More Powerful Wizards!

Since there are countless threads requesting limiting, reducing or eliminating the perceived power of the wizard class.  I just wanted to throw out there my differing opinion, less it seem unanimous that the player base of D&D Next is 100% down with wizards.

I love wizards. They are my second favorite class, after Rogue.  I love wizards because they can do lots of nifty stuff.  Yes, they can also throw fireball and disintegrate.  I'm not particularly interested in fireball and disintegrate.  I love the utility that an interesting wizard can bring to a party of adventurers.  I love the broad selection of spells in a spell book and the considered choices that must be made when selecting spells each day.  Sure I usually took one or two attack spells, but mostly I took lots and lots of utility.

Maybe, if the twinks out there need to see wizard nerfed because omgtheyhavefireballs, there could be a compromise struck?

Divide spells into two categories:  combat and utility.
Nerf the number of combat spells that can be cast per day (or encounter) and eliminate all at-will combat spells.
Double the number of spells that can be prepared per day.
Maybe only one combat spell per day per spell level.
So one combat spell at 1st, two at 3rd, three at 5th, etc.
you can do all of that, just have wizards go back to d4 hp, have all spells have a 1 rnd minimum casting time with saves being made to avoid disruption upon any damage (-1 per hp damage) and I'll be happy.

wizards should be glass cannons, without fighters to keep the mooks off of em they should be dog meat in any combat.
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
I think it's possible to really, really like wizards and also feel like the nature of the concept runs a greater risk of getting out of control than some other concepts. Wizards use magic, and they use nearly all kinds of magic, and magic by its nature breaks the rules. In some cases, it's because genuinely iconic magical effects have potentially deleterious effects on gameplay if they can be deployed with maximum pragmatism. In other cases it's because of "if there's an effect that could exist, we can make a spell that does that" design that doesn't bother to circumscribe what spellcasters are supposed to be capable of very tightly.

I generally think that very, very few people are actually "down with wizards". Having a certain amount of healthy leeriness regarding wizards (and other spellcasters), given the history of the class, doesn't mean that you don't like wizards. Additionally, at least the more nuanced wariness is not at all focused around wizards having spells like Fireball; it's about wizards having access to spells that make spells like Fireball kind of pointless. Fireball and Disintigrate are among the most harmless spells in the Wizard's list; they hurt people and break things, which are - if your foundational edition is 3.5 - kind of considered remarkable wastes of a spell slot. Hemming in the ability of the wizard to do something as quaint as damage isn't really what most people who are worried about wizard design are worried about. Even if Fireball was a good damage spell in D&D's past (it often wasn't), doing some fire damage to several goblins is pretty innocuous. If I understand correctly, Fireball is a decent spell in AD&D, but it's an awful spell in 3.5 and a very poor spell in 4e. I'm not sure what experience anybody would have that would make them worried about fireball of all things. It's like interpreting concerns about druid design as stemming from the fact that in 3.5, druids can move at normal speed through dense undergrowth.

There is a separate strain of people who either don't like at-will spells on principle, or don't like the amount of damage they do (it's very easy to make a convincing argument that at-will damage spells currently do too much damage in Next, even if you think that wizards should absolutely have meaningful at-will damage spells.) While it's important that whatever at-will damage spells the wizard goes to print with aren't unreasonably powerful, for the most part nobody cares about wizards fireballing. (In fact, I'd love it if a spell as iconic as Fireball wasn't a total trap.)
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I kind of agree with the OP in that wizards alway get the nerf bat and it looks like it will continue in D&D Next with legendary monsters getting auto saves. This is poor design. Monsters should get a saving throw bonus against spells or gain advantage as magic resistance currently offiers. That is enough. Wizards should not get double spell slots with the possible exception of 8th or 9th level spells. Being able to cast only one 9th level spell is weak design. The only 9th level spell that will be cast will be the wish spell due to its flexibility which is a waste.

 Wizard spells should be powerful enough and versatile enough to last through a wizard's whole career.  Let wizards have some fun too.  
wizards alway get the nerf bat

I'm sorry what?

Why can't we have wizards be just as appealing and contribute just as much to the gaming session as a fighter or rogue or cleric - no more, no less?

