Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xeviat-DM 12-31-05, 10:29 AM	I recently came up with a rather simple fix to spellcasters: change all area affect spells to have a 1 round casting time. This means the spell wouldn't be discharged till the start of the caster's next round, giving opponents, and allies, a chance to move out of the way (though one would need to succeed on a spellcraft check to know it was coming). I'm not sure how much this weakens a wizard, but I think it makes sense within the descriptions of casting spells. What do you think?
elven warriorXX 12-31-05, 10:41 AM	Wizards are not overpowered at all. They need no fix (well they do for Specialization). Now Druids/clerics are overpowered but nobody fixes them (I did :) Gave the druid a small number of spells known). Nice Idea but I think wizards are just fine.
Xeviat-DM 01-01-06, 11:31 PM	The fact that a 20th level wizard can fire a spell at someone that forces them to make a DC 30 fort or will save or die with a standard action, when a fighter can only really make you suffer 45 points of damage (+5 greatsword with 5d6 elemental damage and a 30 strength; with a chance for a crit bu a chance for a critical miss, which balance each other out statistically). Each fail entirely if the check isn't successful. I know that a wizard has a limit on how many spells they can cast a day, while a fighter doesn't have a limit to how many times they can swing a sword, but the fact is that each character will face the same number of encounters in a day, so I feel that point is moot. My opinion is that wizards simply seem to contribute more and warriors seem to contribute less as levels increase.
Seerow 01-01-06, 11:48 PM	Wizard's blaster capabilities aren't what breaks them. It's stuff like Gate, instant kill spells, Energy Drain, Time Stop... and all the nice utility spells they get, THAT's what breaks a Wizard. If you use a Wizard for blasting purposes only, he's actually probably on the same power level as a fighter for the first 3 fights of the day.
elven warriorXX 01-01-06, 11:52 PM	Sure the wizard is powerful but if you are going to nerf him then you need to fix the druid and the cleric (the best classes in the game). The druid over powers the Wizard x2 and the cleric is not far behind the druids power level.
Seerow 01-02-06, 12:07 AM	I think we can all agree on that. One thing at a time though. I think the only real way to do this would be to completely rebalance all magic. Take a lot of the higher tier spells out or weaken them, make the lower tier ones scalable, etc. In short make it a lot more like psionics.
Xeviat-DM 01-02-06, 03:47 AM	Sure the wizard is powerful but if you are going to nerf him then you need to fix the druid and the cleric (the best classes in the game). The druid over powers the Wizard x2 and the cleric is not far behind the druids power level. Well, what if all spells had at least a 1 round casting time? Thus, they would be so much easier to disrupt. That would definately reduce the power of casters, but would it reduce it too much?
Kuroi Kenshi 01-02-06, 04:05 AM	Well, what if all spells had at least a 1 round casting time? Thus, they would be so much easier to disrupt. That would definately reduce the power of casters, but would it reduce it too much? A few things to consider in that scenario would be metamagic use for spontaneous spellcasters, as well as whether or not to change the quicken spell metamagic feat. Another thing to consider would be whether or not to up the casting time of spells that currently have a 1 round casting time, like summoning spells. I think those factors would need to be ironed out before considering how worse off spellcasters would be.
LordofNightmares 01-02-06, 05:14 AM	Clerics and Druids are not over powered either, they are only need to be fixed if you plan on using them for less than 5-6 encounters a day.
Xeviat-DM 01-02-06, 08:45 AM	A few things to consider in that scenario would be metamagic use for spontaneous spellcasters, as well as whether or not to change the quicken spell metamagic feat. Another thing to consider would be whether or not to up the casting time of spells that currently have a 1 round casting time, like summoning spells. I think those factors would need to be ironed out before considering how worse off spellcasters would be. I would consider having two quicken spell feats, the second requiring the first, the first making the spell a standard action, the second making it a free action. Spells with 1 round casting times should remain the same, because making them 2 rounds would be death; perhaps they are 1 round casting times but the creature doesn't arive for another round?
Seerow 01-02-06, 03:06 PM	Clerics and Druids are not over powered either, they are only need to be fixed if you plan on using them for less than 5-6 encounters a day. Wrong. Compared to a Wizard, a cleric gets: -Bonus Domain abilities -An extra spell slot for domain spells(without having to give up any of his spell list like a Wizard must for a specialist spell) -DOUBLE his hit die -Armor proficiency -Automatic ignore all armor spell failure -Undead Turning -Spontaneous Healing -A second good save -Medium BAB Compared to the Wizard, the Druid gets: -DOUBLE hit die -Spontaneous Summoning -Animal Companion -Woodland Stride -Trackless Step -Resist Natures Lure -Wildshape(BIG thing) -Timeless Body -Venom Immunity -Elemental Wildshape -More spellslots for 0th-5th level spells -A second good save -Medium BAB Seriously, the Wizard's spell list is good, but not that much better than the Cleric/Druid lists to justify ALL of that. And I likely missed a thing or two as well.
