's just because people like to argue over the internet. Almost every single argument i've encountered on these boards is one that I've never seen come up in game, nor has anybody I've met.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something else:
If caster is breaking the game the GM can forbid his spell combo or counter it and it doesn't invalidate the character because they still have piles upon piles of spells to use.
If a brute is breaking the game the GM can't forbid or counter the combo without the character being unable to do anything.
I think it's just because people like to argue over the internet. Almost every single argument i've encountered on these boards is one that I've never seen come up in game, nor has anybody I've met.
I've first hand experienced how a TWF rogue just doesn't work.
Aside from that.... Nope!
In game where Wizards (etc.) exist?
I see ten times as many threads worried about how to "deal" with gunslingers who have managed to jury rig the system into letting them full attack or dual wield or sword+pistol(strange how a build that has its own feat and archetype support doesn't actually work without a lot of effort) or how to shut down AoO optimized Babarians than I do honestly about the entire T1 pantheon combined.
Sure, by spending all his feats and a lot of WbL on a single niche ability he can probably drop a dangerous target in one round. Probably.
Meanwhile the Wizard is dropping a good spell or two and shutting down the entire enemy team in the same amount of time before he goes back to remaking reality in his own image. So why is the first one the most distressing?
They complain because there's this idea that non-magical characters must somehow be 'realistic', where as the spellcasters can just say 'It's magic' and get away with anything.
what this works out as is my strongest player is playg ia rogue and my weakest a wizard. the wizard wont show anyone up and the rogues player wont be holding the group back. the theoretical power of the wizard isnt rellevant to actual play.
This is, I think, the ideal. Reminds me of a Blood Bowl league where the best players are coaching goblin and halfling teams while the newbies are coaching orcs, dwarves, and undead.
In my next campaign I am seriously going to pull the best min/maxing player aside and ask him to play a TWF rogue. I don't think he'll go for it but maybe he'll play something other than a gunslinger, zen archer, or wizard.
Something else:
If caster is breaking the game the GM can forbid his spell combo or counter it and it doesn't invalidate the character because they still have piles upon piles of spells to use.
If a brute is breaking the game the GM can't forbid or counter the combo without the character being unable to do anything.
Imo, it shows how flimsy the options for martials really are.
At the end of the session the GM can ask the Wizard if he could tone it down a bit. The Wizard can pick an entirely different spell selection and be good to go.
On the other hand, the GM can ask the Barbarian. All the Barbarian can really do is not rage. Which from a player standpoint is really silly since he can usually rage all combat. So the player generally has to write up a new character since playing a Barbarian without rage is kinda pointless.
Lol, unless you swing so hard that you cut through the fabric of reality, damaging space/time and sucking everyone and everything nearby into the rift you have created.
Sorry, I was just imagining the Record of Lodoss War (the newer one) berserker meets the Subtle Knife from His Dark Materials. :D
I know of Lodoss and the second which is Heroic Knight (which is the one I think you are referring to...but just in case)...is there one that is newer than either of those?
Sure, a wizard, esp a Battlefield control wizard is very powerful- but not until you get to level 7 or 9. Even so a BC wizard isn't showy, he lets others be the star.
At lower levels, it is surprising to see a PC consistently one shot a BBEG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, a wizard, esp a Battlefield control wizard is very powerful- but not until you get to level 7 or 9. Even so a BC wizard isn't showy, he lets others be the star.
At lower levels, it is surprising to see a PC consistently one shot a BBEG.
Scythe, Greataxe, Falchion crits say otherwise. Glitterdust says otherwise. Color Spray says otherwise. Sleep says otherwise.
How low level are we talking here because all of those threats are definitely boss killers 1-4th level. Crits stay scary till about 9th level. Glitterdust is a devastating debuff that turns a hard encounter into a mop up.
Slumber Hex consistently makes boss fights a coin toss into a 1 round kill.
People complain about optimization when it results in a clash of playstyles.
If you have 4 players, 1 is playing middle school basket ball, two are playing high school basket ball and the 4rth is playing olympic basket ball it results some or all of he players not having fun.
IT has little or nothing to do with the power level of the wizard, and that in fact probably obfuscates the issues.
I would echo this, as well as the negative social culture it (much like anything else) can create when let go to extremes. I believe there was a post a few months back that was a sort of a social guide, a list of do's and do not's.
It's a good guideline for both optimizers and roleplayers, which basically boils down to: don't be a jerk. Also: work with your gaming group.