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

In 3.5 Combat spells were never the OP part, they were a trap compared to the power of the utility spells, though the SoD ones however were very good

It was the Utility spells, the spells that turned the stone under an army to mud, and then to stone back after.
I still think some Wizard spell's damage are too high. On top of the versatility magic grant, they have firepower, which overshadow martial class.  Hopefully they will tone them down during future Weight & Balance.


Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

just have wizards go back to d4 hp



Wizards = d4 HD.
Period.

Always was and always will be, at least in my games.
Don't care what's written in the book.
Wink 
Wizards having a d4 for HD is pretty iconic. Plus with the Adventurer Tier now starting at level 3, an adventuring wizard is not as squishy as in previous editions. So maybe the d6 is unnecessary?
In ADnD 2nd the wizard had a lot more restrictions
These where removed in 3.X but the spells they cast remained on the same power level but now unrestricted.
Cousing the wizard to be very dominant/over powerd in 3.X compared to AdnD 2nd.

I don't have a problem with spells of that kind of power level as long as they are balanced out with limitations like they where in ADnD 2nd. 
I think that separating damage and utility spells is part of the problem, not part of the solution. That goes double for the awful "rituals" mechanic.

Make the wizard choose which spells he or she is going to prepare that day, and make that choice a hard one. That's the whole point of the class, as far as I'm concerned, and the reason all whining about how over-powered wizards supposedly are sounds like twaddle.
I like powerful and flexible Wizards.  I would just also like for the other classes to be powerful and flexible in their own way.  Bring everyone else up, don't push the Wizard down!
I think that separating damage and utility spells is part of the problem, not part of the solution. That goes double for the awful "rituals" mechanic. Make the wizard choose which spells he or she is going to prepare that day, and make that choice a hard one. That's the whole point of the class, as far as I'm concerned, and the reason all whining about how over-powered wizards supposedly are sounds like twaddle.

The editions with ritual rules are the editions where wizards are far and away the tamest. Maybe you meant to write "scrolls"?

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.

you can do all of that, just have wizards go back to d4 hp, have all spells have a 1 rnd minimum casting time with saves being made to avoid disruption upon any damage (-1 per hp damage) and I'll be happy.

wizards should be glass cannons, without fighters to keep the mooks off of em they should be dog meat in any combat.

I think that separating damage and utility spells is part of the problem, not part of the solution. That goes double for the awful "rituals" mechanic. Make the wizard choose which spells he or she is going to prepare that day, and make that choice a hard one. That's the whole point of the class, as far as I'm concerned, and the reason all whining about how over-powered wizards supposedly are sounds like twaddle.

I actually like ritual rules but they don't need to separate combat and non-combat spells like the OP is suggesting.

you can do all of that, just have wizards go back to d4 hp, have all spells have a 1 rnd minimum casting time with saves being made to avoid disruption upon any damage (-1 per hp damage) and I'll be happy.

wizards should be glass cannons, without fighters to keep the mooks off of em they should be dog meat in any combat.

In ADnD 2nd the wizard had a lot more restrictions
These where removed in 3.X but the spells they cast remained on the same power level but now unrestricted.
Cousing the wizard to be very dominant/over powerd in 3.X compared to AdnD 2nd.

I don't have a problem with spells of that kind of power level as long as they are balanced out with limitations like they where in ADnD 2nd.

Yeah, there are many old-schools limitations and drawbacks that can be used to make the Wizard balanced but still with powerful spells.
The editions with ritual rules are the editions where wizards are far and away the tamest. Maybe you meant to write "scrolls"?



No, you're misunderstanding my point.  Some people thought wizards were "too powerful."  These people nerfed the wizard.  They realized that to do so would mean gutting the wizard of all interesting spell choices.  So they did, leaving nothing but pure damage and a few 'push' effects related to gridded combat, and shuffled all the actually interesting spells over to the "rituals" mechanic, where they languished, rarely used, outside the stream of actual encounters.  Thus the wizard went from the class where one had interesting choices to make prior to and in-combat to simply another ranged fighter with different colored special effects...like every other class.

Lose rituals.  No differentiation between "utility" and "combat" spells (since THERE ISN'T ONE).  Let the wizard player choose how the wizard uses the precious few spell slots.  Balance achieved.


The editions with ritual rules are the editions where wizards are far and away the tamest. Maybe you meant to write "scrolls"?



