Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Roman 05-27-04, 09:03 PM	I have not really been following the debate on this, but the few comments I did read on these boards seemed to imply that people think that arcane casters are overpowered. In my D&D club, however, which consists of about 20+ people, everybody (I have not formed an opinion on this yet) seems to think that wizards and sorcerers are hugely underpowered (particularly at low levels) compared to warriors (not the NPC class - the fighters, barbarians, etc.) and rogues not to mention clerics! Nobody wants to play them in any campaigns that are running, have been running or are planned. On the online gaming boards I (www.dndonlinegames.com) frequent, hardly anyone also wants to play arcane casters, thinking them underpowered, but since people there seem to be less concerned with character power than in my D&D club, occassionally someone does play them. So are arcane casters underpowered or overpowered or balanced?
BlaineTog 05-27-04, 09:39 PM	At low levels, they are weaker than pretty much everyone else. Of course, thats really low levels. Like from 1 to 4. From 5 to, I dunno, about 10, I'd say they are roughly balanced with the others, mostly. From 11 on, they are much more powerful than all the other classes (with the exception of Clerics and Druids, who are always really powerful). So, to answer your question, they are all of these.
ManTimeForgot 05-27-04, 09:42 PM	At levels 1-4 (1-5 for a sorc) you might be able to get away with calling a wizard "underpowered" compared to a warrior type. However, as soon as the wizard gets fly (which should be 5th level), no warrior type in the game is capable of defeating the wizard in single combat let alone out perform them in the group. By 12th level coupled with extended buffs and summon spells the party wizard can replace the party fighters for purposes of combat. You aren't going to damage the wizard and he can pull monsters out at his leisure. Heck by 5th level summon a huge fiendish monstrous centipede and have it use its +15 grapple check. I'm thinking most monsters you fight at 5th level won't be able to beat the creature in a grapple. And well compared to a cleric what can I say? Clerics and druids rule the universe. Its Dungeons and Dragons at Priests of the Coast. Though fighters, barbarians, monks, and paladins are all distant concerns to a good wizard, and even the sorc out performs most of them. I think you sorely underestimate just how much firepower a sorc can put out and still remain viable in terms of versatility. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
beaver1024 05-27-04, 09:45 PM	Unless you twist the rules and run campaigns that favours lots of resting, sorc/wiz are underpowered. Sorcs even more so than wiz because once the wiz hits 5th level, at least he can still be useful by being an item ******. A sorc just continues to be lame.
Sensei Gith 05-27-04, 09:54 PM	Do you have any evidence to back up that absurd claim, beaver?
Karlindel 05-27-04, 10:04 PM	A wizard shines as a member of a party. They are balanced against the rest at any levels. At low levels, wizards have to be more careful with their spells, because they are a limited resource. But even at lvls 1-4, a well built wizard can sometimes make an encounter. Sleep, Color Spray, and other spells can take out multiple enemies at low levels. At higher levels, the wizards may seem more powerful because of their expanded options from spellcasting, but they can't substitute for a well built fighter in a fight. Of course, I'm of the opinion that all the classes are fairly well balanced. :angel: One on one comparisons don't really work in D&D, because it's not about what class you play, it's about what role you fill in the party, and the party needs all of the main spots filled.
ManTimeForgot 05-27-04, 10:07 PM	Right so Beaver, when my 20th level character timestops and kills everyone in your party without any of you all being able to do anything about it unless you have specific contingency (which would require you be a wizard or sorceror) or are a psion and have some kind of immediate action power which can save your butt (have no idea what one that would be, if any, mass time hop for a 19th/20th level psion, but that has lots of problems on its own), then the wizard is STILL underpowered? Yeah basically what I see here is a bunch of people who have never seen a competent wizard player go at it. As soon as a wizard gets 5th level spells people start to notice that things aren't going their way. The wizard gets permanent instant screws like baleful polymorph and feeblemind (have fun trying to deal with those), rainbow pattern (4th level spell) which nabs up to 24 HD of creatures and can make them walk off a cliff or just keep them entertained until the battle is over and make short work of them then. Yeah the wizard and sorceror are just quantums underpowered :rolleyes:... Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Roman 05-27-04, 10:34 PM	Ok, the plurality seems to imply that wizards and sorcerers are underpowered at low levels and overpowered at high ones. Since most games I have seen in the D&D club never reach 10th level, that could account for the thinking that arcane casters are underpowered. Originally posted by ManTimeForgot As soon as a wizard gets 5th level spells people start to notice that things aren't going their way. The wizard gets permanent instant screws like baleful polymorph and feeblemind (have fun trying to deal with those), rainbow pattern (4th level spell) which nabs up to 24 HD of creatures and can make them walk off a cliff or just keep them entertained until the battle is over and make short work of them then. Well, yes, but when I pointed out the 'insta-kill' spells to my friends they countered that because of the low save DC, the creatures likely to be affected are ones that fighters could dispatch easily (effectively insta-kill) with a full-round attack anyway, except that fighters can do so indefinitely. Hence, allegedly the effect of 'insta-kill' spells is vastly exaggerated.
