Wizards

[Username17]

Specialist Wizards

Note: Here’s something I started working on last nigh. This is not the same as my Final Fantasy Work, there are no Wizards - specialist or otherwise - in the Final Fantasy d20 system.

Design Intent: Wizards Wizards compare poorly to Clerics. They have worse BAB, worse Hit Points, worse Skill Lists, worse weapon and armor proficiencies, worse saves, a much harder time learning new spells, the inability to cast spells in armor (which hinders multiclassing even more) and even less spells per day. Despite all this sucking that the class does - it makes up for this by having the most powerful spells in the game.

Of the infinite loops in the game, fully half of them are Wizard-only - with all of the others collectively distributed between Clerics, Druids, Bards and Warrior types. Even on the more sane end of the spectrum, the high power spells like Polymorph have a strong tendency to be Wizard spells. As, seemingly, it is intended.

However, there exist some things in D&D which Clerics or Druids are better at than Wizards. This is, of course, horribly broken. If a Cleric is better at anything spellcasting related than is the Wizard - the Cleric is clearly overpowered in that as previously noted the Cleric is better at absolutely everything not directly related to spell-power. In fact, in those instances where the Cleric’s version of the spell is merely as good as the Wizard version of the same spell (such as with the summon monster spells) - there is a clear imbalance, either the Cleric version must be nerfed, or the Wizard version needs additional perks.

Design Intent: Specialist Wizards Specialist Wizards are, honestly, the only Wizards that actually exist - like Specialty Priests in games which actually used the Complete Book of Priests back in the bad old days of “Advanced” Dungeons and Dragons. And they are supposed to be the best at their gimmick, and indeed actually perform their gimmick. In reality, of course, a Specialist Wizard only has one spell of each level which has to be of the school - so there is really nothing to stop people from just being a Diviner and preparing all of their other spells as Fireball. There is no real incentive for a Diviner to not excel at casting Evocations - and even less incentive for someone who wants to burn things to write down “Evoker” on their character sheet.

Partial Solution: Specialty Domains The concept is simple: a specialist gains 1 spell of each level from their school. That spell should be drawn from a special domain list of spells which are simply better and/or lower level than the spells of the same school available to people who are not specialists in that school. So, for example, an Abjurer gets Greater Dispelling as their first level spell, and Magic Circle as their second - their bonus spells are significantly better than the Abjuration spells others can cast. Thus, someone who wants to cast good Abjuration spells will actually want to be an Abjuration Specialist.

Similarly, like Domains, each school will come with its own “granted power” - something that allows characters to perform the duties that their specialty implies. Conjurers and Necromancers, for example, get a special Leadership-like progression of followers they gain from off camera experiments and/or demonic pacts. Illusionists, on the other hand, gain Sneak, Bluff, and Sleight of Hand as class skills and an additional skill point every Wizard level.

This concept is in its infancy - obviously - but it’s a start.

-Username17

[Maj]

However, there exist some things in D&D which Clerics or Druids are better at than Wizards. This is, of course, horribly broken. If a Cleric is better at anything spellcasting related than is the Wizard - the Cleric is clearly overpowered in that as previously noted the Cleric is better at absolutely everything not directly related to spell-power.

Does this apply to healing? A cleric is way better at healing magic than a wizard is, but I don't think that is a bad thing.

Despite all this sucking that the class does - it makes up for this by having the most powerful spells in the game.

And then...

In fact, in those instances where the Cleric’s version of the spell is merely as good as the Wizard version of the same spell (such as with the summon monster spells) - there is a clear imbalance, either the Cleric version must be nerfed, or the Wizard version needs additional perks.

The notion that because wizards have the most powerful spell list, and thus all their spells must be more powerful is divisionally fallacious.

I don't know if you care, but if you're trying to perfect the system, you might not want to base it on a logic fallacy.

[Draco_Argentum]

Greater Dispelling as a first level spell?

[Username17]

Does this apply to healing?

And to creating undead, and travelling to other planes, and summoning Fiendish Girallons, and absolutely everything else that you can think of that Cleric spells do as well or better than Wizard spells.

The notion that because wizards have the most powerful spell list, and thus all their spells must be more powerful is divisionally fallacious.

Huh? Wizards only have the spells they actually prepare. What's on their list doesn't make any difference at all. Wizards are only balanced against Clerics if the actual spells that they actually have are better - either because the Clerical versions get kicked in the crotch in some way or the Wizards get a better version. Putting a spell on the Wizard list which is not better is like allowing the character to not spend their feats or get less skill points. It's an option which - if used - makes the character definitionally underpowered.

