| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3E and following editions beefed up Wizards more than any other class over previous editions, but that was so long ago that people have either forgotten or are new to the game and never knew any different.
Magic-Users used to have a d4 HD and their max CON bonus to HP was +2; now Wizards have a d6 HD and there's no cap on their CON bonus to HP.
Magic-Users used to require more XP to level than every other class (except the paladin [but that's a different thread]); now Wizards need just as much as everyone else (if you're even still using XP [which many aren't]).
Magic-Users used to start with one spell (no cantrips) at first level and no bonus spells for INT; now Wizards start with 3 unlimited cantrips + 1 first level spell and bonus spells for INT.
Magic-Users used to have to be a minimum of 9th level before they could scribe a scroll and the process was arduous, expensive, time-consuming and required rare components; now Wizards start the game with the ability to scribe dirt-cheap scrolls.
In BECMI, 1E and 2E I didn't get attached to my Magic-Users until 5th level because death was so probable earlier than that that it wasn't worth the emotional investment.
There was an altruism to evil back then. Bad guys didn't target the Magic-User because they were afraid of Melf's Acid Arrow, but because they knew that if they didn't kill the Magic-User NOW, she'd become nigh unstoppable for someone else in the future.
Oh Darksol, pray you never have to test your opinion against a real high level party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^ . . . And (as somebody mentioned some time way back), Magic-Users used to not get spells automatically, and no guarantee of being able to find the spell they wanted, and in practice had an (Intelligence-dependent) limited number of spells known of each level (but might not even be able to find enough spells to get up to that limit).
* * * * * * * *
And now for something completely different . . . Yep, he's OP.
Magic-Users used to require more XP to level than every other class (except the paladin [but that's a different thread]); now Wizards need just as much as everyone else (if you're even still using XP [which many aren't]).
Magic-Users used to have to be a minimum of 9th level before they could scribe a scroll and the process was arduous, expensive, time-consuming and required rare components; now Wizards start the game with the ability to scribe dirt-cheap scrolls.
These are the two that seem the most likely to tip the power balance. Spells levels were 1-9 back in AD&D and that seemed to balance when your wizard was 20-30% behind the other characters in level. Scribe scroll and other magic items cost XP not that long ago, & that slowed level progression down further as well.
Now spell levels are 1-9 and the wizard is on par with other characters in terms of level.
That said, the most adjustments I have ever had to make for a party was because of a double-sword wielding barbarian. With keen (or improved crit) & four attacks I had to add a lot of HP to published critters. Upping them in any other way tended to screw the rest of the party (even the wizard who specifically chose spells with no Save required).
I have noticed that a lot of people online consider wizards in pathfinder or in D&D as the 'god' class and I am curious as to the reason why. From what I have seen, most of the time the wizard does less damage than your fighter or paladin. Is it to do with their versatility or their battle-field control? If so, how do they have such a large impact in general?Spells are considered overpowered. Wizards use spells, so they use overpowered abilities and become overpowered.
Predjudicial phrasing.
Its a fantasy game; wizards have more fantasy powers...
Oh Darksol, pray you never have to test your opinion against a real high level party.
I have once before. They were effectively TPK'd by superior tactics from the Great Wyrm Red Dragon BBEG, a couple of which I've mentioned already in this thread.
They buffed proper and had a plan, but didn't account for several of the abilities the Dragon could do (even with a successful knowledge check on its general abilities), and got picked off one by one, starting with the Wizard, then the Cleric, followed by the martials.
If they were a group of 6+ Wizards using Gate shenanigans, they would've won effortlessly. But they weren't. Against a typical party, the Great Wyrm can overcome it.
Alright Darksol. I'll just chalk your "Ancient Wyrms are unbeatable" argument up there with your "Ranged Combat in Pathfinder is bad" thread. No way to win even when people give you solid evidence and detailed analysis. You have a good day man.
The only one that gave me solid evidence of it being defeated was Firewarrior44, and not only is that atypical for a party, but the only thing beating that combination is, well, an even larger Wizard "strike crew".
Needless to say, the Great Wyrm would be beaten by shenanigans, which basically beats anything anyway.
@Peter Stewart
I have seen plenty of bad wizards.
I have also seen the world breakers in play.
Most good players don't go full throttle on their wizards because it isn't fun to break the game. Those same players are in their right to complain that the class is too strong for it to be fun. Having to artificially throttle yourself isn't very amusing.