ManTimeForgot 05-27-04, 10:58 PM	A wizard specializing in enchantment, which is one of the few schools that you would actually use focus in (illusion and conjuration the other two that one would actually consider, since transmutation doesn't allow for saves in most cases, and evocation and necromancy are really weak schools to specialize in), could easily have DC's in the 20's before you know it. 16 int +4 from a circlet (16k gp to buy) +2 int from level = 22 int (thats a 10th level wizard). Dominate person would have a DC of 22: 10 + 5 (SL) +6 (int) + 2 (greater focus). Now how many fighters do you know have more than a +7 will save by 10th level? Heck hold person is a second level spell and for a 6th level wizard it would look something like this 10+2+4+2= 18. DC 18 or die effectively. So at 6th level you really think the fighter is going to be slopping around that heavy of a will save? Fact is by 10th level the wizard can target reflex saves with an "instant screw" by using resilient sphere. Care to do something about it mr. cleric or druid? That's about the only I know of that can take down a cleric or druid with any frequency. Fighter is totally boned inside a resilient sphere. And so a fighter can strip a 120 hps in one full attack at 10th level? My enchanter above can. Just what kind of fighters is your group running if they can? Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
BlaineTog 05-27-04, 11:01 PM	Originally posted by Roman Well, yes, but when I pointed out the 'insta-kill' spells to my friends they countered that because of the low save DC, the creatures likely to be affected are ones that fighters could dispatch easily (effectively insta-kill) with a full-round attack anyway, except that fighters can do so indefinitely.Then you haven't been playing tactically, for one thing, nor have you reached most of the really good Insta-kills (those of spell level 6+). For one thing, your spell save DC should be in at least the low to mid twenties by 10th level. If its not, you haven't been doing things right. And for another, you have to pick your targets: you see someone in full plate bust out with some healing, you do not send Will (or even Fort) saves his/her way. You see someone duel-wielding a rapier and a dagger and tumbling around, you do not use Reflex saves (Will, in that case, is the way to go). Vs. anyone's strong save, you will have a hard time. So you target their weak points. Hence, allegedly the effect of 'insta-kill' spells is vastly exaggerated.I don't quite think you appreciate the power behind these spells, and its probably because you haven't seen them in play.
Thorak 05-27-04, 11:16 PM	IMHO, a wizard is overpowered, hands down, when comparing them to any other single class, and involving any single encounter they're ready for. The balancing factor though, which I'm sure all the "Wizrds r l33t!" crowd happily ignore, is that a wizard is much less effective when confronted with an encounter they didn't expect, or have been pushed hard through so many encounters their spell choices are slim to none. Sure, a wizard can nuke any single encounter into oblivion, but if you keep throwing encounters at a mage without letting them rest, they're going to run out of spells. A fighter can just keep on hacking. And yes, a smart wizard minimizes these chances. But minimizing doesn't mean removing. Plus, many constructs like golems are just flat-out immune or minimally affected by magic. There's ways to deal with them if you're prepared for it beforehand, but if you're exploring a dungeon and have no idea what to expect, and haven't memorized your anti-golem spells in favor of something else, as a mage you're next to useless. My last comment; much is said about Contingency. Yes, it can save a caster's tail quite handily. But it depends on how you word them. It wouldn't be impossible for the lich to throw a few relatively harmless kobolds into the mage's path to ambush him, not intending to actually do any damage, but just hoping the mage was silly enough to have their Contingencies set on a simple trigger like "when attacked, cast XXX". Kobold throws a dagger, misses wildly, and the mage's spells go off uselessly. And the lich laughs at the silly mortal. And again, there's better ways to phrase things. But the more complicated you make it, the more limited they are, by necessity. If you set it to "when attacked by a creature roughly as powerful as myself", you're going to be hosed when hundreds of kobolds start shooting arrows at you from hiding. If you set it onto a command word, you can possibly be tricked into using it uselessly. Et cetera, et cetera. My overall point being that mages have immense power. But they also have restrictions on that power which can render them next to useless compared to the Barbarian or Fighter, while their power level is more or less constant. And whoever said that Fly makes a wizard win a battle with any combat-type obviously hasn't heard of bows. Sure, it's a nifty tactic, but you're gonna have to be in bow-range to be in spell-range.