It's largely a social issue as well as a clash of playstyles.
|
|
@GreyWolfLord not as far as I know. I just remember him going berserk and cleaving the mountside like he didn't care that it was there or that he just made tons of rock fall down the cliff....you know, like normal mortals do... *rolls eyes*
The encounter was just awesome.
@werebat
I always fail to see why this is a weak build. I played a low level two charlatan rogue who solo'd multiple minotaurs....simultaneously. AND she had 16 str. I genuinely fail to comprehend how the twf rogue is mechanically so bad. In fact, from what I have heard from optimizers, it likes to try to compete in the DPR Olympics due to sneak attacks when it can get them. And it can definitely get them.
I understand that the 1hp/level difference from a pure martial is a gigantic difference. I know that that 3/4 Bab progression cannot be circumvented in any meaningful way and that skills are useless in the game and when they break the rule of being useless they are instead simply done as well or better by everyone else making a rogue even bothering to *have* skills in the first place an exorcize in futility. I get that. I am not arguing that part of the mechanical weakness intentionally built into the class. What I am arguing is that taking a min maxed and having them play a twf rogue that is clearly going to consistently deal massive amounts of damage per round is a good idea when you're trying to prevent overshadowing of other players and blatant abuse of various game mechanics.
Despite the absolute uselessness of skills (only if you are a rogue or monk but not any other class) the rogue is versatile enough to be able to do just about any given thing they really want to do. Are you sure you want an optimizer driving one?
I mean, god...mathematically this sounds like a bad idea. If I knew I was stuck playing a rogue for two and built for Dex and stealth with access to message I could sneak ahead, reliably not be seen, alert the group from a distance, and at the most opportune moment, rip the boss in half on my first full attack depending on my level and specific talents.
I think your comparison, specifically, was a really poor one. However, in the spirit of what I suspect you meant (a super weak build for a super weak class) you are right. It is a worthwhile request.....but not for that type of rogue.
I always fail to see why this is a weak build. I played a low level two charlatan rogue who solo'd multiple minotaurs....simultaneously. AND she had 16 str. I genuinely fail to comprehend how the twf rogue is mechanically so bad. In fact, from what I have heard from optimizers, it likes to try to compete in the DPR Olympics due to sneak attacks when it can get them. And it can definitely get them.
Because unlike a martial full attacking who merely needs to be within 5 foot step of a full attack, the TWF rogue needs to be within a 5 foot step of a full on sneak attack. Its cool and memorable when it happens but it doesn't happen all that often.
If the rest of your group is any good, chances are pretty good they're going to finish off what you started as soon as you hit something, forcing you to move and set up the attack again, before they finish that off.
Meanwhile the Wizard is dropping a good spell or two and shutting down the entire enemy team in the same amount of time before he goes back to remaking reality in his own image. So why is the first one the most distressing?
First thought? Because a wizard isn't really "remaking reality in his own image" before pretty late levels. If ever. A lot of games never actually reach the point where wizards become god. The guy who dominates combat at level 5 is getting a lot more bang for his buck, compared to the wizard who could theoretically dominate the world five levels after the game has petered out.
Secondly, you pretty much said it yourself. If the wizard can "shut down the enemy team" a couple times a day, she still needs the rest of her team to do the actual work. If a couple of optimized barbarians can just scythe their way through every encounter, nobody really needs the control that the wizard brings. (I played the caster in this group, as a matter of fact. Casting spells in combat was pretty meaningless until, like, level 12. I think the game ended at level 13. Thankfully I'm perfectly happy playing the gal standing in the back making snide comments. :p)
Meanwhile the Wizard is dropping a good spell or two and shutting down the entire enemy team in the same amount of time before he goes back to remaking reality in his own image. So why is the first one the most distressing?First thought? Because a wizard isn't really "remaking reality in his own image" before pretty late levels. If ever. A lot of games never actually reach the point where wizards become god. The guy who dominates combat at level 5 is getting a lot more bang for his buck, compared to the wizard who could theoretically dominate the world five levels after the game has petered out.
You should check out some of the optimized blaster wizards. By 5-6th level, they blast out some ridiculous damage that trumps even dedicated martials.
If the Wizard has system mastery, he can dominate combat now and the world too later.