No, you're misunderstanding my point.  Some people thought wizards were "too powerful."  These people nerfed the wizard.  They realized that to do so would mean gutting the wizard of all interesting spell choices.  So they did, leaving nothing but pure damage and a few 'push' effects related to gridded combat, and shuffled all the actually interesting spells over to the "rituals" mechanic, where they languished, rarely used, outside the stream of actual encounters.  Thus the wizard went from the class where one had interesting choices to make prior to and in-combat to simply another ranged fighter with different colored special effects...like every other class.

Lose rituals.  No differentiation between "utility" and "combat" spells (since THERE ISN'T ONE).  Let the wizard player choose how the wizard uses the precious few spell slots.  Balance achieved.





you mean they took off all the ugly overpowered stuff and made the wizard a very interesting class by giving it a lot of controlling powers and honest-to-god utilities and rituals?

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

you mean they took off all the ugly overpowered stuff...


You are starting from a false premise.  Wizards are, arguably, the most limited class in the game.  The argument that they are "overpowered" is, and always has been, ludicrous.
... and made the wizard a very interesting class by giving it a lot of controlling powers and honest-to-god utilities and rituals?


So you think they "gave" power to this class you think is overpowered in the first place?  You couldn't remain consistent in your position for the span of a single sentence? 
And there is no "utility" vs. "combat" spell.   I can use Tenser's Floating Disk as a combat spell to drop rocks on foes.  I can use fireball to burn a wall in an out-of-combat situation.  The distinction is false. 

you mean they took off all the ugly overpowered stuff...


You are starting from a false premise.  Wizards are, arguably, the most limited class in the game.  The argument that they are "overpowered" is, and always has been, ludicrous.
... and made the wizard a very interesting class by giving it a lot of controlling powers and honest-to-god utilities and rituals?


So you think they "gave" power to this class you think is overpowered in the first place?  You couldn't remain consistent in your position for the span of a single sentence? 
And there is no "utility" vs. "combat" spell.   I can use Tenser's Floating Disk as a combat spell to drop rocks on foes.  I can use fireball to burn a wall in an out-of-combat situation.  The distinction is false. 




Wizards are the least limited class in the game. In 2e and 3e they had a slew of options no other class could ever imagine. In 2e they were overpowered at high levels and in 3e it got even worse. There in no question about this, it's just a matter of fact.

4e took away that power and gave them something interesting and unique but not overpowered. This can be debatable, but please don't try to twist my words. I said they have been given powers in the 4e sense not that the've been given more power.
  

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)


Wizards are the least limited class in the game. In 2e and 3e they had a slew of options no other class could ever imagine. In 2e they were overpowered at high levels and in 3e it got even worse. There in no question about this, it's just a matter of fact.


People usually use that phrase when they are declaring a position that they can't actually defend.  A 15th level wizard can toss a fireball into a room full of goblins and roast them, sure enough.  At such a level, she may be capable of doing so twice or even three times in a day...but a fighter can chop them up *all day long*, and if the wizard has tapped out her spell slots, she's little better than a commoner.  The argument that wizards are these overpowered, unstoppable game-ruining munchkins rests entirely on the image of that one minute out of the day in which they can pull off some spectacular stunt, and completely ignores the other 23 hours 59 minutes in which their lucky if some kobold doesn't wander into camp and gut them.  In other words, it's a crock.


4e took away that power and gave them something interesting and unique...


No, it didn't.  It turned them into rangers who tossed arrows that happened to be pretty lights instead of wood and steel.

The editions with ritual rules are the editions where wizards are far and away the tamest. Maybe you meant to write "scrolls"?



No, you're misunderstanding my point.  Some people thought wizards were "too powerful."  These people nerfed the wizard.  They realized that to do so would mean gutting the wizard of all interesting spell choices.  So they did, leaving nothing but pure damage and a few 'push' effects related to gridded combat, and shuffled all the actually interesting spells over to the "rituals" mechanic, where they languished, rarely used, outside the stream of actual encounters.  Thus the wizard went from the class where one had interesting choices to make prior to and in-combat to simply another ranged fighter with different colored special effects...like every other class.

