People who say that fixing wizards and clerics was necessary

830 posts / 0 new
Last post
have become slaves to the collective opinion of them being broken, formulated and machinated by those who went to great lengths to intentionally imbalance and break the game with their min-max builds.
I have a lot of experience playing 3.5, and every time I played a wizard or cleric I was envious of the power and damage dealing potential of the fighter and other fighting classes.
It's strange that people who are raving about the combat potential of the cleric always talk about his combat potential when he has 5 spells in effect on himself. In the games I played, I was happy if I had the time to cast 1 buff on myself before I had to concentrate in actual combat, healing and dealing damage.
And people who are raving about the wizard, claim that it makes the fighter useless in level 5 because of some mediocre damage area spell. Well, in your games, did the enemies sit in some kind of herd, waving their hands and shouting: "hey you! throw a fireball at us, we are all packed together!"?
Save or die spells are gained only at higher levels, are ineffective against numerous mediocre enemies, and can be protected from by more powerful opponents.
Once a wizard runs out of his good spells, he is useless. A fighter is never useless, he just keeps on going.
Nothing can beat the cold steel and the brave heart of the fighter.
I have come to the conclusion that this is really a matter of expectation, taste, and playing style. I never found spellcasters to be broken in any of my games. When I did play spellcasters I thought the trade off of being weak at low levels and super powerful at higher levels (as well as the limitations the vancian spell system naturally placed on you) balanced things out. My favorite class was actually the fighter. I didn't realy feel the wizards were tha over powered. Basically a fighter could always had good attack bonuses and could do the same amount of damage every round. Plus they were easy to play from low to high levels. The wizard was harder to play at low levels, but had an edge at higher levels. Still the wizard had to manage his resources carefully, or he could endanger himself (even at high levels).

BUT, some people do not accept this interpretation. nor should they be forced to be. For them, balance means all the characters are equally "powerful" at every stage in the game. This is simply a different approach to gaming and to game balance.
Honestly, I'd say that fixing wizards and clerics is necessary, with emphasis on the present tense. Because rituals are fine, and cantrips are fine (wizards have Dancing Lights/Ghost Sound at will, which is good), but Wizards still nerfed non-combat characters, and spellcasters were always the most fun non-combat characters.
I played in a 12th level game a couple of months ago. I was the Wizard. My biggest memory of this campaign was a battle against a Frost Giant with a number of Fighter levels. We had just finished killing his minions when he arrived. His first turn he rolled three attacks against our primary fighter. I cast Ray of Dizziness on it, and since his touch AC was terrible, it would have taken me rolling a three or less to miss. I didn't, and the giant was limited to one standard or one move action per turn, reducing the Giant's offense tremendously while allowing us to effectively kite him. There was no save. I don't really know what happened after that, as I went for a soda while everybody else dealt with that. The fight was already essentially over, and any further contribution from me was a waste of my resources.

The majority of our battles ended in this way. I was particularly fond of Split Ray and Ray of Stupidity. Some spell of mine would essentially end things in one turn, and I'd wander off and let everyone else mop up. Out of combat situations were worse, as my spellbook and scroll collection could handle pretty much anything.
...whatever
I can't speak objectively, but Full Casters have always dominated my games except when the players were trying to suck.

Now, to show one way casters were 'broken' by my standards. At first level, a Wizard has 202 1st-level spells to choose from. Compare that to a fighter.
but Wizards still nerfed non-combat characters, and spellcasters were always the most fun non-combat characters.

I agree with this. My favorite wizards to play were guys who could do cool things outside of combat. I was never all that interested in hurling fireballs at people. But I loved sending my unseen servant to cause mischieve, or using transmutation spells to "get people to talk".
To the OP.

I'm sorry you never learned how to play a spellcaster.

I don't know if it was because of lack of familiarity of the rules, incredible houseruling, a preponderence of artifact swords or just never playing a game above 9th level but you seem to have missed the incredible power avalible to wizards just in the Core 3. And while spells like Shapechange, Fabricate and Contingency totally destroyed any semblance of game ballance they were fun to tool around with for a while, much like using an invincibility cheat.

