1) Wizards don't do enough damage at higher levels, as enemy HP scales far faster then the spell damage wizards deal. This makes control by area damage, and the entire War Wizard / Blaster archetype, untennable past low levels.
2) There are too few abilities that deal significant debuffs, and those debuffs tend to last for too short a time due to the save mechanic.
3) The need for the wizard as a controller is significantly mitigated by controller-type abilities of other classes, particularly cleric, which muscle in on the wizards role
4) while the wizard on the whole is weak, there are specific wizard options that are too powerful: namely the sleep spell, the orb implement, and the spell focus feat. A wizard using these may already be too good, and blanket improvements to the wizard also need to nerf these options back into line with other wizard abilities.
Again, I'm not trying to argue these points. I am not even sure I agree with them at the moment. Right now I'm just brainstorming what to do about them if these problems do seem to be confirmed with playing.
I think the first thing to fix would be issue 4. The few 'too good' options need to be brought back in line with the rest cut back on the system mastery problem, then the whole thing could be raised up at the same time. My proposals are:
Spell focus: cut the penalty imposed by this feat from -2 to -1. Add an epic level 'greater spell focus' feat for an additional -1. The wizard can still get the -2 save penalty, but it costs two feats, and the full effect doesn't hit until epic levels.
Orb implement: the other implements affect single rolls, while the orb at the moment can affect multiple. When combined with the significance of saves, and the basic function of the save mechanic, the other implements don't even come close to the orb at the moment. My first thought on fixing this is to have the orb penalty applied to a single saving throw per encounter, rather then having it apply to every save that a given enemy makes against a given effect.
Sleep: Unconciousness is so powerful that this first level attack power is currently good enough to be an epic level power. My solution would be to end of the unconcious effect if the target takes damage, which is consistant with other powers that cause the 'unconcious' status. A higher level 'deep slumber' power would be introduced without the waking from damage clause.
Now that we've hopefully brought the overpowered control wizard down to the same underpowered level that the normal wizard is at, we can bring the whole thing up together.
First, on the issue of spell durations, we can grant wizards a blanket penalty on saves against their spells: -1 at paragon, -2 at epic. Alternatively, we could make it -1 at heroic, -2 at paragon, -3 at epic, and drop the 'greater spell focus' feat mentioned above.
To improve implements, I would allow their mastery ability to be used 2/encounter at level 11, and 3/encounter at level 21. Remember that each use of the orb implement mastery still only applies to a single saving throw.
Damage for all effects past low levels would have to be improved, rather significantly at higher levels, and this would have to be looked at on an individual, power by power basis.
After that, AOE abilities of other classes, particularly cleric, would need to be depowered somewhat, to make sure that parties that go without a controller, while not untennable, still feel the lack. Again, this would have to be looked at on an individual, power by power basis.
A lot of these individual changes have been suggested elsewhere, I'm just trying to consolodate them into a single 'how to fix the wizard' sort of thread.
Thoughts?
Spell focus: cut the penalty imposed by this feat from -2 to -1. Add an epic level 'greater spell focus' feat for an additional -1. The wizard can still get the -2 save penalty, but it costs two feats, and the full effect doesn't hit until epic levels.
This seems a decent fix.
Orb implement: the other implements affect single rolls, while the orb at the moment can affect multiple. When combined with the significance of saves, and the basic function of the save mechanic, the other implements don't even come close to the orb at the moment. My first thought on fixing this is to have the orb penalty applied to a single saving throw per encounter, rather then having it apply to every save that a given enemy makes against a given effect.
Possible, though it seems rather weak - my preference would simply be to have the penalty degrade over time (perhaps by 2 each round?) So the initial penalty is, say, -6, then -4, then -2, then no effect at all.
It still helps shut down an enemy for a time, but no longer is guaranteed to go on indefinitely.
Sleep: Unconciousness is so powerful that this first level attack power is currently good enough to be an epic level power. My solution would be to end of the unconcious effect if the target takes damage, which is consistant with other powers that cause the 'unconcious' status. A higher level 'deep slumber' power would be introduced without the waking from damage clause.
Agreed that having damage break the effect is the way to go. Not entirely sure whether a higher level power is even needed - an effect that renders an enemy helpless indefinitely, while the party is able to attack them, seems a bit too abuseable.
Re: orb
Yes, the one save version is fairly weak. Then again, the one attack role or defence vs. one enemy attack abilities of the other implements are also fairly weak. The idea was to put them all in the same ballpark, then improve them all at the same time (by letting you use the abilities more frequently at higher level). With my version, the orb mastery reliably increases the duration of an affect by one round per encounter at heroic, up to three extra rounds at epic. An epic orb user with legion's hold could reliably lock down a target for four rounds, and potentially more with luck (since he'll be imposing an additional -2 to -4 on saves all the time). Still seems pretty decent.
As per a 'greater sleep' spell: remember that with the revised orb rules, it would only reliably knock out a target for three rounds (the first round is only dazed, then three reliably failed saves, then saves with only the normal wizard penalties applied). This still might be too long with the average damage a high level striker can dish out, though, so you might be right.
If you want to debate the premise, please go HERE.