Lose rituals.  No differentiation between "utility" and "combat" spells (since THERE ISN'T ONE).  Let the wizard player choose how the wizard uses the precious few spell slots.  Balance achieved.






And, just to add insult to injury, the geniuses then allowed EVERYONE to learn the Ritual Caster feat.
I still think some Wizard spell's damage are too high. On top of the versatility magic grant, they have firepower, which overshadow martial class.  Hopefully they will tone them down during future Weight & Balance.



  The higher level spell pool is VERY shallow.  Once the top tier spells are burnt off... on round 3 of the first combat of the day, the wizard is looking at 1/2 or 1/3 the damage of a melee, and that is being generous.

  Without implement bonuses to attack they're hitting much less often too, and doing even less when they hit compared to a melee with a +3 weapon.  And before the peanut gallery starts yammering they don't allow magic in their games, everyone else does and there is even a spell that gives it to you.

  On top of that their feats are once a day, rather than every round.  Maximizing a meteor swarm is impressive, but doing up to 3x your 5W+stat damage thanks to Warding Polearm + Combat Reflexes is even better.



@mikemearls don't quite understand the difference

I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down. - Eric Cartman

Enough chitchat!  Time is candy! - Pinky Pie

I'd rather not have a revisit to the Wizard being better than everything else like in 3.5. It's one of the reasons why I'm hoping for an alternative to Pathfinder.

It's Dungeons and Dragons, not Wizards and Meat Shields. 

Stop the H4TE

you mean they took off all the ugly overpowered stuff and made the wizard a very interesting class by giving it a lot of controlling powers and honest-to-god utilities and rituals?

One person's "interesting" is another's "uninteresting." I've seen many players build very different sorts of wizards, and I've seen some spells used in very creative ways that wouldn't be possible if they were rituals. Rituals and combat spells only differ in how they're cast, not in what they do. I'd rather all spells get cast the same way, and it's up to the player and the situation to determine whether it's a "utility" or "combat" spell.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

Wizards are, arguably, the most limited class in the game.


That people actually believe this is always hilarious to me.
The editions with ritual rules are the editions where wizards are far and away the tamest. Maybe you meant to write "scrolls"?



No, you're misunderstanding my point.  Some people thought wizards were "too powerful."  These people nerfed the wizard.  They realized that to do so would mean gutting the wizard of all interesting spell choices.  So they did, leaving nothing but pure damage and a few 'push' effects related to gridded combat, and shuffled all the actually interesting spells over to the "rituals" mechanic, where they languished, rarely used, outside the stream of actual encounters.  Thus the wizard went from the class where one had interesting choices to make prior to and in-combat to simply another ranged fighter with different colored special effects...like every other class.

Lose rituals.  No differentiation between "utility" and "combat" spells (since THERE ISN'T ONE).  Let the wizard player choose how the wizard uses the precious few spell slots.  Balance achieved.






And, just to add insult to injury, the geniuses then allowed EVERYONE to learn the Ritual Caster feat.


At the cost of a feat that could be used for something more relevant to their class. Very few classes got it for free.
I'd rather not have a revisit to the Wizard being better than everything else like in 3.5. It's one of the reasons why I'm hoping for an alternative to Pathfinder.

It's Dungeons and Dragons, not Wizards and Meat Shields. 


It's pretty comical, how much the wizard gets called out for this.  Wizards are second string, at best, to the real powerhouses: Clerics and Druids.  Wizards, at least, have a limited spellbook (something detractors love to forget, even if it was expandable) and in general some need of a meat shield.  Divine casters just plain knew every spell on their list, which included options just as potent as the wizard got, as well as the likes of Heal which the wizard did not, while being a tough and competant physical combatant (Which the wizard could do via buffing into Tenser's Transformation -- forsaking the use of other spells) at the same time with no opportunity cost.

Why is it always the Wizard, not the Cleric, who gets called out again?

Of course, I'm guilty as charged myself.  The Wizard, as a caster class, does need some breaks on it.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

The argument that wizards are these overpowered, unstoppable game-ruining munchkins rests entirely on the image of that one minute out of the day in which they can pull off some spectacular stunt, and completely ignores the other 23 hours 59 minutes in which their lucky if some kobold doesn't wander into camp and gut them.  In other words, it's a crock.


