Why don't wizards suck?

[Akalsaris]

That is why I play a DURID in my gaming group. Because there is no down time, there is no free form, there is no freedom of thought. Only the DM, his pawns, and his railroads. Oh and his ego.

Well of course.  Cat Durid is 4 fite!

and CAT DURIDS is no spam moonfare! Sum cat durids dosent no wut is uh moonfare!

[CannibalSmith]

Found it.

[bogsnes]

Whoach! He could be winning the world championship in spelling next year

[bayar]

[PhaedrusXY]

Wow... I feel retarded now.

[Sinfire Titan]

Found it.

Where's my Killsat? I want to surgically neuter whoever made that just because of how stupid it is.

[Bozwevial]

That was a work of parody, but sometimes you can go too far.

[Endless Twilight]

Begging your pardon, but as a person who mains a druid in WoW, which is the game Alamo made that post for... everyone, prepare to die.

*Turns into epic-level Wizard/Druid gestalt*

[Echoes]

I'm quite serious. Overall I do recognize the power of wizards, but I hate the magicmart mentality and the assumption that just because a spell was printed that a wizard automatically gets it with no cost involved (or close to). Everyone seems to blissfully ignore the built in balancing factor that wizards have to work for their spells, which is where DM control and fiat kicks in. Inevitably someone will point out that line in the DMG that a player should be able to find whatever they want in a large enough city, which to me is just a piss poor excuse of "wah wah I want my spells because the rules say I can get them". Even assuming that you can buy all your spells off scrolls, a lot of builds neglect that cost when calculating their gear.

I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make here. When the core books gives any wizard above about 10th level access to Sigil - yes, he should be able to purchase just about any spell he wants. Just like the fighter should be able to buy the armor and weapons he wants. Or is using the rules wrong when the wizard wants something? This isn't some RAW vs. RAI argument, or some TO thought exercise - this is a perfectly reasonable option that's fully supported both by the RAW and the RAI.

If a DM has to restrict a wizard in such a fashion in order to challenge him, that's a problem with the DM, not the wizard.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Wizards don't suck because they can qualify for Green Star Adept, the BEST PRC EVER.

You become a robot.

What beats a robot?

Nothing, that's what.

[bayar]

Gnomes with can openers beat robots.

[SixthDeclension]

No, Gnomes give you three life when sacrificed.

[woodenbandman]

If a DM has to restrict a wizard in such a fashion in order to challenge him, that's a problem with the DM, not the wizard.

I think that that's actually a very fair way to challenge a wizard. Wizard is way too powerful when he gets every spell he needs. On the level of destroying all but the most highly powered campaigns, sometimes.

Back in 2.0, the wizard had to get a spellbook/scroll or a library to research spells. It's often hard to get those things. Also, priests had a much smaller basic spell list, and a much larger domain list. They got 1 domain, and they got to spontaneous cast from their list.

When you compare the two of these to the way 3.5 spellcaster classes work, I'd have to say that these two are better balanced.

I'm not anti-high powered, at all. Far from it. But I think that if the DM makes the wizard choose his spells in such a fashion, that it's a fair way to balance the wizard. Not to mention that it can A) change the feel of the campaign to be much lower power (if you like that), and it can be extremely important in the case of fighters and monks in the party.

The DM should, of course, TELL the players that they'll be doing that. As long as the players and the DM agree to something, then it should be pretty cool.

[Surreal]

If a DM has to restrict a wizard in such a fashion in order to challenge him, that's a problem with the DM, not the wizard.

I think that that's actually a very fair way to challenge a wizard. Wizard is way too powerful when he gets every spell he needs. On the level of destroying all but the most highly powered campaigns, sometimes.

Back in 2.0, the wizard had to get a spellbook/scroll or a library to research spells. It's often hard to get those things. Also, priests had a much smaller basic spell list, and a much larger domain list. They got 1 domain, and they got to spontaneous cast from their list.

When you compare the two of these to the way 3.5 spellcaster classes work, I'd have to say that these two are better balanced.

