(3.P) OP spellcasters & how to deal with them

[rollforeigninit]

So I read these boards daily & the consensus seems to be that the T1 casters (wizards especially) are overpowered in the extreme when compared to non-spellcasters.

It seems to me that Wizards are probably the easiest of the lot to fix. Their reliance on spellbooks for their spells is supposed to be a hindrance. In most campaigns I have been in, though, the spellbook seems to become a non-factor after about level 3. There seems to be no real reason for this but it seems to happen a lot.

The other issues seem to center around having access to ALL the wizard spells ever. That's even easier to deal with. Simply DON'T give them said spells. (Or at least make them work for them.) I don't see why there is a shop that has ALL the scrolls you could ever want just laying around for the purchase. Most of this (in my opinion) comes from lazy DM's who want to make the players happy. In most cases, it works well for the wizard but not as well for the other PC's.

What strategies do you guys have for dealing with the machine that the wizard becomes? Actual story driven plot? It might help overpoweredness to actually have a time deadline that forces the casters to push on while at less than full strength. ( I seem to remember reading that there are only supposed to be so many encounters per day but I don't see any real reason for it.) Eliminate magic mart? In-game prejudices against arcane casters? (Or casters in general for that matter). I'm not asking for a mechanics driven rewrite but if the caster uses planar binding all the time (especially summoning evil creatures) it might cause some backlash with some good-aligned religions or organizations. Or maybe the creature has friends/allies they can send or have sent to eliminate the annoyance.

I'd like both kinds of ideas. Spellcaster limiting & Wizard specific ones as well.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Gentlemen's Agreement. Even if they do use stuff like the Astral Projection trick, if they use it on the whole party, it's just another contingency against death.

Wish loops and any other inifinite loops should be banned, even if they use them to help the party (giving everyone in the party an inherent +5 to all scores with a wish loop). But if the players use infinite loops, then something's wrong, and it's not the mechanics.

Eliminating Magic Mart is perfectly valid, but they can just Plane Shift to the City of Brass or Sigil or another extraplanar metropolis and look for stuff in the markets there.

[Ursus the Grim]

So I read these boards daily & the consensus seems to be that the T1 casters (wizards especially) are overpowered in the extreme when compared to non-spellcasters.

It seems to me that Wizards are probably the easiest of the lot to fix. Their reliance on spellbooks for their spells is supposed to be a hindrance. In most campaigns I have been in, though, the spellbook seems to become a non-factor after about level 3. There seems to be no real reason for this but it seems to happen a lot.

The other issues seem to center around having access to ALL the wizard spells ever. That's even easier to deal with. Simply DON'T give them said spells. (Or at least make them work for them.) I don't see why there is a shop that has ALL the scrolls you could ever want just laying around for the purchase. Most of this (in my opinion) comes from lazy DM's who want to make the players happy. In most cases, it works well for the wizard but not as well for the other PC's.

What strategies do you guys have for dealing with the machine that the wizard becomes? Actual story driven plot? It might help overpoweredness to actually have a time deadline that forces the casters to push on while at less than full strength. ( I seem to remember reading that there are only supposed to be so many encounters per day but I don't see any real reason for it.) Eliminate magic mart? In-game prejudices against arcane casters? (Or casters in general for that matter). I'm not asking for a mechanics driven rewrite but if the caster uses planar binding all the time (especially summoning evil creatures) it might cause some backlash with some good-aligned religions or organizations. Or maybe the creature has friends/allies they can send or have sent to eliminate the annoyance.

I'd like both kinds of ideas. Spellcaster limiting & Wizard specific ones as well.

Generally, if someone wants to play a Wizard, I ask them to play a Sorc instead. It doesn't eliminate their ability to break the game, but it does limit it. I'm of the school that Spellbooks are fair game, but a lot of people think its a cheap shot when the DM has villains target it.

