Wizard/Sorcrer - Spells and Class Limitations

[RedGiant]

To prevent a thread hijack, continued from the greensteel thread.

I would also add that multi-classing in this fashion was made attractive due to the substantial nerfs to entire lines of sorcerer and wizard spells. Wild Mage has helped make pure classing somewhat viable again, but...still need help IMO. This is probably another conversation.

Which spells were nerfed that would've made it even marginally more optimal to stay pure classed had they not been nerfed?

One of the reasons I generally don't play wizards/sorcerer's on Arelith is due to several design decisions which dramatically reduced the power/playability of these classes.

-Nerfed the Missile line of spells (in addition to normal counters such as spell mantles and globes, they added shield w/ abjuration feats, and severely knee-capped the IGMS DPS.)
-Nerfed the Bigby line of spells (reflex saves added, added additional counters/cures)
-Nerfed layering damage shields
-Nerfing of fear and fear-inducing disablers
-Nerfing dispel line of spells (limiting the caster's lvl calculation by as much as 10)
-Nerfed area effect stacking possibilities (leaving blade barrier stacking in place for clerics...?!?)
-Nerfed durations on almost all 'escape' spells (invis-g.sanctuary) + removed ports in combat


Added to this list are several one-off unfavorable changes to individual spells (i.e. Evard's) as well as changes that affect classes beyond the arcane casters, such as the nerfing of Arelith's enhancements to epic evocation.

To all of this we might add the inconvenience of...well...spell components. (While I lobbied hard for them before we had them, I had more in mind a video-game friendly version of spell components. I.e. one-time, non-consumable purchases from in-game magic shops to aid in RP.)

Granted, there have been many great enhancements to wizards and sorcerers. Some that come immediately to mind are; the brilliance of the foci system, the planar-binding/dismissal spells, conjuration enhancements, and the Two-Swords (MK's & BBoD).

As one who almost exclusively played wizards on every other server until coming to Arelith, the net effect of all these changes is to make the class feel entirely different. For me, this isn't a good thing. Having so many arcane-specific spells down-graded make playing a wizard feel like playing an underclass. In addition, by epic levels most MOBs have a potpourri of ridiculous saves, HP, and immunities that render most, if not all, of your spells useless. Finally, I think these changes have tacitly encouraged odd 'builds' to replace the survivability once had through magic alone (i.e. Cortex's 27 Wizard 3 Bard reference).

Some recent changes are positive. The foci spells help and so do the summons, but this tends to make conjuration almost something of a meme of late, as noticed by many. This most certainly counts as my annual wizard rant. I'm not bitter, really, I just tend to play other things instead!

[Cortex]

Vanilla arcane casting is hella overpowered.

[RedGiant]

Vanilla arcane casting is hella overpowered.

Powerful yes, but balanced by severe limitations. In vanilla, a properly prepared wizard can generally prevail over a single powerful opponent...then they have to rest! Wizards are also squishy (ala Peppermint at 1d4 HP/lvl) and usually have terrible AB, AC, and saves (outside of certain 'builds'). On Arelith, they still have all these limitations but without most of the associated, if some-what short-lived, curb-stomping power.

Ergo...underclass.

[Cortex]

Wizard and sorcerer are both super strong, both in PvP and PvE, with all the tweaks they've received. Only certain scholls and spells are still in disuse, which still tend to be the case in vanilla.

EDIT: Funny thing to note, about every spell you named was nerfed is still very much powerful and used frequently.

[Lorkas]

-Nerfed area effect stacking possibilities (leaving blade barrier stacking in place for clerics...?!?)

It's a "line" spell rather than an area spell. The Wall of Fire spell can also be stacked by mages still. Blade barrier deals more damage, but has a reflex save for half (i.e. anyone with a rogue dip takes no damage from it if they make the save), while Wall of Fire has no save.

A pure mage would deal 37 no-save fire damage to anything passing through its wall of fire (assuming there's just one on the ground there), while a level 30 cleric would deal 0 on a made save with evasion, 35 on a failed save with IE or a made save without evasion, or 70 on a failed save without evasion. Given that 12 out of the 19 most common epic builds on Arelith include rogue or monk as of the last count. Personally, if I had to choose for my line spell to work like Blade Barrier or Wall of Fire I'd probably choose Wall of Fire.

[Peppermint]

As Cortex said: vanilla spellcasting is overpowered.

You're looking at 240 damage missile storms (which translates to something near a thousand damage during a timestop -- good luck surviving that!). Bigby's that can't be resisted in any way, shape, or form, unless you have an incredibly high strength value (and even then, the mage just NEB's). Damage shields that stack to return 100+ damage to you per hit. etc. Sanctuaries that last forever and make mages nigh invulnerable to anything.