Eh, it can be interesting to see how far you can get with a silly or different build.
As a side note, I tend to let newer or trusted friends play certain classes. Like Wizard. Pretty sure any game breaking by new players is done by mistake unless they take to forums. Heck off topic but I let a friend run Summoner Synthesist archetype a few times? Can it be busted yes, but he just makes Kamen Riders with it.
Classes can break the game but it's dependent on the player doing so.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For an entertaining look into why Wizards can run rampant in a campaign, I strongly suggest giving a read to Lightwarden's entertaining three part blog about the topic. Part three is the most relevant to this thread, but one and two also help to elaborate on particular advantages, most notably in relation to crafting magic items and creating specialized demiplanes.
It's distances from how a real game will play out, considering GM rules and the social dynamics of the group, but the whole point is seeing how far things can go when pushed to their hypothetical limits. Despite that, in most cases even a reasonable player with a reasonable GM is going to be bringing so much more to the table when they put on their robe and wizard hat.
Why are wizards considered the most powerful class?
Because the forum community is made up of the most outspoken and belligerent gamers that have advanced that position over the life cycle the game by increasingly framing the debate in terms of only rules sourcebooks.
If you had _only_ rule books in a void, and had players that were playing the typical immoral anti-social sociopaths that these scenarios tend to postulate, then the wizard (and other casting classes) potentially have more overt options under the game rules at a given level that can resolve matters (assuming they have access to them) most easily or quickly.
Honestly, it's a really silly debate that you're better off ignoring. Most of these people are the same people that show up to a table with heavily mechanically twinked characters (spending hours building such a character, researching, combing though rule books for the most powerful combination) then show up on the forums complaining about how said thing is too powerful.
Ignore it. As long as you don't have an issue at your table you're better off leaving it that way.
Most people here don't play tweaked out characters. Ignore this person. He just makes baseless accusations
For an entertaining look into why Wizards can run rampant in a campaign, I strongly suggest giving a read to Lightwarden's entertaining three part blog about the topic. Part three is the most relevant to this thread, but one and two also help to elaborate on particular advantages, most notably in relation to crafting magic items and creating specialized demiplanes.
{. . .}
Faved not for the reasons you are probably thinking of, but for the great description of the development of an arch-villain. For that matter, Nethys himself was probably one of the less bad of this type of arch-villain . . . .
Most people here don't play tweaked out characters. Ignore this person. He just makes baseless accusationsWhy are wizards considered the most powerful class?
Because the forum community is made up of the most outspoken and belligerent gamers that have advanced that position over the life cycle the game by increasingly framing the debate in terms of only rules sourcebooks.
If you had _only_ rule books in a void, and had players that were playing the typical immoral anti-social sociopaths that these scenarios tend to postulate, then the wizard (and other casting classes) potentially have more overt options under the game rules at a given level that can resolve matters (assuming they have access to them) most easily or quickly.
Honestly, it's a really silly debate that you're better off ignoring. Most of these people are the same people that show up to a table with heavily mechanically twinked characters (spending hours building such a character, researching, combing though rule books for the most powerful combination) then show up on the forums complaining about how said thing is too powerful.
Ignore it. As long as you don't have an issue at your table you're better off leaving it that way.
My first character was a wizard. My previous "roleplaying" experience was Final Fantasy and Chrono Trigger. In the party was a twinked-out fighter who could end most enemies in a single blow.
By level 15, I was outdamaging him despite not even really knowing what I was doing.
When a total newbie can accomplish that using skills they acquired playing Final Fantasy, then yes... the wizard is overpowered.
Most people here don't play tweaked out characters. Ignore this person. He just makes baseless accusationsWhy are wizards considered the most powerful class?
Because the forum community is made up of the most outspoken and belligerent gamers that have advanced that position over the life cycle the game by increasingly framing the debate in terms of only rules sourcebooks.
If you had _only_ rule books in a void, and had players that were playing the typical immoral anti-social sociopaths that these scenarios tend to postulate, then the wizard (and other casting classes) potentially have more overt options under the game rules at a given level that can resolve matters (assuming they have access to them) most easily or quickly.
Honestly, it's a really silly debate that you're better off ignoring. Most of these people are the same people that show up to a table with heavily mechanically twinked characters (spending hours building such a character, researching, combing though rule books for the most powerful combination) then show up on the forums complaining about how said thing is too powerful.