Geethree 05-27-04, 11:47 PM	And whoever said that Fly makes a wizard win a battle with any combat-type obviously hasn't heard of bows. Sure, it's a nifty tactic, but you're gonna have to be in bow-range to be in spell-range.Or better yet, a fighter that had Fly cast on him.
Vanigo 05-28-04, 12:12 AM	Originally posted by Thorak IMHO, a wizard is overpowered, hands down, when comparing them to any other single class, and involving any single encounter they're ready for... What about clerics and druids? There's very little a wizard can do that a divine spellcaster can't do as well or better (which makes me very, very angry).
ManTimeForgot 05-28-04, 01:05 AM	Yeah I've heard of bows, and I've also heard of spells with long range when the person involved doesn't have a bow of distance or far shot yet. Range of 600 feet or there abouts with fireball. Drop three of those and no fighter can take the heat. Whereas the fighter is going to be sucking down 4 range increment penalties for -8 to hit. So yeah I've heard of bows, and I've also heard of bows not being able to cut the mustard at 5th level versus a mage who uses long range spells. A sling couldn't even be used to attack the wizard, and a shortbow would have to pray for a 20 everytime. "Or better yet, a fighter who had fly cast on him." How quaint? Now the little fighter needs a wizard to help him combat another wizard. With fly up the wizard won't be able to outmove the fighter anymore. How sad for the wizard, too bad it required another wizards' intervention to make that little thing possible. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Geethree 05-28-04, 01:29 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot "Or better yet, a fighter who had fly cast on him." How quaint? Now the little fighter needs a wizard to help him combat another wizard. With fly up the fighter won't be able to outmove the wizard anymore. How sad for the wizard, too bad it required another wizards' intervention to make that little thing possible.Or some magic items that give the fighter the ability to fly. Let's not forget that the fighter has loads of HP, too, so you'll need a bit more than just one fireball to kill the fighter, especially if the fighter ever makes the necessary reflex saves. And it's incredibly silly to assume that the wizard will always have 600 feet between him and the fighter. If we're going to stage every battle in fictional fields where there's nothing but open grass, then sure, the wizard wins. But, let's try to keep things realistic, shall we?
BlaineTog 05-28-04, 01:34 AM	Which is why Fireballs are underpowered. Jst drop some Will-save-based save-or-die on him. Voila. Loads of HP are completelly bypassed, and the fighter is dead. My last comment; much is said about Contingency. Yes, it can save a caster's tail quite handily. But it depends on how you word them.Actually, this problem is really, really easy to solve: "Cast <insert trump-card-type spell here> when I say 'batista!'" You can say things on other peoples turn, and you can also say it in responce to an action. Fun, no?
Geethree 05-28-04, 01:53 AM	Problems with contingency: 1) You need to create and carry an item worth 1,500 GP and it has to be with you for the spell to work. So, I hope your enemies aren't smart enough to steal it. Though, this is not that great an issue because the wizard will likely be protecting the item. Still, it's a concern. 2) The spell cannot be higher than 6th level. 3) Contingency can be dispelled. 4) The spell cast by Contingency can be counterspelled (I think. I'm not 100% on this). 5) The contigency trigger can be prevented in completely mundane ways. You can't say "batista!" if you are gagged. 6) You cannot alter the spell when it's finished. If you say, "I want to be teleported back to my house," you better hope that nothing bad has happened to your home. Jst drop some Will-save-based save-or-die on him. Voila. Loads of HP are completelly bypassed, and the fighter is dead.I hope the fighter doesn't make his will save. Anyway, if I was a fighter fighting a spellcaster and there was space between us, I would just ready my actions and say, "if he casts a spell, I shoot an arrow." If that's too hard, then I run away. Nothing says that fighters have to be dumb. Furthermore, if I was a smart fighter, I would not walk into any open fields against mages. I would make it a special point to always be close enough to them where I could be effective. These arguments always favor the wizard because the situations assume that the battle occurs in an environment that favors the wizard and that the fighter is an idiot. Is the wizard a bad class? No. Will the fighter tear the wizard to pieces? Not necessarily. If the wizard keeps some range between the two, then the wizard will probably win. If not, then the wizard is in serious trouble.