I'm also amazed at your GMs ability to keep the fighter viable in all encounters. Flying monsters, etherial creatures and Huge creatures tend to completely negate any tricks the fighter has, reducing their damage output to a joke. Gargantuan creatures pretty much destroyed any fighter they came across, simply with the grapple rules. I suppose if you played campaigns that focused on humanoids this would never come up.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
I played in a 12th level game a couple of months ago. I was the Wizard. My biggest memory of this campaign was a battle against a Frost Giant with a number of Fighter levels. We had just finished killing his minions when he arrived. His first turn he rolled three attacks against our primary fighter. I cast Ray of Dizziness on it, and since his touch AC was terrible, it would have taken me rolling a three or less to miss. I didn't, and the giant was limited to one standard or one move action per turn, reducing the Giant's offense tremendously while allowing us to effectively kite him. There was no save. I don't really know what happened after that, as I went for a soda while everybody else dealt with that. The fight was already essentially over, and any further contribution from me was a waste of my resources.

The majority of our battles ended in this way. I was particularly fond of Split Ray and Ray of Stupidity. Some spell of mine would essentially end things in one turn, and I'd wander off and let everyone else mop up. Out of combat situations were worse, as my spellbook and scroll collection could handle pretty much anything.

Well, I have to agree that many of the optional books brought stupid spells and effects to the game, and if the DM allowed some of those, he would have to go to extra lengths to protect the "boss" enemies.
Also, 1 enemy against a group is always at a huge disadvantage, as it can be brought down by sheer numbers and/or an unlucky save.

PS.Who was it that actually slew the monster(s)? The fighter!
Well, I have to agree that many of the optional books brought stupid spells and effects to the game, and if the DM allowed some of those, he would have to go to extra lengths to protect the "boss" enemies.
Also, 1 enemy against a group is always at a huge disadvantage, as it can be brought down by sheer numbers and/or an unlucky save.

PS.Who was it that actually slew the monster(s)? The fighter!

1. Ray of Dizzyness and Ray of Stupidity are good spells, but FAR from the most broken spells the game had to offer, and I've never seen either of them on the lists of spells that needed to be banned. Most of the other spells I used regularly weren't the worst offenders.

2. Why should the DM have to go to extra lengths to wizard-proof the encounter? He's got too much work to do as it is, and he has a real job.

3. The 3E assumed the standard of one monster vs a group of four characters.

4. I don't know who slew the monster, though it probably was one of the fighters. I wasn't there, as my job was finished. I will say that they managed it with ease and little risk to themselves as I had already crippled the monster. I won the fight, who actually landed the killing blow is secondary.
...whatever
Also, 1 enemy against a group is always at a huge disadvantage, as it can be brought down by sheer numbers and/or an unlucky save.

As an aside solo NPCs in 4E are much more effective now. This would not be as effective this time around.

PS.Who was it that actually slew the monster(s)? The fighter!

Does it matter? At this point it could be the thief which takes him out. All the heavy lifting was done by the mage.

People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. --George Orwell

There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. --Howard Zinn

He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. --Friedrich Nietzsche

Devil\'s Brigade

To the OP.

I'm sorry you never learned how to play a spellcaster.

I don't know if it was because of lack of familiarity of the rules, incredible houseruling, a preponderence of artifact swords or just never playing a game above 9th level but you seem to have missed the incredible power avalible to wizards just in the Core 3. And while spells like Shapechange, Fabricate and Contingency totally destroyed any semblance of game ballance they were fun to tool around with for a while, much like using an invincibility cheat.

I'm also amazed at your GMs ability to keep the fighter viable in all encounters. Flying monsters, ethreal creatures and Huge creatures tend to completely negate any tricks the fighter has, reducing their damage output to a joke. Gargantuan creatures pretty much destroyed any fighter they came across, simply with the grapple rules. I suppose if you played campaigns that focused on humanoids this would never come up.

I would have to agree that we usually played with characters However, when fighting supernatural creatures the fighter is supposed to be aided by the spellcasters! Yes, I don't think a class is bad just because it needs help from the party at times. When fighting a flying creature the wizard should cast fly on the fighter (or the fighter should have a magic item allowing flight). And the fighter does have bows and the option to ready an attack.
With a simple potion or spell the fighter can become large, and with a reach weapon, strike as far as a huge creature. And what's so bad about the fighter keeping a big creature occupied by grappling with it? You don't always need to make the killing blow to be of use.
PS.Who was it that actually slew the monster(s)? The fighter!

Yeah, after the God, I mean, Wizard reduced him to uselessness.