There shouldn't be any way to make a Wizard who's just a Cleric who sucks. After all, if you look at it from the other way - that would be like allowing you to make a Cleric who was just like a Wizard except with more hit points, better saves, a higher BAB and more spells per day. If any conformation of Wizard has spells so craptacular that it would be balanced to simply give them half again more BAB, better equipment, better saves, and more hit points for free - obviously their spells simply aren't good enough.

Greater Dispelling as a first level spell?

Yes.

Abjurers should be able to dispel things - that's the whole point after all. They shouldn't arbitrarily stop being able to dispel things just because they got to 11th level. Greater Dispelling isn't any different from Dispel Magic for the first 10 levels of your life - so if it was balanced for a 2nd level Abjurer to wander around with a Dispel Magic in his head (and, honestly, it is), then it is equally balanced for the same character to have a Greater Dispelling instead - because the spells have exactly the same effect.

As for the 11th level character - is it unbalanced for his Dispellings to still work at the same frequency against enemies of his level that they did two adventures ago? If it was balanced for the 10th level character to have a 50% chance of dispelling the Enemy Wizard's Curse, I don't see how it could possibly be some kind of game balance imperitive that when they meet up again two sessions later that suddenly the Abjurer should only have a 45% chance of successfully dispelling the same curse now that they are both one level higher.

So yes, Greater Dispelling is a first level spell for Abjurers. I can't see how anyone could have a problem with that.

-Username17

[Essence]

I don't question the fact that giving a wizard access to a cleric's abilities won't make the wizard too powerful as a class: it won't.

I don't question the fact that making a wizard who refuses to memorize/cast spells that aren't also available to clerics would make that wizard suck: it would.

What I question is the rationale behind wanting to make the wizard able to steal the cleric's main shtick if he desires. Why would you want to do that?


Essence

[Username17]

The Cleric's main schtick?

The Cleric's main schtick is that he is just a good a warrior as the Monk, and can turn undead, and has two or more other domain powers, and also gets to cast spells without spending any special effort into it.

When a Wizard has a spell prepared, it represents focus. It represents that the character has not only selected that spell out of the Wizard's smaller spells/day pool - but that she has gone out and learned that spell as one of just 2-8 spells that she has at that level. It means that the player has given up BAB, hit points, weapon proficiencies, armor proficiencies, and one of a very small number of slots in her spell book just to cast that frickin spell. It had better be good.

In fact, it had better be superior to what the Cleric could be doing along the same lines because the cleric doesn't have to give up shit to get that spell. The cleric has all spells known, so she isn't giving up slots in her spell book, she has all those warrior abilities so she isn't giving up a whole lot of combat potential to have that spell on tap. The only thing she is giving up for that spell is a spell slot - and that spell slot can be cast as either of two different spells for that Cleric. Heck, even the spell slot itself is worth less to the Cleric because she has more of them to begin with.

Now, I personally don't think that "healing" is all that great. It happens out of combat anyway, and combat healing spells pretty much suck until you get to very high level anyway. But that's not the point. The point is that if any Wizard player invests in "Healing Magic" they have invested more in healing magic than a Cleric possibly can. Their character class is "healer" to a greater degree than a Cleric's is at that point - so they deserve to be better at healing than a Cleric.

Who should be better at healing magic - Clerics or Paladins? By the same logic, from a game balance perspective - who should be better at healing magic - Wizards or Clerics?

-Username17

[Username17]

Here's what I'm talking about:

Necromancer

Special Ability: A Necromancer can create a cadre of relatively loyal undead servitors. The power and number of Undead that a Necromancer can control at any one time is level dependent. The Necromancer can create any corporeal undead of equal or lower CR to those allowed by his level. Any creatures lost can be replaced whenever the Necromancer has a week to work on his various projects and access to bodies (assume that any time the necromancer is performing “magical research” or creating magic items, that she has access to bodies).
Spell List
0: Last Vision (see below)
1: Speak with Dead (PHB)
2: Animate Dead (See Below)
3: Vampiric Touch (PHB)
4: Finger of Death (PHB)
5: Clone (PHB)
6: Summon Souls (See Below)
7: Soul Bind (PHB)
8: Wail of the Banshee (PHB)
9: Soul Exchange (See Below)

New Spells:

Last Vision
Necromancy
Level: Necromancer 0
Components: V, S, F
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: Touch
Target: Dead Creature Touched
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute/level
Save: None.
SR: No.

The caster puts her hand on a creature which has been dead for no more than one weak per caster level and sees a vision of the last things the creature saw before their death. The vision begins at the point of death and works backwards at one minute per minute until the duration of the spell ends. So a 3rd level Necromancer can see whatever the creature saw in its last three minutes of life if her concentration is not interupted.
The spell confers only visual information, and is exactly how the dead creature saw it (so the last vision of a human which died in total darkness reveals only blackness even if the caster has darkvision).
Focus: Casting this spell requires access to at least one whole ocular cavity of the deceased creature.