Fixing the other Tier 1's are generally actually a little bit simpler because their problems are a combination of class abilities and options, and not just the result of one feature. Cleric spells are slightly less game-changing than Wizards, and most are generally built as a more rounded character. Any time you move from SAD to MAD, you get less optimized. This is a bad thing if you're below the status quo (like a monk) but a good thing if you otherwise dominant. A wizard generally only needs to pump Int, wheras most Clerics are concerned with their Wis, Cha, and physicals, depending on their rolls and purpose. Druids are arguably the easiest to fix. A DM need only adjudicate that Natural Spell is not available, or that only certain sourcebooks are available, or force a Druid to choose between their class features. A druid with just wild shape and an animal companion is still formidable.

The limit on encounters per day is recommended on several assumptions. Without any time to rest and recover, a party natural expends resources, whether they be spells, magic charges, or hit points. A well-balanced encounter is supposed to take roughly a fifth to a fourth of their resources, and so the recommendation is that you don't exceed four such encounters without a nights rest or other such break. Naturally, this assumes a balanced party and a perfectly suited suite of encounters. . . .

By RAW, most magic marts wouldn't exist, at least not at higher levels of play. Short of going to a metropolis (truly rare in most cases), there is a GP limit that most groups unfortunately handwave away. Many groups also don't want to roleplay every individual purchase (I just need a damn whetstone!) and having to roleplay some but not all purchase is going to ruffle feathers.

That particular spell and your recommended fix are among a handful of such contentious spells. Not all of them have such. . . accessible drawbacks.

[Lonely Tylenol]

If we're talking about a high-op game, then my spellbook is permanently shrunk, and then shrunk again for storage inside of an artificial tooth, or (if you want to venture outside of core) then within a hoard gullet, or stored in a force chest, or...

If you limit spells one can buy, it still doesn't do anything about the 40 + starting INT modifier spells they just get to know by leveling up, which can very well include all the stinky, fetid cheese you can possibly get.

The point being, of course, that if you escalate, the wizard can escalate to match. Your "fixes" assume someone that is low-op enough to accept them, in which case you have someone who just might never optimize a wizard to game-breaking levels anyway (essentially, your "blasty-buffy" type). They are otherwise easily overcome.

Honestly, my fix? If you're playing Pathfinder, Magus, Alchemist, Bard, Summoner and Inquisitor are all things. Wizards and clerics simply not existing in your game isn't big deal. As for Druids, port over the Wildshape variant of ranger and you're set for that niche as well.

[Feralventas]

Targeting the book is a fine move if it's not guarded well enough in the first place, but most Batman-build wizards will make sure that it's not at risk.

If the enemy is a thief that can steal it, a fighter that can rip it from a bag, or a cleric/caster that knows that a wizard's power comes from their spell-book, they'd better damn well neutralize that threat as quickly and efficiently as possible; there's no excuse for a villain not taking every opertunity to reduce their enemy's ability to hamper their plans.

That said, another option is to drastically reduce the wizard's spells known with a little homebrew. My prefered method is to house-rule that the different schools of magic have very different methodology and are entirely different crafts. The seperate colleges that develop the various schools of magic have a lot of pride in their own and disdain to share their secrets with wizards of another school. With this, a Wizard is reduced to access only to one school of magic, and must multi-class into Wizard so as to gain access to another school.

So, a Wizard (Evoker3) who decided he didn't want to be seen tossing firebolts left and right would have to spend three levels multi-classing into Wizard (Illusionist) to gain access to Invisibility.

Mind you, a lot of the game-breaking spells are available at lower levels, but this prevents some of the combination killers, or makes them useless or less powerful by the time a 'caster has access to them.

[Coidzor]

Targeting the book is a fine move if it's not guarded well enough in the first place, but most Batman-build wizards will make sure that it's not at risk.

Either A. it's pointless because their protections are rock solid or B. you're being an ass to a wizard who is being well behaved for the desired optimization level by out-oping him and punishing him for being bad at being a wizard by nerfing him.

Much like how it is with classes; weak, bad, or otherwise innocuous players don't need heavy-handed nerfing.

[Feralventas]

Very true. I've got a Wizard in one of my games that has managed to do very well as a utilitarian support and occasional blaster for the party, while the Fighter is the party's main face and damage capacity.