Meanwhile the Wizard is dropping a good spell or two and shutting down the entire enemy team in the same amount of time before he goes back to remaking reality in his own image. So why is the first one the most distressing?First thought? Because a wizard isn't really "remaking reality in his own image" before pretty late levels. If ever. A lot of games never actually reach the point where wizards become god. The guy who dominates combat at level 5 is getting a lot more bang for his buck, compared to the wizard who could theoretically dominate the world five levels after the game has petered out.
You should check out some of the optimized blaster wizards. By 5-6th level, they blast out some ridiculous damage that trumps even dedicated martials.
If the Wizard has system mastery, he can dominate combat now and the world too later.
Just curious: how much times per day these optimized blaster wizards can trump dedicated martials in terms of DPR?
At least 4, and probably as many as 9-10 times (I might be underselling this slightly, but I'm trying to be conservative). Which works out to 3-5 encounters.
Sure, a wizard, esp a Battlefield control wizard is very powerful- but not until you get to level 7 or 9. Even so a BC wizard isn't showy, he lets others be the star.
At lower levels, it is surprising to see a PC consistently one shot a BBEG.
Scythe, Greataxe, Falchion crits say otherwise. Glitterdust says otherwise. Color Spray says otherwise. Sleep says otherwise.
How low level are we talking here because all of those threats are definitely boss killers 1-4th level. Crits stay scary till about 9th level. Glitterdust is a devastating debuff that turns a hard encounter into a mop up.
Slumber Hex consistently makes boss fights a coin toss into a 1 round kill.
I hear this a lot, but haven't experienced this. Probably because my bosses are rarely levels 1-4, but still.
I hear this a lot, but haven't experienced this. Probably because my bosses are rarely levels 1-4, but still.Sure, a wizard, esp a Battlefield control wizard is very powerful- but not until you get to level 7 or 9. Even so a BC wizard isn't showy, he lets others be the star.
At lower levels, it is surprising to see a PC consistently one shot a BBEG.
Scythe, Greataxe, Falchion crits say otherwise. Glitterdust says otherwise. Color Spray says otherwise. Sleep says otherwise.
How low level are we talking here because all of those threats are definitely boss killers 1-4th level. Crits stay scary till about 9th level. Glitterdust is a devastating debuff that turns a hard encounter into a mop up.
Slumber Hex consistently makes boss fights a coin toss into a 1 round kill.
Slumber Hex does not have an HD limit.
Crits are always scary...
I hear this a lot, but haven't experienced this. Probably because my bosses are rarely levels 1-4, but still.Sure, a wizard, esp a Battlefield control wizard is very powerful- but not until you get to level 7 or 9. Even so a BC wizard isn't showy, he lets others be the star.
At lower levels, it is surprising to see a PC consistently one shot a BBEG.
Scythe, Greataxe, Falchion crits say otherwise. Glitterdust says otherwise. Color Spray says otherwise. Sleep says otherwise.
How low level are we talking here because all of those threats are definitely boss killers 1-4th level. Crits stay scary till about 9th level. Glitterdust is a devastating debuff that turns a hard encounter into a mop up.
Slumber Hex consistently makes boss fights a coin toss into a 1 round kill.
1) Glitterdust has no HD limit...
2) Heaven's oracles laugh at your HD limit on Color Spray...
3) Slumber Hex has no HD limit.. and when combined with the evil 3 (Misfortune, Cackle, Evil Eye), it pretty much will hurt. Oh, and if you REALLY want to be funny, use a lesser rod of quickening on Ill Omen before popping off the hex and the BBEG is pretty much dead...
4)Crits are scary. Don't believe me? Go ask any cookie-cutter Magus...
Sure, a wizard, esp a Battlefield control wizard is very powerful- but not until you get to level 7 or 9. Even so a BC wizard isn't showy, he lets others be the star.
At lower levels, it is surprising to see a PC consistently one shot a BBEG.
Scythe, Greataxe, Falchion crits say otherwise. Glitterdust says otherwise. Color Spray says otherwise. Sleep says otherwise.
How low level are we talking here because all of those threats are definitely boss killers 1-4th level. Crits stay scary till about 9th level. Glitterdust is a devastating debuff that turns a hard encounter into a mop up.
Slumber Hex consistently makes boss fights a coin toss into a 1 round kill.
Bah, BBEG fails TWO will saves in a row? Not likely. GD is nice for a round.
Bah, BBEG fails TWO will saves in a row? Not likely. GD is nice for a round.Sure, a wizard, esp a Battlefield control wizard is very powerful- but not until you get to level 7 or 9. Even so a BC wizard isn't showy, he lets others be the star.