Ignore it. As long as you don't have an issue at your table you're better off leaving it that way.
My first character was a wizard. My previous "roleplaying" experience was Final Fantasy and Chrono Trigger. In the party was a twinked-out fighter who could end most enemies in a single blow.
By level 15, I was outdamaging him despite not even really knowing what I was doing.
When a total newbie can accomplish that using skills they acquired playing Final Fantasy, then yes... the wizard is overpowered.
I need more info. What was the fighter build? What were the enemies, who were ended in one blow and what is the wizard build? I've seen people come here and make claims of a great build, and realize the GM was doing things wrong. An example of this was when the "monks suck" debate was a weekly topic here. People would defend the monk and tell some story of how a monk did <insert awesome thing>, and I'd point out that by the rules that wasn't possible. Similar things happened when the "Psionics are OP" threads were around also. I'd point out that the psion only did ____ because the player broke some rules and the GM didnt catch it.
In addition this still doesn't nullify what I said about the previous poster, and it doesn't prove that wizards are objectively OP. Like most things what is OP is based on table variation.
If your point was only about wizards, and not to defend the posted insulting the board members here then feel free to ignore that part.
edit:I am mostly asking for more info because anecdotal evidence is not taken too seriously around here due to things such as people bending rules by accident or on purpose. It also makes sure this isn't some outlier or strange corner case of technically legal rulings that most GM's would not allow.
It can easily be explained via static fighter vs dynamic wizard.
GM counters encounter killing fighter with either lots of mooks or high AC. Wizard uses chain lightening and vastly out damages the fighter by level 15. If that gets countered, the wizard just uses a different spell.
Our blaster sorcerer had to catch upwards of four enemies in one chain lightning to match the damage of a sort-of optimized Barbarian at level 15.
If you're fighting more than four enemies at once, they're mooks and they probably wouldn't do much more than scratch damage anyways.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
To continue with my conspiracy theory night I got going. I theorize Lady-J is actually playing a compleltly different game then the rest of us but no one herself included is aware of this. She might be from a different dimension very similar but with key differences. Somehow she is posting in ours. I expect some sort of dimensional rift located solely in her computer.
|
|
For an entertaining look into why Wizards can run rampant in a campaign, I strongly suggest giving a read to Lightwarden's entertaining three part blog about the topic. Part three is the most relevant to this thread
{. . .}Faved not for the reasons you are probably thinking of, but for the great description of the development of an arch-villain. For that matter, Nethys himself was probably one of the less bad of this type of arch-villain . . . .
Yeah, it really makes sense. I'd like to think wizard optimization to exist in the game world as a form of madness. If you focus too much on perfecting magic, being unkillable, and instantly solving all of your problems with spell combinations, you fall out of touch with being a person.
I should consider implementing this mental disconnect in my 12th level PFS character. Hmm...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're not wrong, Vid. Her quoted numbers are not only consistently completely impossible, but also generally pulled out of nowhere.
This is a feat I can normally only accomplish by entering rage and holding down the shift key. I'm impressed.
You're not wrong, Vid. Her quoted numbers are not only consistently completely impossible, but also generally pulled out of nowhere.
This is a feat I can normally only accomplish by entering rage and holding down the shift key. I'm impressed.
if you did something called math you would see that many of the numbers actually are achievable take the above example of the numbers your blaster sorc should be pulling on a regular basis you go cross blooded and blood havoc for +3 damage per die, then with the spell specialization you have +2 caster level to you favorite spell so 17 caster levels 17d6 with fireball because you are also using intensify bloodline mutation 17*3.5=59.5, 17*3=51, 59.5+51=110.5, 110.5*1.5=165.75 average damage for the sorcerer, next we have disintegrate at 34d6, 34*3.5=119, 34*3=102, 119+102= 221, 221*1.5=331.5, or battering blast at 3 attacks at 9d6 for 27d6 total, 27*3.5=94.5, 27*3=81, 81+94.5=175.5, 175.5*1.5=263.25
for a total of 165.75 average damage on a fireball, 331.5 average damage on disintegrate and 263.25 average damage on a battering blast which falls into my claim of 150+damage per target in an aoe situation on a failed save and 250+ damage vs a single target for a level 15 caster
Why bother doing math, when I can use my Antagonize feat and make you do it for me? :)
I still think your a dimensional traveler(poster?)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going need you to prove your not from another dimension using math.
|
I think the general rule is wizards can be overpowered because spells can be overpowered, full casters are best at spells, Wizards have one of the best spell lists, and therefore wizards can be op.