I'm not anti-high powered, at all. Far from it. But I think that if the DM makes the wizard choose his spells in such a fashion, that it's a fair way to balance the wizard. Not to mention that it can A) change the feel of the campaign to be much lower power (if you like that), and it can be extremely important in the case of fighters and monks in the party.

The DM should, of course, TELL the players that they'll be doing that. As long as the players and the DM agree to something, then it should be pretty cool.

No, I don't let wizards get whatever spells they want.
No, I don't let fighters buy whatever gear they want.

This isn't "restricting in order to challenge the player". This is doing your gorram job as a DM.

When I DM, I let my players make a wish list, and some of that gets parsed out along with random treasure. This is to curb cherry picking and keep game balance (for encounters and within the party) within my control. I like high power as much as the next guy, and I don't even consider myself anti-caster, but I'm definitely anti-letmyplayersdowhateverthehelltheywant.

This is how I view "buying spells" and to a lesser degree buying weapons/armour... You can't walk into a walmart and buy a machine gun. I'm sure you can find someplace/someone that will sell you one though, but even then it'd be tough to find one customized to your exact liking. Want a bazooka? Well I don't think that connection of yours who sells guns from the trunk of his car will be much help, but maybe if you work up the chain you'd luck out and find yourself a heavy arms dealer, but you're not going to find him in a truck behind the convenience store. Still not happy with those RPGs? Well there are options out there, but you're into the big leagues now and you need not only the resources but some serious chutzpah before those guys will even talk to you, let alone even let you know of their existence.

My point here is that the bigger and more destructive (or game balance affecting) the toys, the more you need to work to get it. I hate hate hate the magicmart mentality. Where the hell is the responsibility and accountability in your game world?
"Hey shopkeep, can I get a couple scrolls of cloudkill and a dozen arrows of human slaying"
"Sure thing. What's it for?"
"oh, uh, gophers... yeah, gophers"
"heh yeah those buggers have been tearing up my yard too. What about those arrows?"
"uh... were-gophers?"

[Anklebite]

wizard is only good for a 1 level dip into conjurer, for the abrupt jaunt variant and benign transposition.


 

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

I'm quite serious. Overall I do recognize the power of wizards, but I hate the magicmart mentality and the assumption that just because a spell was printed that a wizard automatically gets it with no cost involved (or close to). Everyone seems to blissfully ignore the built in balancing factor that wizards have to work for their spells, which is where DM control and fiat kicks in. Inevitably someone will point out that line in the DMG that a player should be able to find whatever they want in a large enough city, which to me is just a piss poor excuse of "wah wah I want my spells because the rules say I can get them". Even assuming that you can buy all your spells off scrolls, a lot of builds neglect that cost when calculating their gear.

I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make here. When the core books gives any wizard above about 10th level access to Sigil - yes, he should be able to purchase just about any spell he wants. Just like the fighter should be able to buy the armor and weapons he wants. Or is using the rules wrong when the wizard wants something? This isn't some RAW vs. RAI argument, or some TO thought exercise - this is a perfectly reasonable option that's fully supported both by the RAW and the RAI.

If a DM has to restrict a wizard in such a fashion in order to challenge him, that's a problem with the DM, not the wizard.

I think that that's actually a very fair way to challenge a wizard. Wizard is way too powerful when he gets every spell he needs. On the level of destroying all but the most highly powered campaigns, sometimes.

Back in 2.0, the wizard had to get a spellbook/scroll or a library to research spells. It's often hard to get those things. Also, priests had a much smaller basic spell list, and a much larger domain list. They got 1 domain, and they got to spontaneous cast from their list.

When you compare the two of these to the way 3.5 spellcaster classes work, I'd have to say that these two are better balanced.

I'm not anti-high powered, at all. Far from it. But I think that if the DM makes the wizard choose his spells in such a fashion, that it's a fair way to balance the wizard. Not to mention that it can A) change the feel of the campaign to be much lower power (if you like that), and it can be extremely important in the case of fighters and monks in the party.

The DM should, of course, TELL the players that they'll be doing that. As long as the players and the DM agree to something, then it should be pretty cool.