At lower levels, it is surprising to see a PC consistently one shot a BBEG.
Scythe, Greataxe, Falchion crits say otherwise. Glitterdust says otherwise. Color Spray says otherwise. Sleep says otherwise.
How low level are we talking here because all of those threats are definitely boss killers 1-4th level. Crits stay scary till about 9th level. Glitterdust is a devastating debuff that turns a hard encounter into a mop up.
Slumber Hex consistently makes boss fights a coin toss into a 1 round kill.
Evil Eye: Don't care if you pass or not. You are still getting the penalty
Misfortune: With a lowered Will save, lets have some fun
Quickened Ill Omen: Pretty much same thing as Misfortune.
Slumber: If either ill Omen or Misfortune stick (whih the likely are), then Slumber becomes Devastating. This gets especially more so if you cast any other will save de-buff prior to really lay on the hurt.
At least 4, and probably as many as 9-10 times (I might be underselling this slightly, but I'm trying to be conservative). Which works out to 3-5 encounters.
4 times works out to barely one encounter.
1) Glitterdust has no HD limit...
3) Slumber Hex has no HD limit.. and when combined with the evil 3 (Misfortune, Cackle, Evil Eye), it pretty much will hurt. Oh, and if you REALLY want to be funny, use a lesser rod of quickening on Ill Omen before popping off the hex and the BBEG is pretty much dead...
Yes, but you get a save every round and you can still act freely. You can withdraw have your mooks cover for you and cast spells still.
3. Yes, but it has a 30' range and all it costs is one mooks standard action to wake the BBEG up. Then he's immune.
|
In game where Wizards (etc.) exist?
I see ten times as many threads worried about how to "deal" with gunslingers who have managed to jury rig the system into letting them full attack or dual wield or sword+pistol(strange how a build that has its own feat and archetype support doesn't actually work without a lot of effort) or how to shut down AoO optimized Babarians than I do honestly about the entire T1 pantheon combined.
Sure, by spending all his feats and a lot of WbL on a single niche ability he can probably drop a dangerous target in one round. Probably.
Meanwhile the Wizard is dropping a good spell or two and shutting down the entire enemy team in the same amount of time before he goes back to remaking reality in his own image. So why is the first one the most distressing?
Personally, I just enjoy being optimized to really get the most out of my character. I'm not talking about Damage either. Damage gets the job done but good god is it boring.
Sure, a wizard, esp a Battlefield control wizard is very powerful- but not until you get to level 7 or 9. Even so a BC wizard isn't showy, he lets others be the star.
At lower levels, it is surprising to see a PC consistently one shot a BBEG.
Evil Eye: Don't care if you pass or not. You are still getting the penalty
Misfortune: With a lowered Will save, lets have some fun
Quickened Ill Omen: Pretty much same thing as Misfortune.
Slumber: If either ill Omen or Misfortune stick (whih the likely are), then Slumber becomes Devastating. This gets especially more so if you cast any other will save de-buff prior to really lay on the hurt.
A Battlefield control wizard has none of these.
Yeah, I still make saves more often than not. If a boss fails a save, he fails, but he didn't get where he is now by failing saves regularly.
At least 4, and probably as many as 9-10 times (I might be underselling this slightly, but I'm trying to be conservative). Which works out to 3-5 encounters.4 times works out to barely one encounter.
4 is the barest minimum and will usually work out to 1.5-2 encounters. 9-10 however will work out to 3-5 encounters.
Edit: @ Freehold DM - A battlefield control wizard rocking Dazing Spell (especially if combined with Persistent) is not something most things CR appropriate are saving against routinely. In fact, numerically speaking, most CR appropriate things will in fact fail their saves more then they will succeed.
At least 4, and probably as many as 9-10 times (I might be underselling this slightly, but I'm trying to be conservative). Which works out to 3-5 encounters.4 times works out to barely one encounter.4 is the barest minimum and will usually work out to 1.5-2 encounters. 9-10 however will work out to 3-5 encounters.
It's quite possible that your encounters only last 2 rounds. However, my poll, which included feedback from nigh every Dev who posts here, indicates the most games have encounters that run at least 5-6 rounds, sometimes longer.
However, if you do have only 2 round encounters this does explain some of your opinions about spellcasters. The biggest limit on spellcasters being the number of spells they have, and if that limit is gone, then spellcasters get FAR more powerful.
Mind you, a solid minority did say they have 2-3 round encounters, so you're not alone.