Animate Dead
Necromancy
Level: Necromancer 2, Wizard 4, Cleric 4
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: Close (25 feet plus 5 feet/2 levels)
Target: One or more dead creatures within a 30 foot burst.
Duration: Until the sun rises or sets.
Save: None.
SR: No.

Casting this spell temporarily compels bodies to rise up and serve the caster. Bodies with most of their flesh intact rise as zombies, and bodies which are mostly or wholly skeletonized become skeletons. The spell animates a maximum number of hit dice of creatures equal to twice the caster’s level. The spell animates the bodies of creatures with the least number of hit dice first. Among the bodies of creatures with the same number of hit dice - creatures closer to the spell’s point of origin are affected first. Hit Dice not sufficient to affect a creature are wasted. Only count the creature’s original hit dice count - not its new hit dice when it becomes a skeleton or a zombie.
The newly created undead serve the Necromancer as loyally as if they were summoned monsters, and return to being corpses when the sun next rises or sets if they have not already been destroyed.

Summon Souls
Necromancy
Level: Necromancer 6
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: Close (25 feet plus 5 feet/2 levels)
Target: One or more dead intelligent creatures within a 30 foot burst.
Duration: Until the sun rises or sets.
Save: None.
SR: No.

Casting this spell temporarily compels the spirits of slain intelligent creatures to return as incorporeal undead and serve the caster. Bodies of affected dead creatures with less than 7 hit dice produce Wraiths, bodies of affected dead creatures with between 7 and 12 hit dice produce Spectres, and the bodies of creatures with 13 or more hit dice produce Dread Wraiths. The body of any creature with an Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma of less than 8 is not affected. The body of any creature which has been returned to life or had its soul captured or destroyed is also not affected. The spell creates no more than 4 undead creatures.
The newly created undead serve the Necromancer as loyally as if they were summoned monsters, and vanish when the sun next rises or sets if they have not already been destroyed.

Soul Exchange
Necromancy
Level: Necromancer 9
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 Full Round
Range: Touch
Target: Self and Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Save: Will Negates
SR: Yes.

The caster’s soul takes over the victim’s body. Forever.
The caster’s body dies, and the caster now controls the body of the victim. The victim’s soul, if any, passes on as if the caster had slain the victim in a normal fashion. The caster now has all of the physical traits of the victim, including apparent age. The victim is dead, and cannot be raised or even resurrected until the caster leaves the body. The caster does not gain any of the class features, weapon or armor proficiencies, or skills of the victim - but does gain a +15 bonus on Bluff checks to impersonate the victim.

[Essence]

Does this mean you're dropping the customary divisions between arcane and divine magic? Does this decision work both ways (I.E. if you're allowing arcane magic to heal, are you allowing divine magic access to illusions, enchantments, and direct-damage as long as those spells are universally weaker than their arcane counterparts?)


Essence

[Ramnza]

Are you trying to make the wizard more powerful than the cleric? Or are you trying to make them equal in power.

Also

...a specialist gains 1 spell of each level from their school. That spell should be drawn from a special domain list of spells which are simply better and/or lower level than the spells of the same school available to people who are not specialists in that school.

I like the idea of domains. But, where will it stop? Why not give Druids domains too?

[Username17]

Does this mean you're dropping the customary divisions between arcane and divine magic?

What division? Clerics have had Flame Strike since before I was born. The only thematic division which has ever made sense is that Clerics get better everything else - and Wizards get better spells. As soon as the whiners got equal spells for the Clerics everything went to crap. To maintain mere equality, Wizards needed to get better spells, and then Clerics got equal treatment, so Wizards got better spells.... and you end up with Shapechange granting the Supernatural Abiltiies of Epic Level Monsters.

The only thematic difference between Clerical Spells and Wizard spells is that Cleric spells are an afterthought that they don't have to invest any of their character in at all - while as Wizards have to spend their entire wad into their spellcasting to make it work and don't even have anything else to fall back on.

Are you trying to make the wizard more powerful than the cleric?

I am explicitly trying to make Wizard spells better than Cleric Spells. On the face of it, this would not make the Wizards necessarily more powerful than the Clerics. The Wizards are so incredibly behind before their spell power gets taken into account in every measurable way that even with better spells across the board there is no guaranty that the Cleric class would not be better over all.

I like the idea of domains. But, where will it stop? Why not give Druids domains too?

Domains are a good way of expressing character specialization. Wizards get a bonus spell from a school list each level, and some flavorless and meaningless abilities that go with their school (+2 to identify spells from their school and such). They already have a Domain, effectively - it just sucks and provides no flavor. A Diviner isn't any different from an Evoker (except that the Diviner mysteriously gives up less schools). In fact, both characters probably have Spell Focus: Evocation.