If you just want an explanation of the problem, see the following sblock:
why a bunch of underpowered options + a small handfull of overpowered options isn't good balance
No, that's not balance, it's a bad case of system mastery. The combination of spell focus, orb mastery, high wis, and 'save ends' lockdown spells (particularly sleep - a first level spell better then many epic level spells) are overpowered together. A wizard who takes these abilities, especially with some bonus to hit (elf in particular) will be able to reliably shut down a single target in nearly every fight, regardless of the target, especially at higher levels when the wis bonus starts adding up and the wizard gets access to abilities that let them cast sleep multiple times per round.
So what you get is people who have 'mastered' the 'system' putting together broken characters that ruin otherwise enjoyable and challenging encounters by putting orcus, or the terrasque, or any other cool solo monster into a practically inescapable lock.
On the other hand, people who haven't 'mastered' the 'system' are putting together blasters what have practically no impact on any encounter that doesn't rely heavily on minions, since the difference between 1 hp of damage and 30 hp of damage doesn't really mean much when even normal monsters are topping 250 HP, and their status affects typically aren't significant enough or long lasting enough to impact the fight either.
Basically, if you pick the 'right' choices then you're too powerful, and if you pick the 'wrong' choices you're too weak, and there's very little middle ground for the wizard. Idealy, you should be at more or less the same power level regardless of which powers you choose. That's what 'balance' is.
So what you get is people who have 'mastered' the 'system' putting together broken characters that ruin otherwise enjoyable and challenging encounters by putting orcus, or the terrasque, or any other cool solo monster into a practically inescapable lock.
On the other hand, people who haven't 'mastered' the 'system' are putting together blasters what have practically no impact on any encounter that doesn't rely heavily on minions, since the difference between 1 hp of damage and 30 hp of damage doesn't really mean much when even normal monsters are topping 250 HP, and their status affects typically aren't significant enough or long lasting enough to impact the fight either.
Basically, if you pick the 'right' choices then you're too powerful, and if you pick the 'wrong' choices you're too weak, and there's very little middle ground for the wizard. Idealy, you should be at more or less the same power level regardless of which powers you choose. That's what 'balance' is.
But just for the sake of adding to the conversation here, the only problem mentioned above that I think really needs fixing is the damage at higher levels. Meteor Swarm only does 8d6 + Int Mod in damage. Level 29 monsters have an average of over 1000 HP, so 8d6 out of a daily ability is just ridiculously low. That number should be tripled... ya know, 24d6... what that same spell did in 3E.... 12 levels lower.... 2 or 3 times a day. On a similar note, since damage spells at higher levels don't really do damage, what happened to to "save or die" spells? They were always a little too powerful, but since Wizards now NEED them to actually kill something, they've been removed. All the best spells are gone: Phantasmal Killer and Weird, Power Words, Wish, etc. All gone.
Another thing I would very much like to see fixed: Spells known. My Wizard owned a spellbook with HUNDREDS of spells in it to choose from to prepare each morning. I actually quested for Boccob's Blessed Book so I wouldn't have to worry about multiple spellbooks. Now, I know 2 At-Will powers, 4 Encounter spells, 3 Daily spells and 4 Utility spells. Thats 17 spells IF you count the Wizards 4 cantrips. I used to prepare more DIFFERENT spells per DAY in 3E if I didn't prepare too many spells more than once, which I didn't do often except with Lightning Bolt of Fireball. The 4E Wizard is closer to the 3E Sorcerer than the Wizard. I didn't like the Sorcerer because I liked having almost every spell my character could conceivably cast.
Anyway, if anybody has a fix for those problems, I'd sure like to hear them. Until then, I'll be playing my 3E....
Level 29 monsters have an average of over 1000 HP, so 8d6 out of a daily ability is just ridiculously low.
Just for clarity, the average 29th level monster has 240+Constitution score hit points (more if it's a brute, and less if it's a lurker or artillery)
The only 29th level monsters in the Monster Manual happen to be intentionally not average by way of being an Elite (counts as 2 monsters, and gets HP to show it) and a Solo (counts as 5 monsters, and gets HP to show it)
so your expectation for damage is "ridiculously" high.
As for the argument about the 240 + Con, 8d6 will on average, yield 28 points of damage, plus Int modifier, meaning that this 29th level spell will barely even scratch the average monster.
All that being said, the wizard definitely needs to be played before I would be adamant in stating its underpowered. Additionally, I think one of the problems is that the Wizard was perhaps a bit overpowered in 3.x (at least compared to most of the fighter types). So when compared to what we many were used to, the Wizard looks that much weaker.
1) Spell selection is low. Any individual who has played a mage before 4e is having issues with seeing most of their spells vanish. Most wizards now will be mirror-images of each other until more sources are released.
2) Mages can not research new spells, just rituals. While this appears to be a problem, there are solutions. First, make your abjurations into "ward" rituals and cast them in the morning. These spells can serve the same function as before and can be tailored to last a duration (or number of uses) agreed upon by both DM and player. Second, allow your mage to develop spells as before, find new ones in crypts, etc. After all, spells from prior editions just do not go poof from ancient crypts
3) Allow the mage to retain old levels of spells in addition to gaining new ones (i.e.retrain). You could even examine the possibility of bonus spells per day based on intelligence or the ability to make scrolls of more than just rituals.