Also because we already knew about CoDzilla.
It's hard to account for spells if you don't keep maticulous track of their spell books, and ensure they don't cheat out spells early, or gather scrolls they shouldn't. Also if they are a problem, there are inworld reasons for them to be at risk of being removed as a problem.
Normally skilled assasin attempts an infiltration job to kill the wizard on the BBEG's behest, or the last tarraque they sent away is with the astral plane rip combo is delivered straight back the turn after by FAR stronger wizards or entities that don't like the idea of people just throwing their trash into their TIMELESS plane.
if the BBEG has a powerful wizard or caster of their own, or even worse for the players a ring of 3 wishes, just have the wizard suddenly subject to a sudden attack of being scried and fried. Maybe a massive storm hits the town the wizard is in, or suddenly a curse of some bad fortune keeps manifesting itself around him when he attempts to use magic in specific situations.
Above all, when the game gets to high levels, don't be afraid to throw out the more lethal options. At that point, death is another expense.
Just make sure the villains have contingencies on their spell books and scrolls to destroy themselves if the wizard tries to loot them after death.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
still proves you wrong on your claimsWhy bother doing math, when I can use my Antagonize feat and make you do it for me? :)You're not wrong, Vid. Her quoted numbers are not only consistently completely impossible, but also generally pulled out of nowhere.
This is a feat I can normally only accomplish by entering rage and holding down the shift key. I'm impressed.
if you did something called math you would see that many of the numbers actually are achievable take the above example of the numbers your blaster sorc should be pulling on a regular basis you go cross blooded and blood havoc for +3 damage per die, then with the spell specialization you have +2 caster level to you favorite spell so 17 caster levels 17d6 with fireball because you are also using intensify bloodline mutation 17*3.5=59.5, 17*3=51, 59.5+51=110.5, 110.5*1.5=165.75 average damage for the sorcerer, next we have disintegrate at 34d6, 34*3.5=119, 34*3=102, 119+102= 221, 221*1.5=331.5, or battering blast at 3 attacks at 9d6 for 27d6 total, 27*3.5=94.5, 27*3=81, 81+94.5=175.5, 175.5*1.5=263.25
for a total of 165.75 average damage on a fireball, 331.5 average damage on disintegrate and 263.25 average damage on a battering blast which falls into my claim of 150+damage per target in an aoe situation on a failed save and 250+ damage vs a single target for a level 15 caster
Not in the least. For starters, your blood intensify ability only manages to crank that fireball up to 15d6 3 times a day. That tosses out about 20 damage before your empowered feat goes in, making that 165.75 look more like 135.75 average damage, well below 150 and not including fire resistance, which is the single most common resist in the game.
Your dinsintegrate numbers look a little more accurate, assuming that you're somehow making disintigrate do fire damage for your crossblooded blaster sorc to properly get +3 damage per die.
Wait, you can't do that?
Well, that throws a wrench in that. Not to mention the enemy gets a touch AC defense, a save defense, and an SR defense. And even then, that's nowhere near the damage that a properly statted Barbarian can throw out in a single attack, every single round. You're better off saving that 6th level spell slot for something that actually matters, like Flesh to Stone to just win, or Sirocco (which actually does Fire damage and thus would work!) to fatigue an entire area of enemies. Except, wait, you're also magically empowering all of them, so make that 6th level spell an 8th... which you don't have since you're level 15. Not to mention that at this point you've taken Spell Focus in both Evocation and Conjuration, just for Spell Specialization on both of them, when both of them are frankly quite lackluster.
Now, from there, there's also battering blast. We come back to the same problems. One: all the bonus damage bloodlines apply to energy types, and force is listed on none of those bloodlines. Battering Blast is force damage, not fire. You changing this these to fire? And wasting a third feat on specializing this one too? To intensify it by 5 levels, for a total of only 7d6, not 9d6 per as you stated. That cuts down your damage considerably as well, particularly since 9d6+27 per deals a lot more than 7d6+7, your actual damage amount... not to mention you're again just assuming everything is magically empowered. You have, maybe, three spells that you can empower without burning full round actions on spells, and burning a full round action on a spell is a really bad plan for a sorcerer.