I'm suggesting strengthening and shifting the Domain powers so that they actually help you do the things you want to do with the school. The Necromancer gets to have a zombie follow him around at first level. That's what people want when they write "Necromancer" on their character sheet. The Diviner gets Bardic Knowledge - he's the guy who people go to when they want to know what's going on - that's what people are looking for when they write "Diviner" on their character sheet. The Illusionist gets to have full ranks in Bluff, Sleight of Hand, and Sneak - he gets to actually deceive people and that'swhat people want when they write "Illusionist" on their character sheet.

To my knowledge, there is no a similar divide within the Druid class. There probably should be, but there is not. Right now a Druid can have a Celestial Triceratops as their animal companion when they get to high level, and have had an Octopus, and a Dire Wolf at various times in the past. The Druid's fighting style and magical focus can change completely every single day - especially at high level. The druid who transforms herself into an Immoth, then prepares all of her spells as Ice Runes, then transforms herself into a Dire Tiger and pounce in the very same round as slapping herself with Nature's Avatar - granting her the extra Haste Attack on the first round of combat can actually be the very same Druid who next day transforms herself into an Octopus and drops 4 flame strikes and a creeping doom on someone in one round.

She can switch from artillery caster to bruiser at whim, and her selected animals are limited mostly by the patience the player has for combing through the monster books and lining up combos.

That's not right, actually, and the Druid should probably be restrained in some fashion to keep them from doing that. That could also be done with domains, but I figure that it should be done by having them pick up Lycanthropy-like powers at specific levels. Congratulations, now you can turn into a bear, this adds +10 to your strength and gives you improved grab and so on and so forth. That's a different discussion, however.

-Username17

[Essence]

What division? Clerics have had Flame Strike since before I was born. The only thematic division which has ever made sense is that Clerics get better everything else - and Wizards get better spells.

The division laid out on, say, page 95 of the DMG. Sor/wiz spells should not be healing spells, but should get flashy/dramatic spells. Clerics are best at spells that deal with alignment and have the best selection of curative/restorative spells and information-gathering spells. Druids are best at plant/animal/weather spells. Rangers and paladins shouldn't ever get flashy or offensive spells. Bards spells should be enchantments and information-gather spells, but never large offensive spells.

Yes, clerics get a direct-damage spell. I think they even get three or four across their entire spell list. Woopty-frickin-do. Flame Strike, their first real dd (Sound Burst doesn't count), is two levels higher than Fireball with basically the same area -- or, it's the same level as Cone of Cold, which does more damage to a bigger area.

Which means that clerics don't hurt things like wizards do.
Similarly, wizards shouldn't heal things like clerics do. (Not that they can't heal in general -- they get Major Creation at 5th level, same level clerics get Flame Strike. Not to mention other curative/restorative spells like summon monster, stone to flesh, remove curse, false life and more.)



As Maj said, the idea that

If a Cleric is better at anything spellcasting related than is the Wizard - the Cleric is clearly overpowered in that as previously noted the Cleric is better at absolutely everything not directly related to spell-power.

is divisionally fallacious. Which is to say:

The Fallacy of Division
Definition: Because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property. The whole in question may be either a whole object or a collection or set of individual members.
Examples:
(i) A brick wall is six feet high, thus, each brick in the wall is six feet high.
(ii) Because the brain is capable of consciousness, each neural cell in the brain must be capable of consciousness.

Directly applied to your theory: with the premise of "the wizard spell list is more powerful than the cleric's spell list", it is bad logic to claim that "every spell on the wizard spell list is/should be more powerful than every spell on the cleric's spell list", because the entire list can be more powerful as a unit even if individual spells are weaker -- and it is the power of the list as a whole that determines the amount of 'power' the class has left over to devote to HP, BAB, skills, saves, and class features.

If the sum total of the things clerics can do with their spells is not as powerful as the sum total of the things wizards can do with theirs (I think we all agree this is true), then the clerics have to make up for the weakness of their spell list by being stronger in terms of BAB, HP, saves, skills, and spells known.

You might be interested in arguing as to the exact balance struck, but that's a different topic.


Also, by your own admission, most of the power-loops in the game belong to Wizards. Some of these power-loops involve spells that other classes have access to (Summon Monster and Gate come to mind). But because of the other spells that wizards have on their lists (Binding, for example), only wizards can take full advantage of these loops. Thus, a wizard's power is derived from his spell list as a whole, not the spells as individual magical abilities.

[Username17]

The division laid out on, say, page 95 of the DMG.

That division is bullshit. Clerics have just as many flashy spells as Wizards. Wizards have Minor Creation - which is in turn capable of generating thousands of applications of healing salve, etc.

Flame Strike, their first real dd (Sound Burst doesn't count), is two levels higher than Fireball with basically the same area -- or, it's the same level as Cone of Cold, which does more damage to a bigger area.