It wasn't meaningful for the Fighters. When your entire job is "mop up crew", that sucks.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
I would have to agree that we usually played with characters However, when fighting supernatural creatures the fighter is supposed to be aided by the spellcasters! Yes, I don't think a class is bad just because it needs help from the party at times. When fighting a flying creature the wizard should cast fly on the fighter (or the fighter should have a magic item allowing flight). And the fighter does have bows and the option to ready an attack.
With a simple potion or spell the fighter can become large, and with a reach weapon, strike as far as a huge creature. And what's so bad about the fighter keeping a big creature occupied by grappling with it? You don't always need to make the killing blow to be of use.

The problem is that everything you say involves jumping through hoops. The system was revised to require less hassle.

Some people would call that an improvement.
...whatever
I agree with this. My favorite wizards to play were guys who could do cool things outside of combat. I was never all that interested in hurling fireballs at people. But I loved sending my unseen servant to cause mischieve, or using transmutation spells to "get people to talk".

This is a problem I can agree with, but not in a "limited to spellcasters" kinda way. There are very few, and very limited, non-combat options in 4th at the moment. It's mostly just skills and rituals at the moment - hopefully we'll see more in the future.

However, I don't want to see classes trading in-combat options for out-of-combat options, and I don't want to see out-of-combat options being given to only certain classes - 4th has established that all characters should be good in-combat and out-of-combat, and they need to stick to their guns on that one.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
However, when fighting supernatural creatures the fighter is supposed to be aided by the spellcasters! Yes, I don't think a class is bad just because it needs help from the party at times.

It's amazing how this is featured much more in 4E, too. Good point. Yes, classes had to work together in 3.x, but it is featured much more in 4E with its many abilities that promote teamwork. I think it is very important that groups work well together as it promotes a good gaming experience.

People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. --George Orwell

There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. --Howard Zinn

He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. --Friedrich Nietzsche

Devil\'s Brigade

However, when fighting supernatural creatures the fighter is supposed to be aided by the spellcasters!

That's the problem. Casters would good against EVERYTHING. Fighters needed constant magical backup later on or they die. That is not how the classes should be balanced. This isn't a matter of teamwork this is a matter of one member of the team being a super-god while everyone else is cleanup, meatsheilds, and porters.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
There are very few, and very limited, non-combat options in 4th at the moment. It's mostly just skills and rituals at the moment - hopefully we'll see more in the future.

I'm curious. What kind of non-combat options do you feel are missing? What can you not do out of combat in 4E?

People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. --George Orwell

There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. --Howard Zinn

He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. --Friedrich Nietzsche

Devil\'s Brigade

The problem is that everything you say involves jumping through hoops. The system was revised to require less hassle.

Some people would call that an improvement.

I think it's only natural that your character should feel useless in some situations.

Yeah the Splatbook spells... like Finger of Death, Phantasmal Killer, Wail of the Banshee and a dozen other SoD's as well as even more Insta-Suck spells. All Core.

Finger of Death and Wail of the Banshee are level 13 and level 17 spells respectively. At those level strong opponents should have some kind of protections against death effects.
Phantasmal Killer is a lvl 7 spell, the opponent needs to be living and vulnerable to illusions, fear effects, mind affecting effects and then you need to fail 2 saves. Also the spell gives SR.
A powerful spell, I agree, but I wouldn't say that something like that breaks the game.

Maybe it's just about the playstyle of your group then. In our group, all the big bad guys tend to have protections and allies to "thwart" spellcasting. It's seldom that a situation comes where someone can simply off a powerful creature with a death spell, or the like.

It's amazing how this is featured much more in 4E, too. Good point. Yes, classes had to work together in 3.x, but it is featured much more in 4E with its many abilities that promote teamwork. I think it is very important that groups work well together as it promotes a good gaming experience.

No, I wouldn't say that teamwork is necessary in 4e. It seems that your powers can grant bonuses as a side effect of attacking. You seldom need to "waste" your turn purely on aiding others. I think they made it this way because the majority of players were so selfish that noone wished to concentrate on aiding others at the expense of attacking.
I fully support the opinion that wizards and clerics in previous editions where so obviouslly superior to other classes... well really, all full-progression caster classes were superior to other classes.

My favorite examples of this:

Build the "best overall" fighter or barbarian that you can, make this character 13th level.

Build a wizard any way you want, but make sure he has the polymorph spell... even leave him as being 7th level and having just picked up the ability to cast polymorph.