The antagonize was just setting you up for the charge, brah. Just like a true barbarian.
And just like a true wizard, you walked right into the ragelancepounce. This is the part where you yell CONTINGENCY or I HAVE A CLONE and try to move on.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the claims of "Wizards are overpowered" comes from theory crafting that (almost) never holds up in play. It relies on the Wizard not only having access to exactly the right spells prepared at any given time, but also on nebulous "divinations" to somehow learn exactly what they will need.
In real life? This never happens.
In real life we just present a realistic scenario.
It's rare that we get a post that tries to add context to the adventuring day. I really like this one! I like how you break down an adventuring day and the wizard's spell use. I like how you present a varied list of challenges. I like how you keep track of the spells used.
However, there are a few counterpoints that I would like to make.
- The spells you listed are popular and quite useful in a variety of situations. Things like Stone Shape, Dispel Magic, and Teleport are likely to show up in any seasoned wizard's spell book.
- Said spells are likely to be prepared as well, since they handle a variety of situations. Hell, stuff like Mage Armor and Protection from Evil can almost be assumed, since they have some of the best shelf life out of any 1st level spells.
- You did lean a little heavy on the spell taxing. A challenge that could theoretically be beaten by Climb checks, or even a grapple hook, ended up siphoning a cast of Fly? And Charm Monster assumes your party is either lacking in the (second) most important skill in the game or they bungled the social situation that hard.
- While you can't lean on it too heavily, seasoned wizards can afford a handful of useful wands and at least a modest collection of scrolls for a variety of situations. The first level spells are easy peasy, but scrolls of spells like fly are an affordable option at this level, so that lightens the load just a bit.
But most importantly of all? In this scenario, your wizard solved ALL of the party's problems outside of combat. All on their own. In this situation, it seems like the party isn't good at social skills, they don't have a disable device guy, they have no means of three dimensional movement, they forgot to buy rope, and they have no means of spell casting in any capacity outside of maybe raw damage and healbotting. As far as I see it, this party better be so damn good at combat that you only need to cast one spell per fight.
I really do appreciate the work you put into this post; it feels more like an example of actual play than the majority of the stuff I read around here. But I think you accidentally played hype man to the class you were attempting to demystify.
Psst. Friend. Compadre. Amiga. Amerigo Vesspucci.
Cite your sources.
Seriously.
It makes you sound credible.
Which you don't right now.
Also watch your quote buttons, I think you overwrote one of the {/quote}s
Edit: Nevermind, you got the quote thing. Good on you.
That seems tautological.In which fantasy setting? It's absolutely clear it's not true in all of the possible ones, so please provide examples.The genre that is D&D and its successors. Aside from that interlude during 4e.Is history tautological? Is game genre? The game has been like that since the 1970s when it invented its own genre, before many of us here were even born. In some cases, before the parents of some of us here were born.
That said, as has been touched upon, things have gotten markedly more convenient for them and they can do more in one day.
If that's really the case, then people claiming the game reflects how fantasy works are clearly not right - the game reflects a particular vision of D&D, which certainly isn't the one that appears to have been the original intention of EGG, nor reflective of what appears in the original Appendix N. When you combine a massive expansion in the range of what spells can do, and regularly increase the number available to casters, and decide that high-level saving throws make it too hard for the poor things to succeed all the time, then that's how you get casters to be as overpowered as they are. Consider there were complaints back in the 1970s and 1980s that casters were too powerful and they've only gained power since then. It's recognisable as the same genre, in the way that Superman has drifted over the years in the things he can do.
And yes, I am one of the older players who played OD&D and isn't pleased with how the game has drifted so far from its origins.
..Should.. Should I get your cane sir?
Except most of the reasons you claim Ancient Wyrms are unbeatable rely on 9th level spellcasting and most Evil Great Wyrms don't even have access to 9th level spellcasting as I mentioned earlier.
So no, Great Wyrms as a whole are not unbeatable even without "shenanigans" as you put it.
I suppose a bunch of optimized archers or gunslingers have a chance as well, because "LOLArchery/Firearms", but as I've said prior, the Dragon isn't stupid, and the higher his age category, the smarter and more experienced he is against enemies and their tactics.