What, Knife Spray and Sword Stream aren't good enough for you? And while we are on the subject - Flame Strike does more damage than Cone of Cold. Or rather, it does the same damage, but half of it is unresistable damage - a massively big deal if you are trying to damage objects for instance.

Which means that clerics don't hurt things like wizards do.

That's not true though. Clerical damage spells aren't especially smaller than Wizard spells - and at high level they are bigger. While there are in fact less of them in the entire list - that also doesn't make a damn bit of difference - as Clerics automatically know all og their spells so having even one direct damage spell on their list means that they can prepare it every day. Meanwhile, regardless of what may or may not be on the Wizard's spell list, the Wizard actually only has 2 to 8 spells of each level - so if there are 6 different direct damage spells of a specific level - an actual wizard is probably only going to know one of them - and may not know any.

So who does more direct damage? The character who has to go out and learn a direct damage spell or the character who already knows a spell that is just as good or better and has more spell slots to prepare them with?

Similarly, wizards shouldn't heal things like clerics do.

Why not? Clerics get all the Direct Damage they ever wanted and more at high level - and their magic is supposed to be weaker over all. Can you come up with any method of ensuring that a Cleric's spells are weaker other than simply making sure that the wizard's spells are all individually superior at whatever it is they do?

Directly applied to your theory: with the premise of "the wizard spell list is more powerful than the cleric's spell list", it is bad logic to claim that "every spell on the wizard spell list is/should be more powerful than every spell on the cleric's spell list", because the entire list can be more powerful as a unit even if individual spells are weaker -- and it is the power of the list as a whole that determines the amount of 'power' the class has left over to devote to HP, BAB, skills, saves, and class features.

That's bullshit.

A Wizard is supposed to cast spells that are more powerful than the spells cast by a Cleric. The only way to ensure that is for each spell to individually be superior as well.

After all, there is no guaranty that a Wizard can even cast more than 1 spell of her highest level - therefore her "list" can quite reasonably be expected to be one spell. If that one spell isn't better than a Cleric casting the same thing (and the Cleric will always get at least 2 spells of her highest level) - then her "list" is not more powerful.

There is no division fallacy going on. You are just being wrong boy again.

-Username17

[Username17]

Or to put it more simply:

A Wizard who specializes in Summon Monster doesn't get anything out of the fact that he could have prepared Binding Power Loops instead.

The fact that he could have learned prepared other spells that would make him every bit the equal of a Cleric in no way changes the fact that the spells he actually has leave him underpowered compared to the Cleric.

Similarly, the fact that a high level Fighter could have multiclassed into something awesome in no way changes the fact that an actual high-level single classed Fighter is underpowered.

Options that you could have taken instead do not make your current condition any better - if anything they simply make it even more underpowered by comparison. That you can make a Wizard who is as powerful as a Cleric does not excuse the fact that it is equally possible to make a Wizard who is not.

If you invest in a spellcasting schtick for your wizard character, you should get more powerful spellcasting schtick than a Cleric would. Regardless of what that schtick is - because whatever the schtick is you have invested more in it if you did it through the Wizard class.

-Username17

[fbmf]

Just a friendly reminder to keep it civil.

Thanks.

-Management

[Essence]

That you can make a Wizard who is as powerful as a Cleric does not excuse the fact that it is equally possible to make a Wizard who is not.

The fact is that it's possible to make an X that is more powerful than a Y -- where X and Y are absolutely any class in the game. It's easy to make a wizard more powerful than a cleric -- it's also easy to make a cleric that's more powerful than a wizard...or a fighter...or a rogue...or blah, blah, blah -- because the classes themselves cannot be constructed in such a way as to make stupidly built characters the equal of intelligently built characters.

The most powerful wizard is as broken as the most powerful cleric -- either one can break the game in a dozen ways before breakfast.

The average wizard is as potent as the average cleric -- because the spell lists as a whole are balanced against the other features of the class.

The weakest wizard is worse off than the weakest cleric, because the weakest wizard isn't given a bigger HD/BAB/saves -- but no one cares, because if you build a weak-ass character, you're going to suck no matter what class you play.


Basically, what you're doing is turning the Cleric into a half-caster like the Bard, but instead of removing spell levels from the class, you're removing power from every individual spell he casts. In what way is this a better idea than letting the Cleric have the healing/buffing role in the party, and the Wizard have...well, every other role that magic provides?

What, Knife Spray and Sword Stream aren't good enough for you?

No, they're not. They're ass. 1d6+5 damage for a 2nd level spell, and 1d8+10 for a 3rd level spell is a joke. That's why clerics need wizards around -- to actually hurt things with magic in an effective and efficient manner.

. Clerical damage spells aren't especially smaller than Wizard spells - and at high level they are bigger.