LordofNightmares 01-02-06, 04:05 PM	And you are looking at the characters from completly different roles. Clerics and Druids have healing, buffs and summonings. They have to burn 4-5 spells per encounter to function as a melee whereas a wizard or sorcerer and a crossbow can concievabally stand back pop off a direct damage spell every other round or so and be juat as effective, if not more effective than a cleric who has had to burn 5% of his daily spells to he can go toe to toe with the beast and take some head off the fighter. After the battle the Wizard gets to be healed and the cleric is now burning another 10-15% of his daily to patch everyone up after the battle. Healer types run out of spells a lot faster than direct damagers do.
Lina_Inverse 01-02-06, 04:40 PM	Well, what if all spells had at least a 1 round casting time? Thus, they would be so much easier to disrupt. That would definately reduce the power of casters, but would it reduce it too much? Because D&D is a wargame, and a one round cast time is unuseable. Does CLW or fireball need a cast time buff? no. Does teleport even care if it takes a round? no. Could featherfall work if it took a round? no. You basically just remove wizards from combat, theyd still be broken. Wizards break your caimpaign world in half, not just combat. There is no quick fix to casters, except going down there list and removeing all the broken spells.
red_wizard69 01-02-06, 10:48 PM	first off, wizards aren't overpowered. A 20th level wizard with an 18 in his intelligence, putting every stat boost into it with a +6 item for int would have a total int score of 18 +5 +6 = 29 at level 20. Thats +9 mod, and a 9th level spell would have a DC of 10+9+9 = 28. With the two focus feats, thats DC 30. Big deal. A level 20 barbarian has fort of 12 or something right? Plus con of 14 lets say, so 22 while in a greater rage. Thats a fort bonus of 12 + 6 = 18. So, on a 12 or higher the barbarian is fine, and take into consideration the fact that we are using a fairly average Barbarian build with a 14 con at level 20 and no con items or fort save items, versus a very stat high wizard with all the spell focus feats! Giving the barbarian a better con score, a con item, or a cloak of resistance is certainly not out of the question at level 20, meaning the barbarian will pass the save about 50% of the time, or even better. Plus, check this out. 20th level wizards meteor swarm does 24d6 (avg. 84 damage) and a 20th level barbarian with great axe, in greater rage, with an orginal str role of 18, putting his stat boosts into str, with a +6 str item, in a greater rage, would have a total strength score of 18+6+5+8+2 for half orc which is 39 str or a plus 14 bonus. So, he would do d12+21 damage 4 times a round, but if he power attacks for half his attack bonus, which he could easily do and still hit at least twice, he would do d12+41 damage twice, or 2d12+82 (95 damage avg) What about a Frenzied Berserker? God knows we have all seen the builds on the opt boards. I used to play with a Frenzied Berserker who did almost 1000 damage every round in combat, which made my evoker wizard look and seem pathetic. I could easily say I think Barbarians are unbalanced at high level, but certaintly not wizards.
Seerow 01-02-06, 11:01 PM	Again, you're basing it soley on damage spells. Also, what smart Wizard is hitting a Barbarian with Fort save spells? He's going to hit your will save. Assuming you have a 14 Wisdom(a big assumption, really), at level 20 that gives you a +8 against a DC of 28(Im not even going to look at spell focus feats). You can't pass it at all. See how you can play around with extremes like that? As has already been said, what makes the Wizard powerful are his save or die, or no save and still die anyway spells. Sure, a 50% chance to take 24d6 doesn't look bad, how about a 50% chance to die instantly? Looking a bit worse now? How about a 95% chance to Dominate Person on your barbarian, making him a minion for our Wizard Friend? Or hell, just have the Wizard cast invisibility and fly, and watch as nobody can figure out where he went to until thunderbolts start flying from the sky.
Lina_Inverse 01-03-06, 04:02 AM	Heres a better fix for saves. Nix weak saves and change them to medium, this means said barbarian with a 10wis as a base save of 14(you DO have a +5cloak of restisanse by 20th right >_>) The other better fixs as i said involveing removeing broken spells. And changeing save or dies to being save for massive damage then save or die.
Surgo 01-03-06, 04:19 AM	The fact that a 20th level wizard can fire a spell at someone that forces them to make a DC 30 fort or will save or die with a standard action, when a fighter can only really make you suffer 45 points of damage (+5 greatsword with 5d6 elemental damage and a 30 strength; with a chance for a crit bu a chance for a critical miss, which balance each other out statistically). Each fail entirely if the check isn't successful. Weakest fighter ever. Take Power Attack, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper. Use a greatsword. PA for -20 to AC, use Leap Attack. If the fighter has 30 str and a +5 weapon, the damage here is 2d6+110. This is really basic optimization, there's a lot more you can do.
elven warriorXX 01-03-06, 10:18 AM	Because D&D is a wargame, and a one round cast time is unuseable. Does CLW or fireball need a cast time buff? no. Does teleport even care if it takes a round? no. Could featherfall work if it took a round? no. You basically just remove wizards from combat, theyd still be broken. Wizards break your caimpaign world in half, not just combat. There is no quick fix to casters, except going down there list and removeing all the broken spells. No Wizards are much less powerful then in 2ed. were balance was nothing. The only classes that break my world in half is the Druid and Cleric. No other classes come even close to them. Sure the wizard looks overpowered at first glance but by taking a closer look at the druid you will see that it blows the wizard out of the water.