Now place these two in single combat against an Iron Golem, run it 10 times with each just for posterity... and tell me which one takes out the golem more often, and how long it takes each time.

A hint: Polymoph just became a save or die spell because Rust Monster is an option.

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

I think it's only natural that your character should feel useless in some situations.



Finger of Death and Wail of the Banshee are level 13 and level 17 spells respectively. At those level strong opponents should have some kind of protections against death effects.
Phantasmal Killer is a lvl 7 spell, the opponent needs to be living and vulnerable to illusions, fear effects, mind affecting effects and then you need to fail 2 saves. Also the spell gives SR.
A powerful spell, I agree, but I wouldn't say that something like that breaks the game.

Maybe it's just about the playstyle of your group then. In our group, all the big bad guys tend to have protections and allies to "thwart" spellcasting. It's seldom that a situation comes where someone can simply off a powerful creature with a death spell, or the like.



No, I wouldn't say that teamwork is necessary in 4e. It seems that your powers can grant bonuses as a side effect of attacking. You seldom need to "waste" your turn purely on aiding others. I think they made it this way because the majority of players were so selfish that noone wished to concentrate on aiding others at the expense of attacking.

1. The 3E Wizard not only had an answer for every situation, a lot of the answers Fighters, Rogues, and whatnot had for situations were granted to them by Wizards. At 13th level, at least 75% of the answers the party had to situations came from spellcasters. That is too much.

2. Those are higher level spells. At level 1, Color Spray pretty much destroys everything. Level 3 gets you Glitterdust. You could go on from there.

3. "The bad guys need protections and allies to thwart spellcasting"--Personally, wouldn't it be better game design not to require this? It would make DMing a lot easier(which is always a good thing).
...whatever
have become slaves to the collective opinion of them being broken, formulated and machinated by those who went to great lengths to intentionally imbalance and break the game with their min-max builds.
I have a lot of experience playing 3.5, and every time I played a wizard or cleric I was envious of the power and damage dealing potential of the fighter and other fighting classes.
It's strange that people who are raving about the combat potential of the cleric always talk about his combat potential when he has 5 spells in effect on himself. In the games I played, I was happy if I had the time to cast 1 buff on myself before I had to concentrate in actual combat, healing and dealing damage.
And people who are raving about the wizard, claim that it makes the fighter useless in level 5 because of some mediocre damage area spell. Well, in your games, did the enemies sit in some kind of herd, waving their hands and shouting: "hey you! throw a fireball at us, we are all packed together!"?
Save or die spells are gained only at higher levels, are ineffective against numerous mediocre enemies, and can be protected from by more powerful opponents.
Once a wizard runs out of his good spells, he is useless. A fighter is never useless, he just keeps on going.
Nothing can beat the cold steel and the brave heart of the fighter.

I disagree with most of your post for various reasons that other people have brought up. However, the one that hasn't been said yet is that you are completely wrong about ave or die spells being only available at higher levels:

Color Spray
Level 1 spell
Cone
If it had less than 2 HD it was unconscious.

Sleep
Level 1 Spell
up to 4 HD in burst is unconscious

May not have "killed" the bad guy, but definetly put it out of the combat and set it for a Coup-de-grace

EDIT: NINJAD
I think it's only natural that your character should feel useless in some situations.



Finger of Death and Wail of the Banshee are level 13 and level 17 spells respectively. At those level strong opponents should have some kind of protections against death effects.
Phantasmal Killer is a lvl 7 spell, the opponent needs to be living and vulnerable to illusions, fear effects, mind affecting effects and then you need to fail 2 saves. Also the spell gives SR.
A powerful spell, I agree, but I wouldn't say that something like that breaks the game.

Maybe it's just about the playstyle of your group then. In our group, all the big bad guys tend to have protections and allies to "thwart" spellcasting. It's seldom that a situation comes where someone can simply off a powerful creature with a death spell, or the like.



No, I wouldn't say that teamwork is necessary in 4e. It seems that your powers can grant bonuses as a side effect of attacking. You seldom need to "waste" your turn purely on aiding others. I think they made it this way because the majority of players were so selfish that noone wished to concentrate on aiding others at the expense of attacking.

Ahem. If you guys don't mind, I shall proceed to tear this argument down with a bulldozer.

The spells mentioned, quite frankly, suck, compared to the REAL deal when a wizard gets serious. If you wanna now...