Clerics get all the Direct Damage they ever wanted and more at high level - and their magic is supposed to be weaker over all.

Let's compare max. damage for one spell of every given level, for a pair of 20th level casters:
1st level -- 1d8+5 vs. 5d4+5 (ILW vs MM)
2nd level -- 2d8+10 vs. 14d4 (IMW vs. Acid Arrow)
3rd level -- 10d8 vs. 20d6 (Searing Light vs. Flame Arrow)
4th level -- 4d8+20 vs. 15d6 (ICW vs. <energy> Orb)
5th level -- 15d6 vs. 15d6 (Flame Strike vs. Cone of Cold)
6th level -- Harm vs. 20d6 (Harm vs. Chain Lightning)
7th level -- Harm vs. 20d6 (Harm vs. Delayed Blast Fireball)
8th level -- 20d6 vs. 20d8 (Fire Storm vs. Horrid Wilting)
9th level -- 66d6 vs. 48d6 (Storm of Vengence vs. Meteor Swarm)

So, the cleric ties our wins out the numbers contest in levels 5, 6, 7, and 9 -- but in every one of those levels, the wizard wins out in number of targets and/or spell area, and at 9th level, the wizard wins in the fact that it only takes him one round, not six, to deal the listed damage.

It's true, Frank -- wizards hurt things better than clerics do, across the board, as intended. Your arguments are logically fallacious and are based on ignoring the facts about the spell lists as they are written.

Can you come up with any method of ensuring that a Cleric's spells are weaker other than simply making sure that the wizard's spells are all individually superior at whatever it is they do?

Yes, and it's already been done. Those things that a wizard is supposed to be good at -- to wit: nuking stuff, making people believe things that aren't true, moving stuff (other than from plane to plane), and creating stuff -- are the things that, when compared to the cleric's abilities in the same area, the wizard wins out in. Those things that a cleric is supposed to be good at -- to wit: healing damage, removing status effects, moving stuff across planar boundaries, making friends, and buffing combatants -- are the things that, when compared to the wizard's abilities in the same area, the cleric wins out in.

Two different foci. Two different lists of spells. Either one sucks when it tries to accomplish things that lie in the scope of the other. The fact is, the wizard's focus is the one that is more powerful overall, and thus the wizard pays for it with a lower hit die, worse BAB, worse saves, and more difficult spell access.

The fact that a wizard sucks when it tries to be a cleric isn't indicative of a problem with the wizard class -- it's indicative of a problem with the player (that problem being, he should have been a cleric to begin with if he wanted that focus.)


Essence

[Joy_Division]

The passage on page 95 in the DMG has no game balance implications though. If there were a wizard who had the same schtick as a cleric he would by definition have to be better at it than a cleric. As long as that schitck was spell casting related.

Saying that the cleric and wizard focus on different things means that you have to try to figure out which effect is more helpful to the party. Only spell wise the cleric can have any of his foci on any given day. That is a wizard can be good at nuking or illusions or creation but a cleric is good for healing , restoration and planar movement in equal capacity on any day. Not to mention undead creation and planar binding. So if any of the main wizard schticks is not as helpful as any of the cleric ones that wizard sucks.

That's how I see it at least.

[Username17]

Your comparisons are inane. While some are simply outright false - the most important thing is that you are comparing maximum damage at a level where you wouldn't cast either spell. The important thing is not which one has the highest spell cap - but what actually hurts things the most when you have it as the spell you hurt things with. While Magic Missile caps out at 17.5 points of average damage - it does so at a level when you wouldn't use 17.5 points of damage to blow your nose. The actual comparison is between ILW and Magic Missile at first and second level - the time those are actually your top spells. It makes no difference who hits people harder with 1st level spells when they are 9th level - because neither character actually hits people with 1st level spells unless they are stupid.

The only claim you could possibly have is using them as a desperation move - that which you do when you've actually run out of higher level spells. And Clerics get more higher level spells and have much better combat stats - so they are both less likely to be in that situation and more able to cope with it regardless.

As to the specifics:

Melf's Acid Arrow does damage over a long period of time - and is completely craptacular. Showing it's maximum damage if the target lives the whole time is like claiming that the most powerful attack spell is extended acid fog. It's the kind of comparison that Daeleck liked to do - and you should know better. The actual comparison is Flaming Sphere vs. Knife Spray - they both suck, but at least Knife Spray hits more than one enemy.

You know that Flame Arrow is craptacular - whether or not it has the highest theoretical damage output is irrelevent. The comparison spell is Sword Stream vs. Fireball. Fireball does 17.5 damage with a save for half to an area, Sword Stream does only 9.5 damage to a smaller area and is thus a weaker spell (even if it does do untyped magical damage which is the very best possible type of damage). We would include Briar Web - as it is the most amazingly overpowered attack spell ever - but we are ignoring broken spells on both sides.