Meanwhile, in another group, I've got a Dragonfire Adept that is wrecking things left and right with Char-Op and a Dragonwrought build.

[deuxhero]

By RAW, most magic marts wouldn't exist, at least not at higher levels of play. Short of going to a metropolis (truly rare in most cases), there is a GP limit that most groups unfortunately handwave away. Many groups also don't want to roleplay every individual purchase (I just need a damn whetstone!) and having to roleplay some but not all purchase is going to ruffle feathers.

Actually, MIC does say a player should have access to any item they can afford (Mentioning that the game's even loose balance expects you to have your WBL working for you), not to mention lacking magic items hurts non-casters most

[Gavinfoxx]

Encourage everyone to play one of these classes:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174628

[Red_Dog]

=>rollforeigninit

Other Wizards.

A single appropriately stated caster can act as a very good antagonist for a party. He will also be able to occupy the local "god wonna bes(the party's tier1-2)" so the rest of the party has something to do, if the party balance is of concern.

There is even a good fluff reason for an NPC wizard to focus his attention on tier1 party members=> He thinks they are a threat to his plans/etc. So your local know-it-all will quickly find him/herself occupied if he/she gets too cocky.

Tier1 NPCs give Tier1 players a reason to THINK, and everyone else screen time.
Hope this helps ^^

[kardar233]

Well, I don't find too much trouble with people playing God, Batman is more of a problem due to the fact that he's very blatant with his encounter-solving.

Class balance is only a problem when people perceive it to be one; if the BSF is convinced that he's contributing while he's smacking an Enfeebled, Enervated and Dazed opponent while Giant Sized and under Righteous Wrath of the Faithful, there's no problem. If the players do have a problem, then you need to either look at improving the optimization level of your BSF or ask your mage players to tone it down a bit.

And for really high-op spellbook protection, I carry it on myself at all times. This works because I'm a permanently Shapeshifted mage under the effects of ~358 buffs including several Antimagic Fields who doesn't sleep, eat or breathe. Don't mess around with a guy with 3 full 9th-level spell progressions.

[Big Fau]

By RAW, most magic marts wouldn't exist, at least not at higher levels of play. Short of going to a metropolis (truly rare in most cases), there is a GP limit that most groups unfortunately handwave away.

Except there is a cannon plane of existence in both Core and an WotC-official campaign setting that acts as a magic market (the Outlands in Core, and I don't pay enough attention to FR to know the name of the plane, but I'm fairly sure Faerun itself has numerous metropolis-level cities given that one has an entire splatbook devoted to it).

[Manateee]

Most of this (in my opinion) comes from lazy DM's who want to make the players happy.

Actual story driven plot?

Niiiice.

Anyway, prolonging the adventuring day hurts the Fighter as much or more than the wizard. His HP pool is only so big, and he doesn't have the tools to blink to another portion of reality to recover/resupply when things get hairy.

Anyway, leaving aside a wizard's ability to access spells for a second (they don't even need DMs to give them scrolls; independent research is a thing permitted by the rules), the most broken parts of casters are the things they are supposed to be able to do.

Unless you just put an Antimagic field around the entire gameworld, Sorcerers can use Enervation to Enervate and Planar Binding to Planar Bind, and Clerics can use Summon Monster and Plane Shift to do exactly what the spells are designed to do.

Basically, the best ways to deal with it are:
A. Stop worrying about balance. Either by encouraging players to get on the same page in terms of optimization levels and expectations (this is usually what's going on when people recommend specific bans or tier allowances or whatever) or by just letting the Wizard overpower the Fighter and acknowledging that that's how the game works.
or
B. Get a different game. Seriously, unless you want to just strip magic from the game (which creates some serious problems with the HP system), the flying invisible guy packing the polymorph and timestops is going to be stronger than the guy standing on the ground with a stick.

[Coidzor]

B. Get a different game. Seriously, unless you want to just strip magic from the game (which creates some serious problems with the HP system), the flying invisible guy packing the polymorph and timestops is going to be stronger than the guy standing on the ground with a stick.