A vanilla mage has no weakness in the hands of an experienced player, nor is the 27/3-style build uncommon on other servers. In fact, it's the norm. The only thing that differs is they tend to go 29/1, because hey, you don't need to dip three levels.

At any rate, I can't think of a single serious server that hasn't nerfed most of these spells in some way. Even still, mages are upper tier on Arelith.

As for blade barrier/wall of flame stacking, this remains not as an intentional design choice, but because a scripted solution was more of a pain. It's not hard to math out whether two round objects are stacking. It is hard to check the stack properties of two lines that you can't even retrieve the orientation of.

[I hope you got money]

Hey RG, LaF here. I think you are more used to lowbie wizards then high level wizards, because like some of the others have said vanilla mages are gods once they get to level 15 or so (which is why the servers we hail from soft cap at 12).

That being said, I agree that wizards are in a bad place, but that's because a high level sorcerer has always been better. Add in the true flame path and paladin dips, and really besides the wild mage (which even that is questionable compared to a sorc) there is no benefit to playing a wizard over a sorcerer in any shape or form. Add in the fact that some of the bosses are heavily resistant to magic to balance the true flame path, and yeah...wizard just seems awful.

I wish I had a good suggestion on how to balance that for you guys, because really sorcerers should be the rarer class of the two rp wise, but while I have played this game for years and consider myself pretty good at it like I mentioned in the first paragraph I'm used to lowbie levels more then anything. Maybe more infinite spells for wizards based on specialization? I dunno.

[I hope you got money]

Another suggestion to make it more balanced/realistic is to make sorcerers feared as much as they should be, with a faction geared toward hunting them down and burning them at the stake. I personally would love that and would be all for sorcerers being more powerful in that instance, but I doubt that would do anything but cause the feelbads in practice.

[Commissar]

As a sorcerer player, someone please hunt me. We're magical timebombs.

That said, I dispute the idea that sorcerers are superior to wizards. In straight up combat, perhaps; but a wizard has a bucketload more feats and an enormous skill selection, thanks to that pumped-up INT. A wizard can usually take crafting feats as well, and produce wands, potions, and scrolls, allowing them to better outfit a large party, and granting them a solid amount of flexibility as far as buffs go. A sorcerer has whatever they know. A wizard has whatever they know, the twenty-eight wands they packed that morning, and a wide selection of other skills to bring to bear. A wizard can afford to know utility spells, like knock, or find trap, that a sorcerer has to leave at home; which can make them an asset to a party. I personally think a little direct combat power's a fair price to pay for that flexibility, and never felt particularly underpowered playing one.

If I had to chose to have a wizard or a sorcerer in the party, I'd nearly always grab the wizard.

[Dr_Hazard89]

Another suggestion to make it more balanced/realistic is to make sorcerers feared as much as they should be, with a faction geared toward hunting them down and burning them at the stake. I personally would love that and would be all for sorcerers being more powerful in that instance, but I doubt that would do anything but cause the feelbads in practice.

Pff. Yeah. People are going to take a break from cuddling their friendly neighbourhood warlocks to hunt sorcerers.

I agree that wizards do feel pretty weak, for a wizard and what they're supposed to be capable of in lore ... not debating mechanics and balance though, and I have no suggestions.

[I hope you got money]

As a sorcerer player, someone please hunt me. We're magical timebombs.

That said, I dispute the idea that sorcerers are superior to wizards. In straight up combat, perhaps; but a wizard has a bucketload more feats and an enormous skill selection, thanks to that pumped-up INT. A wizard can usually take crafting feats as well, and produce wands, potions, and scrolls, allowing them to better outfit a large party, and granting them a solid amount of flexibility as far as buffs go. A sorcerer has whatever they know. A wizard has whatever they know, the twenty-eight wands they packed that morning, and a wide selection of other skills to bring to bear.

If I had to chose to have a wizard or a sorcerer in the party, I'd nearly always grab the wizard.

While some of this is true, a sorcerer by mid levels knows all the spells they need and can use the same wands even if they aren't crafting them themselves. I would bring both, but if i had to choose I would definitely take the sorcerer.

[Commissar]

True enough, though I do think being able to make all of those items is a fair advantage in itself. Buckets of money (and the mercenaries it can buy) are not to be underrated, as a combat tool. Then again, I enjoy writing descriptions for wands and potions more than is likely sane.

I do like the fact that wizards can collect more spell foci, though. It makes them feel like the bookish experts I feel they should be. You want something raised to the ground? Go find a sorcerer. You want to send an illusion halfway across the island, and then summon that person back, intact and breathing - Well. For that, you want a wizard (or, I suppose, a sorcerer and a very enthusiastic necromancer).