The best 4th level Cleric Direct Damage Spell is actually Holy Smite. it does 12.5 damage and blinds an area - Cold Orb does 24.5 damage and blinds only one target and requires an attack roll. Which spell is better depends upon your situation.

At fifth level, Flame Strike and Cone of Cold do the same damage - but Flame Strike bypasses energy resistance and does three times as much damage to objects - so it is the better spell.

At sixth level, Harm and Chain Lightning both suck - the actual spells people use are Blade Barrier and OFS. Blade Barrier is a lot more useful, and is far and away the better spell. If we get really extreme - some Clerics can cast fire seeds at this level, which does more damage than god. But as the Cleric has already won this level, it matters naught.

At seventh level, Clerics actually fight with Slime Wave and Holy Word - which don't exactly do hit point damage at all - so this is a hard comparison. We are left comparing Blade Barrier to DBF - which is oddly a rather close comparison. They do the same damage (45.5 damage) and have very different ways of inflicting it. Which method is better is situational

Horrid Wilting does a d6 now. Firestorm is a larger area of effect and does the same damage. Firestorm is a bigger spell. Clerics win at 8th level. By a lot, actually.

At 9th level the comparison is between Meteor Swarm and Storm of Vengeance. Storm of Vengeance is extremely hard to use, and is usually of little use in combat - so Meteor Swarm is a much better spell.

Right - so Wizards come out about the same as Clerics at levels 1, 2, 4, and 7. The Wizard is flat better at levels 3 and 9. The Cleric is better at levels 5, 6, and 8. And this is supposed to be the Wizard's specialty? Remember that anywhere that Clerics and Wizards come out about the same the Cleric is actually miles ahead because the spell in question has no opportunity cost to know and is being drawn from a larger pool of spells per day.

So after we sweep aside your Daeleckian comparisons - how do you defend the Cleric being somehow bad at the Wizard's schtick? He's only bad at direct damage around 4th-6th level and comparatively around 17th-20th level. In the other 13 levels he's as good or better at what the Wizard is paying so very much to supposedly excel at.

-Username17

[Essence]

Your point about the spell comparisions is well made and well taken.

Your logic about making every individual wizard spell more powerful than the equivalent cleric spell -- and allowing wizards access to all cleric spells -- is nonetheless ill-concieved. To keep close to the design intent and flavor of the classes, all that is necessary is to raise the bar on wizard nukes above that set by the superior cleric nukes of whatever level. Presto! Only about 1/40th the work, and you've restored the original balance set by the class descriptions. Wizards can now nuke authoritatively, and they still have all of their enchantment/illusion/etc which is and has always been well clear of clercial infringement. Clerics still heal, remove status effects, gather information, and do everything they are intended to be able to do better than wizards.


Essence

[Username17]

That still wouldn't do it.

The design intent of a Wizard is to be good at whatever spells you happen to know. When you get to 3rd level, you know exactly two 2nd level spells, one of which is from your specialty school, and one of which can be anything off the wizard list. Those two spells are your class features, they are the only spells of this level on the entire Wizard list as far as you are concerned at that point. When you get to 9th level there are only two 5th level wizard spells.

To even hope to balance the Wizard against the Cleric by some kind of hand waving gestault spell list comparison - you'd have to make sure that there was at least one spell which dwarfed the equivalent Cleric spell in every school of every level. Which brings us back to the superior specialization thing I talked about in the beginning of this thread.

Remember, when you get too high level for Flame Strike to properly express your hatred, having been casting it doesn't cost you anything - because it didn't cost you anything to learn it in the first place. But when you outgrow Cone of Cold - you now have a wasted spell in your fifth level spell section - a section of your spell book which is likely to be as little as four total spells.

That means that even at levels where the Wizard's nuking spells are better - it still has a huge cost. That Fireball is better than anything the Cleric gets at that level by a notable margin in most situations. But in the long run, the Wizard pays a huge cost in ever learning and casting Fireball and the Cleric pays absolutely nothing in casting Swordstream yesterday as compared to today. Even having nuking spells that are momentarily better does not make the Wizard good - he still needs backup spells that are also better or he becomes the guy with three spell slots and some crap.

-Username17

[Essence]

To even hope to balance the Wizard against the Cleric by some kind of hand waving gestault spell list comparison - you'd have to make sure that there was at least one spell which dwarfed the equivalent Cleric spell in every school of every level.

Let me see if I get what you're saying:

1) It's possible to build a wizard whose entire list of spells known also appears on the cleric's spell list.

2) That wizard would suck compared to a cleric of his level.

3) Therefore, wizards should have access to every spell in the game, and should have the best versions of every spell in the game.