Overall, I think much of the problem stems from the system shock of seeing a class called wizard which has little resemblance to any that have come before. While earlier editions shifted, 4e is a complete change.
2) Debuffers should use the Orb/Spell Focus
3) There is a reason why there is only one controller in the 4E PHb. Clerics and Warlocks can support the role. But they cannot do it all day long or multiple times per encounter.
4) Why whut? dropping a -8 save on somebody at high levels doesn't really matter as much when a +5 save bonus mitigates most of it.
This whole thread of "derp, I haven't actually played a wizard yet, but after reading, and making theoretical builds, I saw something that I haven't tried out yet."
The wizard does not need to be fixed. Actually sit your tuckus down and play a wizard for 30 levels. They are not broken on either side of the power scale.
"This thread is not meant for questioning the premises stated, only discussing possible changes if they are borne out by gameplay evidence." If you think the class is fine as it is, please do not respond as it is a waste of time to even read it. Insulting others only shows you have too much time on your hands.
Another thing I would very much like to see fixed: Spells known. My Wizard owned a spellbook with HUNDREDS of spells in it to choose from to prepare each morning. I actually quested for Boccob's Blessed Book so I wouldn't have to worry about multiple spellbooks. Now, I know 2 At-Will powers, 4 Encounter spells, 3 Daily spells and 4 Utility spells. Thats 17 spells IF you count the Wizards 4 cantrips. I used to prepare more DIFFERENT spells per DAY in 3E if I didn't prepare too many spells more than once, which I didn't do often except with Lightning Bolt of Fireball. The 4E Wizard is closer to the 3E Sorcerer than the Wizard. I didn't like the Sorcerer because I liked having almost every spell my character could conceivably cast.
Anyway, if anybody has a fix for those problems, I'd sure like to hear them. Until then, I'll be playing my 3E....
You could allow wizards to have more than their normal number of spells in their spellbook. Unless I'm mistaken, a wizard with 3 dailies will actually have 6 in their book - so just let them have more. You still restrict them to being able to memorize 3 - each of appropriate level - but let them know as many spells as they come across. You could probably adjust the ritual rules to determine time and money to copy a new spell down. Thus, you could still have your wizard with a giant tome (once more spells come out, anyway), pouring through it to memorize whatever spells he wants to cast that day.
You could allow wizards to have more than their normal number of spells in their spellbook. Unless I'm mistaken, a wizard with 3 dailies will actually have 6 in their book - so just let them have more. You still restrict them to being able to memorize 3 - each of appropriate level - but let them know as many spells as they come across. You could probably adjust the ritual rules to determine time and money to copy a new spell down. Thus, you could still have your wizard with a giant tome (once more spells come out, anyway), pouring through it to memorize whatever spells he wants to cast that day.
While mechanically sound, and perhaps thematically appropriate, I feel that using such a method would tend to make wizards paper cutish, you couldn't have a Fire wizard, because the ice wizard probably can prep your fire spells for example
I don't think that Wizards, or any controllers, are supposed to be the sort of powerhouses that they could be in 3.5; they can't vaporize single targets very well, and are heavily dependent on other classes to support them (though you could make that statement about everyone). They're designed to soften up enemies, and open them up for others to finish. I think that they should be more effective in this role, but massive damage increases aren't the answer. If used properly, their total damage is much higher than anyone else's; it just isn't as focused.
While mechanically sound, and perhaps thematically appropriate, I feel that using such a method would tend to make wizards paper cutish, you couldn't have a Fire wizard, because the ice wizard probably can prep your fire spells for example
If you want those kinds of divisions, I think they would have to be houseruled in. You could generalize it with paragon paths, I suppose, but it'd be much cleaner to simply say, "In this campaign, fire wizards have access to these unique spells, while cold wizards have those, etc."
Wall of Fire should have a fear effect that requires a save to allow monsters to just take the HP hit and roughshod through it. Otherwise it actually deters them, like a blazing wall of magical flames would deter some realistically.
You could just have the DM 'RP' the monsters, but then the heroes wouldn't hesitate to jump through fire, and still stay in character and there are plenty of occasions when the villains would do the same.
A save to move past clouds, walls, and other magical 'barricades' would be worthwhile to playtest. Or have the wall, cloud, sphere w/e, make an attack versus Will or Fort for anyone adjacent to it to determine if they can just ignore it and keep walking.
It seems like in terms of 'controlling' the battlefield the fighter is actually better at it in many scenarios. The Wizard will only truly ever shine in massive fights, and they are fairly abysmal vs small groups and solos.
There needs to be some kind of balance. Rangers, Fighters, Clerics, and Warlocks all have decent capacity to deal damage to multiple opponents, as well as significant ability in their primary role.
The Wizard has no 'balance' because it is too pigeonholed in dealing with minions, swarms, etc. The class needs at least a handful of high level 'striker' powers like the Fighter was given, or something, so that you aren't just sitting on the sidelines during solo fights.