No, I don't let wizards get whatever spells they want.
No, I don't let fighters buy whatever gear they want.

This isn't "restricting in order to challenge the player". This is doing your gorram job as a DM.

When I DM, I let my players make a wish list, and some of that gets parsed out along with random treasure. This is to curb cherry picking and keep game balance (for encounters and within the party) within my control. I like high power as much as the next guy, and I don't even consider myself anti-caster, but I'm definitely anti-letmyplayersdowhateverthehelltheywant.

This is how I view "buying spells" and to a lesser degree buying weapons/armour... You can't walk into a walmart and buy a machine gun. I'm sure you can find someplace/someone that will sell you one though, but even then it'd be tough to find one customized to your exact liking. Want a bazooka? Well I don't think that connection of yours who sells guns from the trunk of his car will be much help, but maybe if you work up the chain you'd luck out and find yourself a heavy arms dealer, but you're not going to find him in a truck behind the convenience store. Still not happy with those RPGs? Well there are options out there, but you're into the big leagues now and you need not only the resources but some serious chutzpah before those guys will even talk to you, let alone even let you know of their existence.

My point here is that the bigger and more destructive (or game balance affecting) the toys, the more you need to work to get it. I hate hate hate the magicmart mentality. Where the hell is the responsibility and accountability in your game world?
"Hey shopkeep, can I get a couple scrolls of cloudkill and a dozen arrows of human slaying"
"Sure thing. What's it for?"
"oh, uh, gophers... yeah, gophers"
"heh yeah those buggers have been tearing up my yard too. What about those arrows?"
"uh... were-gophers?"

Not to be an echo, but Surreal is completely right.

I prefer to pretty much only play in the highest two tier games. That said as a player I love cooperative play and do not like to see either a wiz overshadowing everyone or the DM railroading to hell in order to protect the gameworld.

The only other alternative is to impose reasonable restrictions (e.g. a non Magicmart gameworld) in order to still allow players options (e.g. fun) while not breaking everything wide open. Its sort of a necessity with very skillful, very min-maxish player. For the record I find these the best kind to play with.

For instance, while I don't find it at all broken to allow an actual Beholder Mage [but I ban polymorph on up ] in play you can bet the DM is going to warn the player about making sure the tank, the DPS, and the party face don't feel useless.

Indeed, limiting a player in logical ways is the sign of a good DM rather than an inept anything-goes might-as-well-not-be-the-DM sort of DM.

[Sinfire Titan]

Not to be an echo, but Surreal is completely right.

I prefer to pretty much only play in the highest two tier games. That said as a player I love cooperative play and do not like to see either a wiz overshadowing everyone or the DM railroading to hell in order to protect the gameworld.

The only other alternative is to impose reasonable restrictions (e.g. a non Magicmart gameworld) in order to still allow players options (e.g. fun) while not breaking everything wide open. Its sort of a necessity with very skillful, very min-maxish player. For the record I find these the best kind to play with.

For instance, while I don't find it at all broken to allow an actual Beholder Mage [but I ban polymorph on up ] in play you can bet the DM is going to warn the player about making sure the tank, the DPS, and the party face don't feel useless.

Indeed, limiting a player in logical ways is the sign of a good DM rather than an inept anything-goes might-as-well-not-be-the-DM sort of DM.

And this is where I voice the other side.

Limiting certain aspects of the game (Candle of Invocation loops, similar abusive yet legal exploits) is fine. Limiting something that is calculated into the encounter is not. IE, limiting a Fighter's access to the bare minimum gear needed to be able to contribute (if he's missing at most 25% of his WBL because of the DM, in other words).

Restricting a player has it's limits. Another sign of a good DM is one who is able to cope with the power level his players like to play at. If your DM is actively scaling encounters to match your wits and combat abilities, then he's doing his job just as efficiently as a DM who knows what to restrict and what to allow.

If this goes off on a tangent, I'd prefer to start a new thread. This is a bit more serious than the OP intended.

[Echoes]

Edit: Moved to the new thread.