Thelon Fairblade 01-03-06, 11:01 AM	Sorry Xeviat, I have to agree with the naysayers on this one. Wizards are powerful because of save or die. AoE spells are just for clearing minions... the 30 level 3 orcs surrounding the 9th level champion orc barbarian... who dies to Hold Person or Baleful Polymorph or whatever. Making all spells 1 round casting time is a nerf, yes, but then you do need to revisit the spells that shouldn't be (like the aforementioned Feather Fall and Summoning spells).
Lina_Inverse 01-04-06, 01:43 AM	No Wizards are much less powerful then in 2ed. Hardly, 2e didnt have fabricate that i saw. 2e had unbreakable 80% magic resitant critters. 2e had everything with a save of 2. And bards did everything wizards did better. The only classes that break my world in half is the Druid and Cleric. No other classes come even close to them. Sure the wizard looks overpowered at first glance but by taking a closer look at the druid you will see that it blows the wizard out of the water. Obviously the cleric and druid are better. But if the wizard isnt breaking your world in half hes not well played. Think of the economic effect of wall of iron + fabricate. Think what one 17th level wizard can do to a city.
LordofNightmares 01-05-06, 04:30 AM	Playing a char right, and being a disruptive character is not the same thing. Playing a wizard to full tilt like that is twinking and montyhaulish. Yes, obviosuly Wizards have access to some power spell combinations, and in combat an opponent with good initiative roll and a decent movement rate or access to multiple ranged attacks, the wizard will have his spells disrupted. Outside of a fight, there should be checks and balances. A nation with powerful spellcasters arround will have equally or moreso powerful officials to put them in their place. A wizard who is breaking a campaign is the side effect of an ineffectual DM and a mean spirited player. none of the 3.5 classes are broken. Yes some are notabally more powerful others, but honestly, I don't see how thats a bad thing. Who cares if the Cleric is a nicly balanced character with a little bit of everything, who cares if the druid has some special options that makes him notabally more powerful, who cares if the fighter gets the supposed shaft in special powers, they all have times where they excel and other times where they fail.
Crichton 01-05-06, 07:28 AM	I totally agree that no one wants to ever play in a game where ANY character has the ability to kill you outright. That's just stupid design, whether it's death attack from an Assassin, or from any number of the Wizard's spells. I think this is even more broken when you consider that the only two actions you can have a critical failure on are attack rolls and saves. I was almost ready to quit the game when I was playing a Barbarian who needed just a 2 on my roll to survive a mummy's death touch and I rolled a 1. If I could've added the one to my fort save, I would've beaten it-Instant death is broken, broken, broken. If Wizards get instant death spells, than any fighter should be able to take feat trees that lead to a vorpal like effect useable a couple times per day.
Kem 01-05-06, 08:58 AM	And yet with how game breaking the cleric/druid are... In the group of people I play with they are the LEAST favorite classes. They are also the LEAST favorite classes in online RPGs of all kinds. THIS is why they tend to now have nice abilities to back up what they are "stereotyped" to do. Spontaneous healing for example was so that the cleric could actually prepare non-cure spells. In 2e it wasn't uncommon to have them all just be healing spells.
TheWanderingAlchemist 01-05-06, 11:54 AM	I only read the first 6 or so posts and heard alot about how wizards are not easily disrupted. Well first off if someone battles a level 20 wizard he or she should clearly have at least 4 melee guys on his ass for the attacks of opportunity. Personally I would also have 2 spell casters on the defensive watching for spells so they may dispell and ranged opponents watching so they may shoot first chance they get. Being an archvillain on would clearly know that the party has such a wizard and should be readily prepared to send forth dozens of minions to get the mere 4 on that damn wizards ass. Anyways as a DM the more complicated the spell and depending on where others are in battle I would prolly give anyone within a 10 foot range who wasnt preocupied, blind, or deaf a chance to lunge at the bastard. The wizard needs not fixing but rather the DM must use his common sense to tweak the rules to fairness. I would hate to see D&D suffer the fate of every MMORPG by nerfing everything until the game isn't managably fun anymore.
TheWanderingAlchemist 01-05-06, 11:57 AM	and i hate to double post but regardless of the generality of the rules there are dozens of monsters who would not suffer instant death upon failed saving throws and even more including these that have a large chance of not failing. If one is powerful enough to deal such blows the chances it is effective decreases. At lvl 20 you will be fighting small armies of goblins (numbers great enough to leave enough left after using such spells) or wyrms of great caliburs. Do you think a red dragon would so much as flinch at the heat fo such a fireball. HA!