When working within party dynamics, no one generally operates alone or in a vacuum. If there is only one minute of very hard combat that the caster is able to dominate completely and the other 23 hours 59 minutes have the occassional run-in with a Kobold, then the caster can rely on the other party members to deal with the wandering Kobold while she is out of spells. Of course, even this is not a very accurate picture if the caster is able to deal with an encounter by only using a portion of her spells, thus allowing her to dominate more than one encounter per day, making her less vulnerable to a low number of random encounters.

It's pretty comical, how much the wizard gets called out for this.  Wizards are second string, at best, to the real powerhouses: Clerics and Druids....


Why is it always the Wizard, not the Cleric, who gets called out again?

Probably just shorthand. They mean to write "primary caster classes," but that gets shortened to "caster" and that gets moved over to "wizard". Also, I am unsure of how "broken" the cleric and the druid are under 2e rules (I can't remember their spell lists off-hand). I seem to recall that clerics were a lot more limited in their spell selections and even then, their spells didn't do as much as they came to do under 3e rules.
When working within party dynamics, no one generally operates alone or in a vacuum. If there is only one minute of very hard combat that the caster is able to dominate completely and the other 23 hours 59 minutes have the occassional run-in with a Kobold, then the caster can rely on the other party members to deal with the wandering Kobold while she is out of spells.

Gee, it's, it's almost as if the characters in the party are *all* contributing to the party's survival in a perfectly balanced manner, without simply blandly duplicating one another! Crazy, right?
The editions with ritual rules are the editions where wizards are far and away the tamest. Maybe you meant to write "scrolls"?



No, you're misunderstanding my point.  Some people thought wizards were "too powerful."  These people nerfed the wizard.  They realized that to do so would mean gutting the wizard of all interesting spell choices.  So they did, leaving nothing but pure damage and a few 'push' effects related to gridded combat, and shuffled all the actually interesting spells over to the "rituals" mechanic, where they languished, rarely used, outside the stream of actual encounters.  Thus the wizard went from the class where one had interesting choices to make prior to and in-combat to simply another ranged fighter with different colored special effects...like every other class.

Lose rituals.  No differentiation between "utility" and "combat" spells (since THERE ISN'T ONE).  Let the wizard player choose how the wizard uses the precious few spell slots.  Balance achieved.






And, just to add insult to injury, the geniuses then allowed EVERYONE to learn the Ritual Caster feat.


You mean like how the geniuses in 3E allowed EVERYONE to take every single feat that gave the fighter anything interesting to do? That was literally the entirety of the fighter's class features. At least the 4E wizard got to retain SOMETHING unique.

I honestly prefer the mechanics of the pre-4E wizards (and spell casters in general.) I don't think they are overpowered per se. It's just that there were no limits to what they could do. When a wizard can do literally anything as long as they know the right spell for it, while the fighter is constrained by things like the laws of physics, there is an inherent imbalance. Not just mechanically, but conceptually. Either magic needs to be more limited in what effects it can produce, or non-magical characters need ways to transcend physical limitations, otherwise magic users will always be better, because the other guys have to follow rules and the casters don't.

Limiting the casters spells per day and making the martials entirely at-will works, but only if the casters can actually be expected to run out of spells. If a wizard ever has more spells per day than the average number of encounters per day, those spells are effectively at-will. Especially with Next's semi-spontaneous "vancian" magic. At least in earlier editions the wizard ran the risk of not having a relevant spell prepared, or running out of the spells he prepped for a given situation. Now you can just prep a spell for each situation and you expend slots instead of the spells themselves.

 In my opinion, the best way to balance casters verses non casters (again, conceptually. The specific numbers are a different story) is to bring back some of the old AD&D restrictions on magic, and also give non casters some limited ability to bend the rules at high enough levels. I'm not asking for some huge nerf to the mages - they should get to be awesome as ever. Nor am I asking for anything crazy and supernatural from the fighters. But they should be able to go beyond the mundane too, at appropriate levels.
.... When a wizard can do literally anything as long as they know the right spell for it....

Which (a) never happened, (b) would require a DM so thoroughly incompetent that no rules in the book would have mattered to them anyway (c) could only have happened once per day, and could be disrupted as it was cast and (d) aged you every time you tried it.