Even E6 only does so much, after all.

[Ursus the Grim]

Actually, MIC does say a player should have access to any item they can afford (Mentioning that the game's even loose balance expects you to have your WBL working for you), not to mention lacking magic items hurts non-casters most

And the DMG says there's a hard cap on the value of what you can buy in a given town. Do you take core restricting optimization or MIC encouraging it?

Except there is a canon plane of existence in both Core and an WotC-official campaign setting that acts as a magic market (the Outlands in Core, and I don't pay enough attention to FR to know the name of the plane, but I'm fairly sure Faerun itself has numerous metropolis-level cities given that one has an entire splatbook devoted to it).

You mean Sigil, right? That's a location. Locations are rarely consistent among settings. Even so, Sigil requires planar travel to a location that the character likely hasn't heard of yet. If your player says "I want to go to Sigil", there isn't often good justification for it aside from metagaming.

[Gavinfoxx]

You mean Sigil, right? That's a location. Locations are rarely consistent among settings. Even so, Sigil requires planar travel to a location that the character likely hasn't heard of yet. If your player says "I want to go to Sigil", there isn't often good justification for it aside from metagaming.

Or having a high Knowledge: The Planes. Just saying.

[SilverLeaf167]

Anyway, leaving aside a wizard's ability to access spells for a second (they don't even need DMs to give them scrolls; independent research is a thing permitted by the rules), the most broken parts of casters are the things they are supposed to be able to do.

Independent research isn't exactly what it sounds like, it's still dependent on DM approval. Just like the DM might not let you purchase some scroll, he might not let you make up spells of your own. Technically, there isn't even any RAW about independent research, just guidelines that definitely don't function as actual rules on their own.

I also agree that the most OP features of spellcasters, or any other class, don't really come up that often in the typical gaming group, especially if some kind of simple gentleman's agreement is in effect. And if the players actually want to do something generally considered OP or cheesy, settle it OOC with them and nerf the spell in a reasonable manner.

The stuff about setting-specific things being considered "canon" and thus available in every game ever played is just plain silly. If Sigil or some specific plane doesn't exist in the setting, no kind of Knowledge check or spell will let you learn about it or go there, as it simply doesn't exist. The same thing applies to Touchstones, Pazuzu and about everything else: if it doesn't exist in the setting, you can't have access to it.

[Treblain]

Or having a high Knowledge: The Planes. Just saying.

But isn't putting ranks in Knowledge: The Planes in order to know about Sigil metagaming as well?

[Gavinfoxx]

But isn't putting ranks in Knowledge: The Planes in order to know about Sigil metagaming as well?

Where is your blue text? You put ranks in Knowledge The Planes because, oh I don't know, you are supposed to be an int-focused loremaster, and you get K:tP as a class skill! And since you can act basically under the assumption that your character knows things appropriate to the score he gets when he takes 10 on that skill, eventually it will get high enough so that you can plausibly start talking in character about the City of Brass or Sigil or whatever, without having to roll for them...

[Manateee]

Independent research isn't exactly what it sounds like, it's still dependent on DM approval. Just like the DM might not let you purchase some scroll, he might not let you make up spells of your own.

True, but my point was that it's the DM making that call directly. If the DM doesn't allow the Wizard to research anything, it's the DM personally trying to change the system to stymie a Wizard's spell access - not the lack of magic marts or the bad luck of a dozen treasure hoards without a single scroll.

[Tyndmyr]

So I read these boards daily & the consensus seems to be that the T1 casters (wizards especially) are overpowered in the extreme when compared to non-spellcasters.

Sort of. I'd put Artificer as generally more broken than Wizard, for instance. Additionally, level is at play. Wizard is not at all broken at level 1. At level 20? Rather different.

It seems to me that Wizards are probably the easiest of the lot to fix. Their reliance on spellbooks for their spells is supposed to be a hindrance. In most campaigns I have been in, though, the spellbook seems to become a non-factor after about level 3. There seems to be no real reason for this but it seems to happen a lot.