Overland Flight, Enervation, Solid Fog, Black Tentacles, Chilling touch (or was it shivering? The one that did 3d6 DEX damage), Grease, Glitterdust, Hideous Laughter, Alter Self, Explosive runes. All but the touch are Core, all are level 5 or lower, all make encounters TRIVIALLY easy, or reduce many situations to a simple spell.

Wizards are broken, get over it. And Clerics were too, as they trivialized the non-ToB meatshields to nothingness.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
Honestly, I'd say that fixing wizards and clerics is necessary, with emphasis on the present tense. Because rituals are fine, and cantrips are fine (wizards have Dancing Lights/Ghost Sound at will, which is good), but Wizards still nerfed non-combat characters, and spellcasters were always the most fun non-combat characters.

I don't think this is a question of 'fixing.' I thing that with a little patience we'll see alot of the old out of combat spells come around as new rituals.

Wizard and cleric always took up the most space in the phb because of the large number of spells they had available. In the 4th ed phb most of that space has gone over to other classes abilities, so they had to pick and choose the stuff that would go into the rituals section.

I have faith that phb2 will probably have a ton of our old favorite spells returning as new rituals.
You know, I thought wizards and clerics were messed up when I first saw them under 2nd edition, years ago, when I was 15. Not as much as they were under 3.x, but still ridiculous. Guess I must have been tainted by min/maxers before I ever met one!
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

Shivering touch aka Dragon Killer.
Just to add in: After our non-optimized wizard at level 11 one-shotted a Frost-Giant with a Fireball I was pretty sure that wizards were overpowered to boot...

Wouldn't that be a maximum of 66 points of damage ,barring meta-magic feats? That doesn't kill a frost giant....
have become slaves to the collective opinion of them being broken, formulated and machinated by those who went to great lengths to intentionally imbalance and break the game with their min-max builds.

Anyone who has even a small amount of 3.x experience knows that without ANY min-maxing, cleric & wizard are unbalanced.


I have a lot of experience playing 3.5, and every time I played a wizard or cleric I was envious of the power and damage dealing potential of the fighter and other fighting classes.

That you stated this means you don't have a lot experience playing 3.5.

EOT
Wouldn't that be a maximum of 66 points of damage ,barring meta-magic feats? That doesn't kill a frost giant....

Frosty is vulnerable to fire and fireball is capped at 10d6 or 60. But still...frosty has 133 hps.
Wouldn't that be a maximum of 66 points of damage ,barring meta-magic feats? That doesn't kill a frost giant....

Frost giants are vulnurable to fire and the max on a fireball is 10D6 regardless of level so it should do up to 120 damage. The frost giant has 133 HP so I am guessing it was an exageration, but there are ways it could be possible. Either way it's very close.
Frosty is vulnerable to fire and fireball is capped at 10d6 or 60. But still...frosty has 133 hps.

Empower Spell.
Overland Flight, Enervation, Solid Fog, Black Tentacles, Chilling touch (or was it shivering? The one that did 3d6 DEX damage), Grease, Glitterdust, Hideous Laughter, Alter Self, Explosive runes. All but the touch are Core, all are level 5 or lower, all make encounters TRIVIALLY easy, or reduce many situations to a simple spell.

Not to mention all the crazy brokenation if you go out further of core. My favorite example everyone seems to forget:

Moon Bolt, or God Help You If You're Living.
Evocation
Level: Clr/Drd 4
Components: V, S
Cast Time: 1 standard
Range: Long
Target: One living or undead, or two which are no more than 15 ft. apart
Duration: Instant (Yes, the effect is permanent.)
Save: Fort half if living, Will negates if undead
SR: Yes

Living creature: 1d4 Str damage per three caster levels (up to 5d4, avg 12.5). Note that this is not split up if you do the multiple target deal. On a save, half strength damage.
Undead: Fail: Helpless for 1d4 rounds. After this time, it is no longer helpless, but takes a -2 to attacks and will rolls for the next minute.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

Or, of course, Mindrape, AKA I Win. Emperor Tippy's Gaterape is probably the worst combo outside Pun-Pun you'll ever see.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
No, I wouldn't say that teamwork is necessary in 4e. It seems that your powers can grant bonuses as a side effect of attacking. You seldom need to "waste" your turn purely on aiding others. I think they made it this way because the majority of players were so selfish that noone wished to concentrate on aiding others at the expense of attacking.