In other words, non-issue.
I'd rather not have a revisit to the Wizard being better than everything else like in 3.5. It's one of the reasons why I'm hoping for an alternative to Pathfinder.

It's Dungeons and Dragons, not Wizards and Meat Shields. 


It's pretty comical, how much the wizard gets called out for this.  Wizards are second string, at best, to the real powerhouses: Clerics and Druids.  Wizards, at least, have a limited spellbook (something detractors love to forget, even if it was expandable) and in general some need of a meat shield.  Divine casters just plain knew every spell on their list, which included options just as potent as the wizard got, as well as the likes of Heal which the wizard did not, while being a tough and competant physical combatant (Which the wizard could do via buffing into Tenser's Transformation -- forsaking the use of other spells) at the same time with no opportunity cost.

Why is it always the Wizard, not the Cleric, who gets called out again?

Of course, I'm guilty as charged myself.  The Wizard, as a caster class, does need some breaks on it.



When I played 2ed DnD (which was a long, long time ago), we found that wizards and fighters were the only two classes that were any good.  This was probably due to a few factors; what rules/splat books we had, whether we misread any of the rules, and how well we did or did not abuse various spells.  IIRC, fighters always ended up with a Girdle of Storm Giant Strength.  If they never found one, they got a wizard friend to make one for them.  Combined with the rules for weapon specialization and the optional weapon mastery rules from one of the extra books, a dual weilding level 15 fighter would attack something like this:
THAC0 6
+6 from strength
+3 from weapons mastery
+5 from weapon
-4 from dual weilding, effective THAC0 of -4.  You don't miss many things with a THAC0 of -4.
4 attacks/3 attacks per round, with:
1d8
+3 from weapons mastery
+12 from strength
+5 from weapon
For an average of 98 damage/73.5 damage every other round.  I mean, you miss some, sometimes, but not really.

That is enough to kill anyone who isn't a fighter, a Tarrasque or an Ancient Dragon in one round of combat.  Clerics were never used because they would just roll over and die in a single round.  Paladins and Rangers were bad because they couldn't do weapon specialization, which meant they got fewer attacks, which meant they did half the damage of a fighter or less if they didn't dual weild.  Add a ring of vampiric regeneration to regenerate ~50 hp a round.

Wizards got to compete because they had stoneskin, and could do a variety of broken wizardy things, but they still basically exploded if they ever got near a fighter and didn't have stoneskin on for some reason.  It was basically stoneskin and contingency that made them viable.

I am aware that by abusing scrying, shapeshifting, and a number of other tricks, wizards can be a lot better than we ended up playing them.  The most abusive things we usually had with wizards involved battlefield positioning tricks like walls of force/force cage/teleport/wall of stone and similar, which helped keep them out of range of things that could kill them, sometimes combined with things like Incindiary Cloud or Acid Fog to cook pinned foes.  One of our friends was especially fond of Wall of Force + Acid Fog.

My question for the OP is "More powerful than whom?"


  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I honestly can't remember if/how bad casters were broken in 3.5 or 2e.  I have been playing a retro-style game that works well, though.  Clerics don't get to choose all of their spells.  They get a list of 9 per level, tweaked to the deity.  Mages get the semi-vancian "spell-slot" mechanic, but can only "know" a limited number of spells per level without taking a few weeks and a few 1000GP to swap them out for other ones in his spell book.  Also, I think all of the "combat" spells only appear at odd levels.  Also, his starting spells and "free" spell at level-up are random.

So, they're kind of like slightly more flexible sorcerers.

On top of that, 1-round casting times, no move-and-cast, ANY damage loses the spell with no save.

It sounds harsh, but in play, the wizard and cleric do quite well for themselves, even though the cleric is usually up front fighting and the wizard (d4 Hit Points!) has to decide if he wants to draw fire to himself by trying to cast Sleep.

(Yes, sometimes the casters will end a fight on round one, but since it's a team adventure game, everybody high-fives, loots the bodies and keeps exploring.)
I like having ALL my characters get to be THE feature in climactic scenes not just finger wagglers Only finger wagglers getting BOOM this I find to be a problem.

 And a scene where you helped by watching shrug isnt really teamwork.

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I like having ALL my characters get to be THE feature in climactic scenes not just finger wagglers Only finger wagglers getting BOOM this I find to be a problem.