Necron 05-28-04, 02:48 AM	Originally posted by Geethree .. These arguments always favor the wizard because the situations assume that the battle occurs in an environment that favors the wizard and that the fighter is an idiot. Is the wizard a bad class? No. Will the fighter tear the wizard to pieces? Not necessarily. If the wizard keeps some range between the two, then the wizard will probably win. If not, then the wizard is in serious trouble. And as a final statement: the classes ARE balanced. Necron, evil DM :devil:
ManTimeForgot 05-28-04, 02:55 AM	The situations favor the wizard because of two things. The wizard undoubtably has greater mobility, and at later levels the wizard undoubtably has greater intelligence gathering capability. This all said a wizard should rarely ever be placed into a situation in which the fighter has the advantage and cannot alter the situation in order to regain the advantage. Really the only situation I can think of that might actually occur with any frequency is if there was a permanent anti-magic field or magic dead-zone that the wizard had to go through. Readying an action is a decent plan, but any smart wizard is going to notice this and just run. With fly this amounts to 240 feet of distance now between your fighter and the wizard. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Geethree 05-28-04, 03:25 AM	I think the problem with comparing the two in a one-on-one fight is that either one has the advantage or the other does. There's no situation where it's a "fair fight." A fighter will never want to be 100 feet away from his opponent and a wizard won't want to get closer than 100 feet. Overall, I think that there are some sound tactics that a fighter can use to scare the wizard off, but it's very hard to actually kill the wizard. Likewise, a wizard will have a hard time managing to trap any smart (keyword) fighter in a situation where the fighter can't simply escape. All a fighter really has to do is find shelter.
Haldrik 05-28-04, 03:25 AM	Necron: And as a final statement: the classes ARE balanced. The classes ARE balanced. I must agree. When you weigh all the classes out in a balance scale they balance. The Wizard sits in one pan of the balance scale, all the other classes sit in the other pan. See! Perfect balance!
Polaris 05-28-04, 03:56 AM	Originally posted by Geethree Overall, I think that there are some sound tactics that a fighter can use to scare the wizard off, but it's very hard to actually kill the wizard. Likewise, a wizard will have a hard time managing to trap any smart (keyword) fighter in a situation where the fighter can't simply escape. All a fighter really has to do is find shelter. Force Cage. Fighter Loses. 'nuff said. -Polaris
Zelphi 05-28-04, 09:14 AM	Actually Beaver is right. Doesn't matter if you can cast some auto destructo combination of spells - if you never get to prepare them properly. There are any number of mishaps that can happen along the way. In fact this issue is my main dislike for the magic system - it's just too much. Arcane casters can do loads at higher levels (unless you use a large number of powerful Rakshasha's as the enemy)... but their lower levels are just pathetic. All the classes should really be changed so they have a consistant power throughout.
Krelios 05-28-04, 09:44 AM	Originally posted by Vanigo What about clerics and druids? There's very little a wizard can do that a divine spellcaster can't do as well or better (which makes me very, very angry). That's just ludicrous. Divine spellcasters cannot come CLOSE to the raw destructive power of an arcane caster until 7th-9th level spells. Even then, that's in place of healing/buffing/etc. and the wizard can still do it better and longer. Divine casters are better at healing/buffing/divination/dealing with undead. Arcane casters are better at everything else. Druids can wildshape into animals... Whoopee... Polymorph? Shapechange? I hate the argument that divine > arcane--it's not true. All of the classes are well balanced if they're all player intelligently. Of course if you have one smart divine caster and a bunch of dumb "other classes" then the divine caster will look better--but it has NOTHING to do with the class.
Sensei Gith 05-28-04, 11:20 AM	Build a "smart fighter." You have 20 levels and 25 stat points. Try core-only, but use 3.5 splats if you must. No gatling-trippers.