It's simple. I can list an arbitrarily long list of defenses and horrific things I've done to defend my spellbook(s). Then, my spellbook is basically impervious to being stolen. Or, we can just not screw around with that and play D&D in that time instead. The choice is on the GM. If he likes to target my spellbook, I'll waste whatever time is necessary to reduce the risk to approximately zero. I have the ability to do so, I'd just rather not muck about with him trying to make me into a crappy commoner.

Additionally, multiple means exist to make the spellbook not even a thing. Listing all of them would be tedious. Just assume that this is not actually a weakness for any spellcaster who cares about it.

The other issues seem to center around having access to ALL the wizard spells ever. That's even easier to deal with. Simply DON'T give them said spells. (Or at least make them work for them.) I don't see why there is a shop that has ALL the scrolls you could ever want just laying around for the purchase. Most of this (in my opinion) comes from lazy DM's who want to make the players happy. In most cases, it works well for the wizard but not as well for the other PC's.

Copying from spellbooks is more cost effective than scrolls. Here's how this works.

Noob wizard starts game. Knows all cantrips. Knows 3+int 1st level spells. Learns two spells of choice at every level. This guarantees a minimum of four spells of choice at every spell level. The ways to gain more are effectively infinite, and include, by RAW, researching any already printed spell.

Availability is irrelevant.

What strategies do you guys have for dealing with the machine that the wizard becomes? Actual story driven plot?

What's that, railroading? God no. Fixing power with "PLOT!" is terrible.

It might help overpoweredness to actually have a time deadline that forces the casters to push on while at less than full strength. ( I seem to remember reading that there are only supposed to be so many encounters per day but I don't see any real reason for it.)

Here's the thing. Mundane chars need hp and stuff. They tend to run dry first. The only reason that this does not happen is that caster, such as clerics, spend their resources protecting and replenishing the mundane char's resources. If you make it an endurance game, then you are actively punishing them for playing nice.

Eliminate magic mart?

Nah. Mundane folks need magic marts. Magical folk do not. That aforementioned wizard? He can make scrolls for himself by default. No wierd options, just bam, gold and time turned into magic items. With feats, he can make whatever he needs.

The fighter cannot. He needs the magic mart.

In-game prejudices against arcane casters? (Or casters in general for that matter).

If you like, and it fits the setting. That said, keep in mind that you won't necessarily know arcane casters automatically. "wears robes" is not sufficient reason to assume someone is a caster, as opposed to say...someone who's cold.

More realistically? Gentleman's agreement. They avoid ridiculousness, you avoid using it back at them. Whatever level of optimization and awesomeness they prefer to play at, use a similar level when designing challenges for them. Nice and fair.

[PersonMan]

That said, another option is to drastically reduce the wizard's spells known with a little homebrew. My prefered method is to house-rule that the different schools of magic have very different methodology and are entirely different crafts. The seperate colleges that develop the various schools of magic have a lot of pride in their own and disdain to share their secrets with wizards of another school. With this, a Wizard is reduced to access only to one school of magic, and must multi-class into Wizard so as to gain access to another school.

If you did implement this, I'd 1. Add Wizard/Wizard theurge classes and 2. add a ToB-esque '1/2 your CL is added to other Wizard schools' thing. So an Evoker 3/Illusionist 2 has invisibility.

They're already paying pretty badly for being able to diversify (level 2 spells of another school are generally worse than level 3 spells of your school), so it makes (both mechanical and in-universe) sense to throw them a bit of a bone.

Assuming, of course, you tell everyone beforhand, etc.

EDIT: @ above: Yeah, almost nothing kills verisimilitude for me faster than
'They want to take away your spellbook'
'Why?'
'Because you're a wizard.'
'How can they tell?'
'...They just can.'

[Tyndmyr]

EDIT: @ above: Yeah, almost nothing kills verisimilitude for me faster than
'They want to take away your spellbook'
'Why?'
'Because you're a wizard.'
'How can they tell?'
'...They just can.'

Yup. If I had a dollar for every time this happened to me...