 And a scene where you helped by watching shrug isnt really teamwork.

That's the equivelant of saying that the wizard who brings the BBEG to 1HP just "stood by and watched" the fighter kill it with his sword, and thus "no teamwork".  A game of Dungeons & Dragons is more than meeting up for one fight and then leaving.

(At least before 4e. *BAZINGA!*)

(I kid, I kid!  We all know the combats went a little long in early 4e.  It's ok.  It's better now, and still a good game.)
I like having ALL my characters get to be THE feature in climactic scenes not just finger wagglers Only finger wagglers getting BOOM this I find to be a problem.

 And a scene where you helped by watching shrug isnt really teamwork.

That's the equivelant of saying 


given the wizard could also finish the guy off at one hit point yes its fairly close to true.. the fighter might as well not have been there.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I like having ALL my characters get to be THE feature in climactic scenes not just finger wagglers Only finger wagglers getting BOOM this I find to be a problem.



Let me know when you can figure out a way for this problem to go away ... while throwing arbitrary amounts of power at the spell casters.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I like having ALL my characters get to be THE feature in climactic scenes not just finger wagglers Only finger wagglers getting BOOM this I find to be a problem.



Let me know when you can figure out a way for this problem to go away ... while throwing arbitrary amounts of power at the spell casters.

I actually did a few posts back.  Those changes to the casters, plus scaling damage bonuses and (not quite) infinite cleave for the fighter even things out nicely.

Alternately, play a different game.  Seriously, D&D makes for a horrible story-game.

(Not to be dismissive.  Play what and how you want.  I'm just saying that the things that make D&D, "D&D" are directly counter to cinematic awesomeness and deep character drama.)
The big things wrong with the wizard are

1.) Access to a huge spell list. Even if you never let them research additional spells known they have the ability to cherry pick the best spells of each level as they progress, some sort of limit on which wizards can have which spells need to be in place. Maybe to get dominate you need x Other enchant spells of level y+?

2.) Save and DC system, seriously it's borked to hell. A wizard can target almost any stat and most monsters have at least 1-2 bad ones, while the wizard always uses it's highest stat with the huge boost from magic power. 
I like having ALL my characters get to be THE feature in climactic scenes not just finger wagglers Only finger wagglers getting BOOM this I find to be a problem.



Let me know when you can figure out a way for this problem to go away ... while throwing arbitrary amounts of power at the spell casters.

I actually did a few posts back.  Those changes to the casters, plus scaling damage bonuses and (not quite) infinite cleave for the fighter even things out nicely.


not sure what post you are referring to -- here is another item for making martial types nasty... a hamstring is basically permanent slowed ... blinding slash blinds permanently (generally speaking without uber out of combat treatements), wizards may affect many enemies but his effects are ephemeral and the fighters effects are bound up by a wound that doesnt go away on its own.

Since I asked a question I thought I would include something to direct it..

That you think D&D is so extremely play style limited just makes me sad.

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


Wizards are the least limited class in the game. In 2e and 3e they had a slew of options no other class could ever imagine. In 2e they were overpowered at high levels and in 3e it got even worse. There in no question about this, it's just a matter of fact.


People usually use that phrase when they are declaring a position that they can't actually defend.  A 15th level wizard can toss a fireball into a room full of goblins and roast them, sure enough.  At such a level, she may be capable of doing so twice or even three times in a day...but a fighter can chop them up *all day long*, and if the wizard has tapped out her spell slots, she's little better than a commoner.  The argument that wizards are these overpowered, unstoppable game-ruining munchkins rests entirely on the image of that one minute out of the day in which they can pull off some spectacular stunt, and completely ignores the other 23 hours 59 minutes in which their lucky if some kobold doesn't wander into camp and gut them.  In other words, it's a crock.


4e took away that power and gave them something interesting and unique...


No, it didn't.  It turned them into rangers who tossed arrows that happened to be pretty lights instead of wood and steel.




Look at any power evaluation in 2e and 3e around and point out any example saying that the wizard (or the cleric and druid in 3e) are less powerful than a fighter after a certain level. You will find none, so it's pretty much a matter of fact.


And if you look closely at ranger and wizard powers in 4e you will see that they play completely different. But probably you don't bother doing that...

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)