BlaineTog 05-28-04, 11:22 AM	Originally posted by Krelios I hate the argument that divine > arcane--it's not true.Prove it. :D Heal alone makes the divine casters effectively invincible to any and all attacks that lower hit points and since save-or-dies are almost invariabley Will or Fort saves (and they will have insane Wisdom and decent Constiution), those just won't work either. And they do, in fact, have a number of very nice destructive spells. Flamestrike is an awesome spell that they shouldn't be allowed to have. Another reason clerics are overpowered: they can buff themselves into being better fighters than fighters. Obviously their attack bonus will be a bit lower (even after buffs), but since they will hit everything anyway it is of no consequence. Obviously the fighter will have more feats but you don't really need all that many if you only want one or two tactics. And like I said, they have healing. Hit Points are the fighter's single nonrenewable resource. Fighting Clerics therefore have significantly greater staying power. I have an Idea. Run a [Search] for this. I'm sure you can come up with a few good threads.
Thorak 05-28-04, 11:25 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot Yeah I've heard of bows, and I've also heard of spells with long range when the person involved doesn't have a bow of distance or far shot yet. Range of 600 feet or there abouts with fireball. Drop three of those and no fighter can take the heat. Whereas the fighter is going to be sucking down 4 range increment penalties for -8 to hit. So yeah I've heard of bows, and I've also heard of bows not being able to cut the mustard at 5th level versus a mage who uses long range spells. A sling couldn't even be used to attack the wizard, and a shortbow would have to pray for a 20 everytime. "Or better yet, a fighter who had fly cast on him." How quaint? Now the little fighter needs a wizard to help him combat another wizard. With fly up the wizard won't be able to outmove the fighter anymore. How sad for the wizard, too bad it required another wizards' intervention to make that little thing possible. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot So long as the wizard wins initiative. And starts that 600 feet away. Otherwise, he's going to be making Concentration checks to even successfully get his spells off, from the potshots the Fighter's nailing him with. Not to mention, the wizard might be nailing the fighter with these spells, but he's gonna run out. That 5th level wizard probably only gets the one Fireball a day. At 5d6 damage, the Fighter on average will get hit for 17.5 damage, save for half. The DC is at most 17 (assuming core races, and no magical items, for the sake of comparison. For every point of Int the mage doesn't get, the Fighter isn't getting a point of strength, so I think it's more than fair.), and the Fighter's save is (assuming he's a strength and con, not dex guy, so I'll assign a 12 to dex) +2. So he saves 1/4 of the time. And even if he doesn't save (and has a Con, for sake of argument, of 16), he has on average 42.5 hit points. So that fireball, even if he didn't make his save, has dropped him to 25 hit points. Meanwhile, the Fighter's arrows will be hitting for an average of 7.5 damage a shot, which given the wizard's average hit points (assuming again a Con of 16) of 27.5, is 4 hits from death. And the mage's only remaining 3rd level spell, his most damaging, dealt less than half damage, assuming the fighter failed his save. His lower-level spells will, necessarily, have less effect. The fight still seems pretty balanced to me, and this is all assuming that the fighter is confronted by a Flying opponent and thus is forced into fighting on the wizard's terms. If I'd set him up as an archer ranger, he'd have a good Reflex save as well as a higher dex for better ranged attacks.
