mbeacom wrote:In our games characters die. Wizards in particular are hard to keep alive. LVL1 and 2 are like a minefield for wizards in C&C. One stray arrow and they can be done. At low level, they have one maybe two offensive spells. Then it's sling city the rest of the day. And we're not talking about fireball. They don't get that until 5th level and by then they're not nearly as hard to keep alive. How much more capable would a low level party be with a wizard, composite longbow in hand raining d8s down from range instead of d3 darts or d4 slingstones. (Both of which have pitiful range, 20 and 50ft compared to 110!). The long comp bow would allow the mage to stay at a safe distance and do real damage. Normally, when the wizard is at a safe distance, he's officially no longer contributing damage. This all changes with a composite bow. Go ahead and flip through the C&C spell list and see how many spells are 50ft range. All those spells are dangerous to a wizard with a sling or darts and useless against a wizard with a composite bow. Keep in mind the proficient elf wizards to-hit bonus is equal to that of a bow ranger at levels 1 and 2. So barring really high stats on the ranger, they're gonna be doing the same damage from the same range. This, IMO, is enough that you'd pretty much have to be stupid to not choose an elf if you already decided you wanted to be a wizard. I would certainly choose an elf all else being equal. The likelihood of staying alive because we can take out enemies faster since I"m doing real damage or at least being able to contribute meaningfully once I drop my single offensive spell is pretty significant. Likewise if a baddie gets through the parties defenses the wizard might only get one swing against an attacker. One swing with a d8 long sword is much more likely to drop a rampaging goblin or kobold than a dagger.
Maybe I've played with too many min/maxers in my day but I can say pretty confidently that they would seize on this type of change to great advantage. Now, I'll be the first to say that rewriting rules to try to shut down min-maxers is not a really good way to design a game. But NOT rewriting rules that might encourage them is something worth looking at IMO.
Anyway, it's been interesting and I really do appreciate the colorful exchange. I've said my peace. I'm honestly not trying to convince anyone of anything other than that the rules as written are just fine. No change is needed.
I, too, agree that it’s been a great conversation. And I don’t think you’re trying to change anyone’s opinion, hoss. I like to think that I’ve written my posts to shed a new light on a topic, or perhaps to consider a new way to look at something, but I view forum posts as opinions. If you like ‘em, great. If not, no harm no foul. The conversation and tone/respect on these boards are, far and away, better than most other forums. I personally don’t feel I’m hanging myself when I post a differing opinion than another poster because it seems that the mutual respect here is pretty high. I can’t say that of other forums on the web.
But I agree, mb, that wizards
are hard to keep alive. They, and all classes, die in my games as well. And I can see the perceived advantage, too. I don’t want to sound like I’m twisting your words (so my apology if that’s the impression you get) but I don’t see anything wrong with upping the survivability a hair. At low levels, they’re not going to get a composite long bow, not with their average starting wealth of 55 gold. A short bow, maybe, and some gear. But that cuts the range down to 60’ which is still pretty decent. I know that could be rectified a few sessions in, but I thought it was worth noting. I can’t see that throwing out a d6 (for the short bow) creates an imbalance.
Now, back to elf wizard survivability – I like to think that a CK worth his salt is not going to have the monsters sit back and take being needled by the elf wizard in the back. I’d think (and I play this way) that those baddies (the ones that have a bit of intelligence or cunning – orcs, goblins, kobolds, and the like) are already going to be gunning for the elf wizard (or any wizard for that matter) because “he make da hurty sparkles come from his fingas!” I know if you “run the numbers” as I like to call it (see the WotC Char Op boards for a myriad of examples), then yeah, the damage per round is upped a little for an elf wizard. But in an in-game scenario I think would go differently (assuming against foes with a modicum of intelligence) and any elf wizard should carefully consider slinging arrows about in combat (which is another thing I won’t touch – firing into a melee).
I’ll respectfully disagree with the ranger example, good sir. A ranger has more starting cash, therefore can afford a composite short bow, at least. Since we’re talking about elves, an elven ranger – already proficient in said weapon – will have a +1 to attack with the cs bow. So, an elven ranger is better armed, and better armored, getting a +1 attack over the wizard, and doing a d8 instead of the d6. And he’ll be further back, too, if he wishes.
I’ll also respectfully disagree with thinking one “stupid” for not choosing an elf if you’re going to be a wizard. Two words – third prime. Like your claim, this only my opinion, but the third prime of humans easily trumps being proficient in a bow or sword. I could actually argue that all the dwarf’s resistances and the gnome’s innate magical abilities would be a better choice over my revised weapon training. Simply on the basis of they’re more widely used abilities that are going to see more mileage than a weapon proficiency affords.
It seems you are looking at this from purely a combat viewpoint (and my apologies if you clearly stated that somewhere and I missed it, mb) and perhaps that’s based on your experience. Mine is much different and combat, while a large part of my games is not the majority of my games. Perhaps yours aren’t either. Being able to use an innate magical ability or having a third prime at your disposal is (in my opinion) going to be much more useful in the long run. Again, unless you run a lot of combat.
In the end, I don’t see it getting rewritten, either. It was more a joke than anything. I personally think my rewrite of the ability is better (no offense, Steve!
) and there’s a good chance I’ll go forward using that. Even if, by some wild chance, it does then it’s easily able to be house ruled to the way it currently written.
For wizards, with their anemic hit points, lack of protection, and pitiful BtH, being on even ground with a longsword as a fighter (for example) is not going to make them highly desirable. Their ability to level the ranks of their enemies with a well-placed fireball is going to be much more desirable.
I have some in my games, too, when they're in the mood to be such. I just fail to see the sheer advantage, though. I mean, I understand the math and its implications. Yes, it's good. And yes, an elf wizard can shoot a bow better than a human one, or a gnome one. That's part of their background (in my revision, and the original intent). I might be an idealist, or just lucky, but I don't see characters built with a particular class and race combo too terribly often because they get one single advantage in that particular circumstance. I'm proud to say that I see a lot more concept going into character creation. The funny thing is, I think it would be a cool concept to have an elf wizard who could double for an archer if need be.