I didn't say that teamwork in 4E is necessary. I said the game promoted it. And, yes, many people felt they were missing out by being a buffer and healer or whatever. This is the reason for some of the changes. It's all good if you and yours are fine with taking a backseat to other characters, but many people want to play because they want to be Buffy, not one of the Scoobies.

People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. --George Orwell

There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. --Howard Zinn

He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. --Friedrich Nietzsche

Devil\'s Brigade

1 thing you should add was that wizards allways targetd one monster and such and rested after each battle in there min/max posts after Slurging all there spells.

Sorry but I Never played in a game where we only had 1 battle a week and such.

I Remeber when people dissed on Fighters ALOT. They just didnt know how to play em right and all.

And when they started becomeing swamp with people proveing that fighters where hella better then they thought they bring out the "Well My Wizard cast Broken Spell X" Well guess what Any class in 3.5 E could become broken at level 3 / 5. It didnt matter Its best to stay away from that yes But come on if we wanted to talk broken my fighter is broken at level 3 Deal with it.

Anyways This was one of the problems with all posts and such. I Agree the Pro Wizard fans did take things VERY Unkindly and ruled some of the dumbest stuff ive seen like NOT Being able to use Masterwork Items or such.

Which was DUMB. **** hell.

Anyways The reason why The Fixing of class's in 4E Was nice to ME Was that now all class's CANT Become broken at level 3 and such.

There are powerful things any class can do but you cant Abuse eveything. hell you cant become broken anymore. anyone who trys ends up just Makeing 1 battle a day and such.

Read the posts about how a Lone Rouge can Solo Orcus? I Like to see them try agest a Proper Day of Battles on how its so pos to be .

You know Orcus With Buddies
Orcus being a few levels higher then them

Multibol battles in a day?

Not only that but in the old 3.5 / AD&D Forms people would say Wizards where the best Late game.

Sure In AD&D I Kinda agree ... besides Clerics/Paladins.

But in AD&D The Experiance was so freeken Huge deal that i rather be a Fighter up to level 6 or w/e then multy class into Some other class or Duel Class. Hell by the time i get enough experiance in AD&D that would have made me level up to the next level if i stayed in my class? I Would become the same level if not higher in the class i multyclassed into.

So I Like 4E Becouse the wizard no longer auto gets raped by the battles and such.

AD&D? Sure you could win that 1 battle anymore? = GG Bye bye Wizard go rest and get more spells come back.
In 3.5? Kinda the same damn thing. BUT I Hated when people brought up Color spray and such Becouse they where the most horrible examples ive seen ppl say.

They hardly worked.

I Mean by the time you got into range with Color spray without harming allies? Then i have to ask a few questions
1) Why didnt the monsters charge?
2) Are the monsters immune to mind effecting / effects?
3) Why isnt there range weapons being used?
4) Why cant they just move up and start jabbing you right now?

See this was the problem with 3.5E And all the talk These people limited 1 monster 1 per day with the players haveing ALL The time in the world to Metagame think agest that one monster and such.

so in 4E Hes no longer broken. Hell no one can be broken. theres only powerful monsters. there are nice beefy things in 4E but it cant be abused anymore.

Inless your going to start cheating or such and use all your daily powers vs 1 monster again or such.

Anyways another thing? At last there are Encounter powers The Wizard can do things with us at early levels

YaY!
And, yes, many people felt they were missing out by being a buffer and healer or whatever.

Actually I wouldn't have minded so much if 3.5 allowed you to buff other players to utterly incredible heights and unleash them on the enemy. But the way spells were designed it just was almost always better to let your fighter weep in the corner and end the fight yourself. "I could make the fighter etherial so he can fight the ghost. Or I could kill it with a maximized force orb. Let me think...."
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
have become slaves to the collective opinion of them being broken, formulated and machinated by those who went to great lengths to intentionally imbalance and break the game with their min-max builds.
I have a lot of experience playing 3.5, and every time I played a wizard or cleric I was envious of the power and damage dealing potential of the fighter and other fighting classes.
It's strange that people who are raving about the combat potential of the cleric always talk about his combat potential when he has 5 spells in effect on himself. In the games I played, I was happy if I had the time to cast 1 buff on myself before I had to concentrate in actual combat, healing and dealing damage.
And people who are raving about the wizard, claim that it makes the fighter useless in level 5 because of some mediocre damage area spell. Well, in your games, did the enemies sit in some kind of herd, waving their hands and shouting: "hey you! throw a fireball at us, we are all packed together!"?
Save or die spells are gained only at higher levels, are ineffective against numerous mediocre enemies, and can be protected from by more powerful opponents.
Once a wizard runs out of his good spells, he is useless. A fighter is never useless, he just keeps on going.
Nothing can beat the cold steel and the brave heart of the fighter.