Necron 05-28-04, 11:43 AM	Originally posted by Haldrik Necron: The classes ARE balanced. I must agree. When you weigh all the classes out in a balance scale they balance. The Wizard sits in one pan of the balance scale, all the other classes sit in the other pan. See! Perfect balance! Sorry but you cannot compare classes which have different abilities. If you say that a cleric is the mightiest class in all D&D you might be right, but on the other hand if the god (DM) of that cleric decides that the cleric is not worthy anymore he will be just crap or a weak fighter. Comparing classes is like compareing oranges and apples. They look similar but are different. One more sour or sweeter then the other but each has it's right to exist. Just my 2 thoughts Necron, evil DM :devil:
Tony Vargas 05-28-04, 12:45 PM	The archanists are balanced in the 'typical' campaign assumed in the PH & DMG... there may not be a single campaign out there there that is /exactly/ that typical campaign, though. The more a campaign varies from the theoretical norm, the more the balance among the classes may vary. In most campaigns, I'd dare say the sorcerer remains relatively stable in power, and reasonably balanced with any other class that isn't unduly benefiting or suffering in that particular campaign. A sorcerer's powers are fairly straightforward, and aren't as dependent on outside agencies - such as wealth, downtime, resource availability, or even magic items - as many other classes. The opposite is true of wizards. I'd be surprised if there is any campaign where wizards are performing exactly as designed. Thier either being favored (inadvertently or otherwise), with too-easy access to new spells, money, and downtime in which to scribe those spells and make items, no fear of ever losing thier spellbooks, and excessive foreknowledge of each challenge they'll face; or, they're suffering from lack of opportunities to acquire new spells, funds to scribe them, or time to do so, let alone time & money to make items, not to mention having whatever items they do manage to make and thier meager spellbooks being repeatedly stripped from them. It doesn't end there. If you introduce some 'broken' non-core spells into your campaign, the wiz can run right out and learn all of them he can, ASAP. The sorcerer must wait until his next level, when he can learn one (or a few of lower level), and swap one for a known spell. If you're profligate with non-core material, you could easily have more overpowered spells available than the sorcerer could /ever/ learn, while the Wiz can abuse them all (if there are more than he can prep, he can always stuff them into items). Thus, if you see a problem with archanists, it's usually with the wizard: maybe you wonder why you let the pointy-hatted, bookish commoner follow you around, or maybe you're stuck with the realization that the wizard only keeps /you/ around as a delivery system for all the magic items he makes. Maybe you notice that the sorcerer seems 'weak' compared to that wizard. If you see a problem with /both/ archanists being 'weak,' chances are that the campaign is low-level and favors warrior types, or that the players of the archanists are either unlucky, or haven't yet hit upon the best way to utilize thier abilities, in that campaign.
Stuntman 05-28-04, 12:50 PM	Wizards and sorcerers have access to many versitile spells and at lower levels than the cleric or druid. Fireball, the spell that practically every arcane caster wants to get, is a 3rd level mass damage spell with great range. Compared to flame strike, wizards/sorcerers get it sooner and can cast more of them at higher levels. Flame strike is level 4 for the druid and level 5 for the cleric. Also, fireball has a larger area of effect and longer range. Clerics with certain domains do get access to some spells on the wizard/sorcerer list, but if it is a domain spell, you can only prepare one of each level. A wizard are not so limited with their spells. They can use any slot of appropriate level to prepare their spells. With any class, you can throw a monster that will hose any particular class. Throw in something with high DR and the fighter will not be able to do any significant damage. Throw in something with high SR and the wizard will have problems. Throw in something that ignores crits and a rogue cannot use sneak attack. The cleric is actually very versitile. He can fight like a fighter (while buffed), but without the many combat feats or weapon selection. He does have access to a versitile spell list, but spells comparable to a wizard tend to be higher level or more limited than a wizard. Also, the cleric has the burden of being the party healer which in my experience still turns off some players (such as me). I think the success of each class depends on the person playing the class as well as his fellow party members. If the party doesn't keep the wizard out of harms way, so that he can get is spells off, the wizard and the party will not be successful.
danielinthewolvesden 05-28-04, 01:00 PM	Most arguments that Wizards are "overpowered' compare a 20th level PC. Now- I have played D&D since 1974. I have played 3rd ED since it came out. Most campaigns seem to fizzle out around level 12, which is when a Wizard starts getting kick-ass. I had one PC at "level" 16 I think (it wa san LA+4 race, so....) Thus, then the power comparison of 20th level classes seem to be mostly a purely theoretical excercise. Remember also, that 20th level PC's shouldn't "spring fully formed" like Athena :rolleyes: . I note that no "20 level build" bothers with a "stupid feat" like Toughness- since over 20 levels (or even 4) it seems to be worthless. But for a 1st level Wiz with 4 hp, that extra 3 hp could make the difference between GETTING to 2nd level. Or "whirlwind fighter"- I have never seen s fighter go for that- except those builds that started with that feat at a higher level. If your "perfect 20 level build" doesn't take into account GETTING to level 20, then it's like argueing how many angels can dance on a pin. Note that also a Wizard depends heavily on a reasonable flow of cash- and quite a bit of downtime- as Tony pointed out below. If you have a Wizard that has few scrolls and only the "free" spells he gets by leveling, you have a much less powerful PC than a wizard with no such constraints.
sneaky_pete27 05-28-04, 01:56 PM	Yeah, I have to agree with danielinthewolvesden, the money and spell components alone if following the rules exactly are a severe hindrance to the wizard, and imho the sorceror(one of my favorite intros in 3.0-3.5) is like a red-headed stepchild. As far as who beats who that really depends on the person running the character.