[Peppermint]

Arelith has a ton of focus bonuses.

Better summons for conjuration.
Better dispels/-ward for abjuration.
Better epic feats for evocation.
Better shades summons for illusion.
Better enchantments for enchanters.

etc. etc.

All of this adds up to put wizards in a much better place in vanilla NwN, as all of the bonus feats they've access to become a lot more meaningful. I'd say wizards and sorcerers are both pretty strong; though if anything, conventional wisdom seems to be that wizards are overall stronger on Arelith. (Note: personally, I consider them roughly equal. But I'm a rebel like that.)

While I agree with the sentiment that it'd be nice if DC spells earned a bit more mileage on Arelith, I feel both mage classes are in a pretty good spot overall.

[Cortex]

Why do people think sorcerer is better than wizard? I've always felt the opposite, with the availability of focuses and skills. I never felt I needed more spells as a wizard when I played one, and I always wanted to have more spells to pick from when I played a sorcerer.

Sorcerers are good with paladin for absurd saves, but their AC potential got cut ever since GSteel bit it, and actually got less AC potential due to feat starvation. There's very few ways to build a sorcerer, and fewer schools to pick from and spell combos to make use of. Meanwhile, wizards get a sea of options and skills to play with, not to mention they can scribe scrolls with more ease and make their own UMD arsenal to fight with if a sorcerer fancies counter-spelling.

Having played both sorcerers and wizards to epics, both are good, and I'd put them on the same "tier", but wizard is just better in about every way except spamming spells.

[Peppermint]

Sorcerers are more adaptable, which is huge in spell duels.

I'd give a good sorcerer the edge in PvP (especially against other casters), but a wizard shines in PvE.

[yellowcateyes]

Sorcerers and wizards are pretty potent in both Arelith PvE and PvP, with both classes only growing stronger the more skilled the player is.

This isn't something you can say about some, or even most, of the core classes available to play.

[Brandon Steel]

Out of all the classes in Arelith I'm hard pressed to see wiz/sorc as the underpowered ones, they're both very strong.

[susitsu]

Sorcerers are absolutely inferior to wizards, and wizards are fine where they are. Very strong, good, fun gameplay. Lots of diverse tactics.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

Sorcerers used to have an "edge" against wizards because there was way more +CHA gear that you could craft, and you could get +2 CHA gear. That is no longer the case.

I always wanted to see a sorcadin duel a Wild Mage. I think that would be one of the coolest and craziest spell duels ever.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

Vanilla Sorcerers are inferior to Vanilla wizards, yes, hands down.

Pathed Sorcerers (WM- defunct, True Flame), and pathed Wizards make Vanilla Wizards almost laughable by comparison.

Specialist Wizards are still better than Vanilla Sorcerers.

Then there is warlock and feylock. And Raven totem druids, can't forget those.

I'm certainly not going to argue that caster classes are weak.

I will however agree with one sentiment of OP- with the combination of all the changes to spells and paths that have been offered, Vanilla Wizard and Vanilla Sorcerer are, IMO, easily the weakest pure casters on Arelith.

I've heard people argue druid is terrible- I strenuously disagree and will argue at length why any divine caster in any kind of plate armor (dragonhide is a thing for druids, and dragonhide can be found on the server so you can justify describing your armor as dragonhide, if you don't want to worship Mielikki) is always superior to an arcane caster in PvE and is a HUGE contender in PvP.

[susitsu]

Actually, vanilla wizard is better than pathed wizards. Wild Mage buffs the leveling process, but after that it's a large inconvenience at 30.

and true flame lol

ok

[Aero Silver]

The way NWN works, it is extremely hard for a melee class to outperform a caster class in PvP. When was the last time a rogue or fighter defeated an equal level sorcerer or wozard without proper preparation before the fight? Only experienced players could pull that off, and it is still extremely difficult. For general players...yes, casters are overpowered.

[susitsu]

The trick is that all every melee class but monk has to do is get into melee range and the mage is probably dead within two rounds.

This can be achieved with literally an invis pot.

[Wytchee]

The trick is that all every melee class but monk has to do is get into melee range and the mage is probably dead within two rounds.

This can be achieved with literally an invis pot.

This. Melees have the advantage of being ready to go at all times.

Of course, with proper preparation the mage has an edge, but things don't often play out in a way that allows mages to be ready when things go down.

[Durvayas]

The trick is that all every melee class but monk has to do is get into melee range and the mage is probably dead within two rounds.

This can be achieved with literally an invis pot.

I'm actually in agreement. If the mage survives more than a round or two without being knocked down, the melee is in serious trouble.