There are so many things wrong with this entire claim, it's ridiculous.

There's an important reason why there exists a collective idea that spellcasters in 3E outshine non-spellcasters, and that's because this outshining can be demonstrated through class abilities.

I'm curious as to why you felt jealousy on the topic of damage, with respect to melee classes. Melee classes only really got to shine with damage dealing through two "great venues" in 3E:

1) Charging (mounted or through the infamous Shock Trooper + Leap Attack combination)

2) AoOs (typically by combining a reach weapon, tripping, Combat Reflexes, Karmic Strike, and/or Robilar's Gambit)

On the other hand, spellcasters aiming for damage have an incredibly large repertoire when it comes to dealing damage. Some, like the cleric and the druid, have the spells and abilities to match the melee damage of the fighter, and this comes at the cost of only a relatively small fraction of their entire spell/ability selection. All primary spellcasters enjoy spells for which the damage scales with level, and this feature is actually built into the spell. Melee characters need significant feat investments to come close to reproducing this kind of scaling. Even a spell's meager d6/CL outclasses Power Attack's +2/BAB on average and has the benefit of not having any other costs attached (whereas Power Attack requires the further loss of accuracy to improve the damage scaling).

As if this wasn't enough, primary spellcasters have access to a number of summoning spells which essentially produce a number of additional melee allies that, unlike the party's melee characters, do not need any upkeep. There's no need to waste cure spells on summoned creatures, and every hit these creatures take is a hit that the party doesn't take. After a certain point, the summons get to attack about as often and as effectively as your average melee character.

What's more, spellcasters, unlike melee characters, can target more than just the hit point figure of the enemy. They have means of inflicting negative statuses, ability damage, and outright kill or effectively incapacitate regardless of enemy hit points. Even a meager 1st-level wizard has access to color spray and sleep, both of which completely disable multiple opponents the 1st-level wizard is expected to battle at this level.

This demonstrates that spellcasters are far more versatile than melee characters when it comes to taking down opponents which, by extension, makes them more worthwhile. As if this wasn't enough, their spell selections also allow them to become useful beyond combat, to a far greater degree than most melee characters.

Now, of course spellcasters can and do eventually run out of spells (at low levels). Sure, the fighter can keep going, theoretically. In practice, this actually doesn't occur, because it's a pretty foolish decision for any adventuring party to keep looking for trouble when some of your party members are essentially disabled. Will the group really keep going after the wizard and cleric are out of magic? Is this actually a likely occurrence? Not in my book.
Or, of course, Mindrape, AKA I Win. Emperor Tippy's Gaterape is probably the worst combo outside Pun-Pun you'll ever see.

funny thing was ...
Me and my friends found ways to beat Punpun.

And we allso found ways to beat just about eveything eles that was "Broken haxor"

Ok we admit we kinda made ourselfs do haxor things as well. But Truth be told even punpun can lose. this is how sad 3.5 E Was.
funny thing was ...
Me and my friends found ways to beat Punpun.

He can lose until the god rules come into play.

Then not only is it impossible to beat him, it's impossible to stop him from existing. Because he can go back in time and make sure he exists.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
This thread shows again that it's not the spellcasting classes that cause unbalance, but the spells itself.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
He can lose until the god rules come into play.

Then not only is it impossible to beat him, it's impossible to stop him from existing. Because he can go back in time and make sure he exists.

He loses instantly when you rule that the two different settings needed to spawn him do not overlap...besides that was kind of ridiculous. Nice number crunching but the concept was RETARDED to the extreme.
Not besmirching his creator at all i just found the hoop jumping, rules twisting hilarity it took to make such a build exist laughable.
This ties in directly to my fears that wizards reads the recycled CO garbage and then bases design decisions on the retarded stuff contained therein. I mean an even smaller sliver of a tiny sliver of the gaming population that goes out of its way to twist and or ignore the rules should not drive design decisions in the slightest, yet obviously they do.
Too bad they can't go back in time and do more playtesting...... :D
Sign In to post comments