Geethree 05-28-04, 03:16 PM	Originally posted by Polaris Force Cage. Fighter Loses. 'nuff said. -Polaris Before 13th level, this is irrelevant. Besides that, there's one main problem with force cage (barring any problems with actually casting the spell): it has a short range. So, the fighter could reach the wizard first, which is dangerous. Once it is actually cast, though, two things could happen: 1) A 10-foot windowless cell envelops the fighter. Congratulations, you have trapped the fighter. However, you can't do anything to said fighter because he is protected by the force cage. 2) A larger barred cage appears, but this does not stop a fighter from firing arrows at you. So, unless this battle is taking place on the fictional 600-foot wide open field, the wizard has not yet solved all of his problems. Furthermore, the Force Cage can be negated by a rod of cancellation, which is a mere 11,000 GP item (it's not that expensive for a high level character) that is extremely helpful for a character like a fighter to have. Personally, I would keep one around myself if I were a high level fighter. Build a "smart fighter." You have 20 levels and 25 stat points. Try core-only, but use 3.5 splats if you must. No gatling-trippers.I hate building 20th level characters from scratch because they do not accurately represent real characters. However, if you want to simulate a high level fighter vs. wizard battle, I'm game.
Sensei Gith 05-28-04, 03:28 PM	I'm not talking about fighter-vs.-wizard. I just have never, ever seen a 20-level, viable, core fighter build, and very few with splats. If you have one, I'd like to see it.
Geethree 05-28-04, 03:52 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith I'm not talking about fighter-vs.-wizard. I just have never, ever seen a 20-level, viable, core fighter build, and very few with splats. If you have one, I'd like to see it. I don't want to spend a lot of time building a 20th level character, but this would be my feats, assuming I wanted a fighter that can do a lot of damage. I'll assume that my fighter uses a bastard sword for the purposes of this character. The character would focus on his physical stats primarily, aiming for as high a strength as possible. He would use heavy armor and a large shield. Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword), Weapon Focus (BS), Weapon Spec. (BS), Greater Weapon Focus (BS), Greater Weapon Spec. (BS), Improved Critical (BS). These would be my "core", as they allow me to make the best use of my bastard sword. Then, I would throw a feat feats at a secondary weapon, which will be a longbow. It would be the same as above, minus the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, so Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, G. Weapon Focus, G. Weapon Spec., and Improved Critical (Longbow). That takes care of all my fighter bonus feats. I'll say that I'm a human, so I now have 8 feats left. Power Attack, Cleave, Improved Sunder, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes (to make up for my poor saves), Dodge, Mobility, and Quick Draw. Is this the best character ever? Probably not, but I'd like to see another character who can wield two different weapons with as much skill as this fighter. The fighter has so many feats that he can help cover his own weaknesses with feats like Iron Will. The last 8 feats I presented were just things that I thought this fighter could make good use of, but they are open to change. If you wanted a fighter who could make use of mounted combat, there is plenty of room for that. There's plenty of room for almost any feat chain.
Eytan 05-30-04, 03:52 AM	It's undeniable that clerics and druids and wizards favored classes. The wizard is incredibly powerful and can do probably the largest variety of things, but remains fragile - it can be nervewracking being the target of the DM's wrath constantly. But sorcerers pretty much suck. Sorcerers and psionics seems to be WotC red headed step children. It's not that Psions suck, it's just that wizards never puts stuff out form them outside of the main book. Sorcerers on the other hand, are screwed at every possible chance. Someone at wizards thinks that spontaneous spellcasting arcane casters are amazing. Yet, the same company put out the MUCH more powerful spirit shaman and favored soul. Those classes are still weaker than a well built cleric or druid, but they own a sorcerer. Sorcerers are good for NPCs because they require less preparation. Someone that can cast a billion fireballs at an unprepared party is annoying, often deadly. But, at higher levels, enemies can either figure out what a sorcerer is capable of, or simply prepare appropriate defenses. Greater Sphere of invulnerability works wonders, especially if you can divine metamagic persistent spell it. The fact that the new Complete divine decided that sorcerers who gain domains from prestige classes, don't get to add those spells to their lists, but rather are allowed to choose them, was one more kick in the nards. I've never seen someone play a pure class sorcerer (probably because there is nothing to be gained from it).