That...doesn't follow. At the absolute most -- and this, to me is a stretch -- the conclusion is that every spell that appears on BOTH lists needs to appear in a superior version on the wizard list. And even then, I'm inclined to say "Oh, well, the wizard chose stupid spells. Too bad, he could have been useful instead of trying to step on the cleric's toes." -- because there's no amount of game balance that can make up for player stupidity.

That means that even at levels where the Wizard's nuking spells are better - it still has a huge cost.
in the long run, the Wizard pays a huge cost in ever learning and casting Fireball and the Cleric pays absolutely nothing in casting Swordstream yesterday as compared to today.

You are correct; playing a wizard in a game where the DM never gives you a spellbook to learn from sucks. This is identical to the balance issue involving playing a ranger in a game where the DM never shows you your favored enemy, or playing a cleric in a game with no undead and enemies of your own alignment. The solution to this problem is to change the way in which wizards learn spells.

Even having nuking spells that are momentarily better does not make the Wizard good - he still needs backup spells that are also better or he becomes the guy with three spell slots and some crap.

The wizard has better backup spells than any other class as well. Images, Charms, Dominates, Teleports, Walls, Shadow spells, Creation spells, Fabricate...nothing the cleric has can match the wizard's versatility and power outside of direct damage, either.

I mean, really, which is stronger: the entire 5th level cleric list, or Teleport, Telekinesis, Major Creation, and Fabricate?


Essence

[Username17]

Therefore, wizards should have access to every spell in the game, and should have the best versions of every spell in the game.

No. My conclusion is that every spell the Wizard has access to should be massively superior to any spell that a Cleric can come up with that does the same thing.

Since people want Wizard spells that animate the dead, for instance, Wizards should have better dead animation spells than Clerics do. Period.

-Username17

[Essence]

Ah...then I've been misunderstanding you. I could swear you said

Does this apply to healing?

And to creating undead, and travelling to other planes, and summoning Fiendish Girallons, and absolutely everything else that you can think of that Cleric spells do as well or better than Wizard spells.

...which, in my mind, means "wizards should have every spell in the game on their class spell list."

If, in fact, you have no intention of allowing a wizard to accomplish everything that a cleric could do, then I don't see any problem in making sure that the wizard is better at those spells that are duplicated across both lists. It's a decision based on fallacious logic, but logic certainly isn't the only way of assessing the validity of a decision.


But then, I also don't see any problem in allowing wizards to continue to suck at animating dead, either. If people want their wizards to animate dead better than Animate Dead allows them to, they can take a PrC, get a magic item to do it, research their own spell...or play a class that actually has animating the dead as one of their major foci. Seriously. Even a necromancer sucks at it -- because wizardly necromancy wasn't written to promote that function.

Complaining about your wizard's inability to animate dead is like complaining about your druid's inability to dazzle crowds with his wit and banter.


Essence

[Joy_Division]

1071615410[/unixtime]]
Complaining about your wizard's inability to animate dead is like complaining about your druid's inability to dazzle crowds with his wit and banter.

I see where you're coming from but I don't think that is a fair comparision. Mostly because:
1) Necromancers have strong flavor reasons to be able to animate dead. I would like to hear an argument as to why a Necromancer should not be able to animate dead better than, oh say ... a neutral cleric.
2) Comparing getting ranks in a cross class skill to getting a spell on the wizard list is really not fair. Everyone knows the points they sink into cross class skill will not be worth the same effect. All the spells on the wizard list would seem at face value to be balanced. Only a posteri knowledge from anaylzing each wizard spell on a case to case basis will allow you to determine whether or not that spell is a good choice for your character to make.

There are very few people I know of that can say with authority which wizard spells are good and which ones you need to avoid because they were screwed for some reason or another. I think making the the character balance effects of choosing wizard spells a little more transparent can't be a bad thing.

You can do this by making so people can't choose a wrong spell, this can be done by either doing as frank suggests or by elimnating sucky spells from the wizard list. Or you can try to find a system that gives people fair warning that a certain spell will suck.

It's not nescessarily a bad thing that to play a good wizard you need a bit of experience and know how, but it's even better if it's foolproof.

[Essence]

Comparing getting ranks in a cross class skill to getting a spell on the wizard list is really not fair.

Diplomacy is on the Druid's skill list; that's the point. It's an ability they have, but they aren't that great at. Just like wizards animating dead.

I think making the the character balance effects of choosing wizard spells a little more transparent can't be a bad thing.

I agree.


Essence

[Joy_Division]

Ah you meant diplomacy for some reason I thought you meant perform.
(Runs and checks to make sure druids don't get perform)

Although even then , what makes a druid so bad at using Diplomacy? Could you explain that to me? Is the skill less potent when a druid uses it as compared to a cleric with the same charisma?