He won't fight on the archers' terms without an ace in the hole to counteract their schemes, and unless they come fully prepared, the Dragon has viable answers to their way of attack, and they don't even have to be a Great Wyrm with 9th level spells to do it. Wind Walls (Yes, I know it can be countered), Smoke/Fog Clouds, heck even calling down an extremely powerful storm that makes ranged attacks practically impossible, are all possibilities that don't (or shouldn't) require 9th level Great Wyrm spellcasting to implement.
And that's just off the top of my head. I imagine there are numerous other ways to counter them that I'm either forgetting or don't even know about. So, no, they aren't unbeatable. But I imagine it should take the most optimized and prepared of characters/players to defeat, as a Dragon normally should.
Oh, I just noticed this spell here. Would this work against, say, a Lantern Archon's Light Ray, which is an EX ability that creates a ray?
Some relevant text:
A lantern archon can fire beams of light to damage foes. These light rays have a maximum range of 30 feet. This attack overcomes damage reduction of any type.
An antitech field doesn’t stop rays created by magical sources, but does stop rays fired from beam weapons such as lasers.
I need more info. What was the fighter build? What were the enemies, who were ended in one blow and what is the wizard build? I've seen people come here and make claims of a great build, and realize the GM was doing things wrong. An example of this was when the "monks suck" debate was a weekly topic here....Most people here don't play tweaked out characters. Ignore this person. He just makes baseless accusationsWhy are wizards considered the most powerful class?
Because the forum community is made up of the most outspoken and belligerent gamers that have advanced that position over the life cycle the game by increasingly framing the debate in terms of only rules sourcebooks.
If you had _only_ rule books in a void, and had players that were playing the typical immoral anti-social sociopaths that these scenarios tend to postulate, then the wizard (and other casting classes) potentially have more overt options under the game rules at a given level that can resolve matters (assuming they have access to them) most easily or quickly.
Honestly, it's a really silly debate that you're better off ignoring. Most of these people are the same people that show up to a table with heavily mechanically twinked characters (spending hours building such a character, researching, combing though rule books for the most powerful combination) then show up on the forums complaining about how said thing is too powerful.
Ignore it. As long as you don't have an issue at your table you're better off leaving it that way.
My first character was a wizard. My previous "roleplaying" experience was Final Fantasy and Chrono Trigger. In the party was a twinked-out fighter who could end most enemies in a single blow.
By level 15, I was outdamaging him despite not even really knowing what I was doing.
When a total newbie can accomplish that using skills they acquired playing Final Fantasy, then yes... the wizard is overpowered.
My point was only about wizards. I was trying to back up what you said with my own experience, not to defend the insulting poster.
It's been years. I couldn't tell you the build because I honestly had no idea what a build was at the time. I call the fighter twinked out because he was pulling off damage I have never seen a fighter do since.
I think a lot of posters have lost sight of the question posed by the original poster. He didn't ask whether wizards are powerful, or whether they are the post powerful class but why they are considered overpowered. Which isn't the same thing.
I do not dispute anything you said about the increase to martials or the tamping down of higher level spells.
My post about the differences between 1E Magic-Users and Pathfinder Wizards was to explain why Wizards are considered overpowered, not to argue that they actually are.
Perception is reality.
Relative to other classes and monsters the wizard is now definitely more powerful at low levels than he was, but he's weaker at higher levels than he once was. These changes have been made to improve game balance since no doubt game designers took the view that making the wizard weak at low level didn't really compensate for his power at high levels, it just created imbalance at both ends of the spectrum.This is pretty arguable as you are missing the one major difference in 3e+ compared to earlier editions, how saves work.
In pre 3e your saves just kept getting better and were entirely independent of the spellcaster. At high level failing a save is pretty unlikely making most control or save or die effects an extremely uncertain prospect. This is why direct damage was so much more effective in pre 3e (along with the lack of dice caps). It meant your spells would pretty much always have some effect.
Now though, the saving throw system makes it much more likely you can get spell effects to stick because you can pump save DC's more easily than most opposition can cover all of their saves. And they need to cover all of their saves as there are utterly disabling spells which could target any of them.
Despite this I haven't noticed any real change to the number of opponents making or failing saves. My experience across all rules sets is that opponents who are less powerful than you will probably fail their saves and that those who are more powerful will probably make their saves.
I hate to lift the veil for you, but that may just be your GM deciding what is fair.