Haldrik 05-30-04, 05:15 AM	Eytan: Sorcerers and psionics seems to be WotC red headed step children. They fixed the Psion. The new Psion in the Expanded Psionic Handbook, rocks and is on par with the Wizard (albeit less fragile). Check out the SRD's. They include the new version under *Psionic Classes*.
Moonbow 05-30-04, 07:13 AM	I does not matter if wizards are fragile. They have so many anoying protectionspells. Mirror Image, Stoneskin, etc...
Rogue1stclass 05-30-04, 09:33 AM	Yeah, Wizards (and Clerics) are Hell on Wheels for a couple of encounters a day. However, a party is supposed to be able to take four. In this context, these classes are far, far more limited than they appear. Each spell they cast is one they might need later. Each one they save might end up wasted. Each one they prepare might not be needed at all. Every two weeks spent scribing spells or making items is another level lost. In theory Wizards are exceptionally powerful. In practice, they need a lot of time, money and luck for that to be the case.
Roman 05-30-04, 10:51 PM	Hmm, so opinions appear to be far from uniform on the matter.
Moonbow 05-31-04, 04:49 AM	About the whole sorcerer/wizards thing iŽd just like to say: I am not in doubt that sorcerers and wizards shines though any other class easyliy - as long as they have spells for it. When their spells run out thay are no better than commoners. The figther can swing his sword anytime, so he is like medium-tough all the time. The spellcasters are extremely though sometimes and extremely weak. As for the sorcerer vesus the wizard. I still dont see why wizards gets bonusfeats and the sorcerer can use simple weapons, they doesnt seem balanced. Sorcerers isnt a so fixed class as many believe. They have some advantages with metamagic for example. Even though it takes them a full round. Imagine a sorcerer who took the energy substitution feat from Tome and Blood, combined with firewall you have a nasty damagespell that that turn into any kind of energy you want. The wizards surely cant do that... Also great mobility spells like fly would allow the sorcerer to fly at almost any encounder, while the wizards quickly runs out of spells. Sorcerers gets to rechoose spells in 3.5. Thats really a great improvement for them, its no longer foolish to take spells like sleep. For the wizards, remember that a spellbook only has 100 pages, if you must have all of the good spells with you, one must carry multible book, which is heavy. Finally the sorcerer can take the Mage of the Arcane Order PrC and gain acces to the spell pool, allowing him to gain a sortiment of spells no wizard can carry around.
Sphyre 05-31-04, 06:35 AM	While it's true that versatility trumps in such a game, I find arguing such a point completely moot. Just because a wizard has the option of being 100% prepared for an encounter and have almost everything in his favor does not mean that I would prefer to play a wizard every single time I play D&D. Many games of D&D that I have played include adventuring. While adventuring, a party is most likely not going to wait for a wizard to gather intel on every possible encounter he could have for a day so he may be 100% prepared for the day. That in itself makes a wizard less likely to pick the right spells because he must move at the same speed of the party. Of course if there's a particularly big quest they are partaking in they may all make sure everyone is ready, but that doesn't mean the party will be willing to wait mundane day of their existance. So, what kind of character do you want to play? a rogue? a wizard? a barbarian? a fighter? If you play something interesting and fun, then you won't have the power debate.
Aricandor 05-31-04, 09:00 AM	Nice that a thread like this already exists. Spares me the effort to make one :D Anyway, I've been roaming these forums for a while and one this has really caught my eye; how many seems to think that sorcerers are very weak in comparison to wizards. I'm not trying to start a big argument here now, because all I want to know is... well, why? What makes so many think that sorcerers are inferior to the wizard?
Thamior Magus Rex 06-21-04, 02:54 AM	Originally posted by Vanigo What about clerics and druids? There's very little a wizard can do that a divine spellcaster can't do as well or better (which makes me very, very angry). Yeah I've come across LOTS of clerics who can blast an opponent with 3 Fireballs and then Teleport away.
Polaris 06-21-04, 03:07 AM	Originally posted by Thamior Magus Rex Yeah I've come across LOTS of clerics who can blast an opponent with 3 Fireballs and then Teleport away. I have. Any cleric with the travel domain can pull this off with no trouble at 9th level or better. [OK, they use flamestrike rather than fireball, but flamestrike is a better spell anyway.] -Polaris