Incidentally, if you get one of those DMs who believe that casters should always be targeted first, and fighters can't be expected to attract aggro, purchase for your party fighter a fake spellbook and set of robes. He's gleeful at getting to do his job, and you get to enjoy doing yours.

[Crasical]

The point being, of course, that if you escalate, the wizard can escalate to match. Your "fixes" assume someone that is low-op enough to accept them, in which case you have someone who just might never optimize a wizard to game-breaking levels anyway (essentially, your "blasty-buffy" type). They are otherwise easily overcome.

....Isn't this kind of backwards? I always hear 'Don't get into an arms race with the GM, he will win.'

[Chess435]

....Isn't this kind of backwards? I always hear 'Don't get into an arms race with the GM, he will win.'

Not if the player is capable of out-optimizing the DM....

[Tyndmyr]

....Isn't this kind of backwards? I always hear 'Don't get into an arms race with the GM, he will win.'

The real reason not to get into an arms race is not about who wins, but because playing arms race is pretty destructive to the game. While the GM and the optimizer are one upping each other, the other players are probably not having a great time.

It's best for everyone if they just skip the arms race altogether, and play all friendly-like.

[Hiro Protagonest]

The real reason not to get into an arms race is not about who wins, but because playing arms race is pretty destructive to the game. While the GM and the optimizer are one upping each other, the other players are probably not having a great time.

It's best for everyone if they just skip the arms race altogether, and play all friendly-like.

Yeah, either the DM will send out an uberpowerful monster, or you'll ascend. Or maybe just use Idiot Crusader for infinite actions.

[Gavinfoxx]

Not if the player is capable of out-optimizing the DM....

The thing is, the DM isn't so bound by the rules as the player...

[Bonzai]

I ran a campaign a couple years ago. It started at lvl 1, and ended at lvl 22. My goal was to try and make the party sweat a little with each encounter. However my party was very experienced, and were really strong optimizers. There were a variety of things I did to mix it up, different tactics, situations, etc... I did well until the mid to late teens, but it got to a point that if I were to really and truly threaten the party, I would have to pretty much kill a couple of them in one turn.

As a DM, I was not prepared to take the game to that level. I am not out to kill my players characters, I am there to provide fun and interesting stories, and allow my players to experience them through their characters. As they got more and more powerful, the encounters became shorter and more one sided. One player was a Wizard/Psion/Theurge who had devoted himself almost entirely to problem solving. An other was a Beguiler/ fatespinner who took luck out of the equasion, and was potent battle field control/ utility in her own right. The rest of the party were VERY effective damage dealers from a variety of sources. They had all their bases covered, and their tactics down. I became a little disapointed with myself for not challenging them like I used to. After the party reached 22nd level, I had completed the campaign that I had written, had no real idea where to go next with it even if I wanted to, and needed a break from DM'ing to recharge.

After the campaign had ended, I talked to my players about my disapointment in not being able to challenge them toward the end, and how I felt that it had pretty much gotten to a point where I refused to escalate things further as it would most likely result in a party wipe, or at least a few deaths. They then gave me the best compliment they could give me. They said that it didn't matter that they weren't struggling every battle. They were having fun, and enjoying playing the game, in large part because I was fair and not adversarial. They may have had an answer for every encounter, but their room for error and mistakes were very low most of the time. They got to enjoy their characters doing what they were meant to do, and have a good time.

Long rambling post short.... If the players are having fun, does it really matter that they are really powerful? D&D is a game, meant to be played for the enjoyment of the players. It's suprising how many DM's forget that. Now, if the rest of the party isn't having fun, and are completely outshown, then that needs to be addressed, and there are a variety of ways to do that without nerfing anyone.

My two cents on the subject.

[rollforeigninit]

I ran a campaign a couple years ago. It started at lvl 1, and ended at lvl 22. My goal was to try and make the party sweat a little with each encounter. However my party was very experienced, and were really strong optimizers. There were a variety of things I did to mix it up, different tactics, situations, etc... I did well until the mid to late teens, but it got to a point that if I were to really and truly threaten the party, I would have to pretty much kill a couple of them in one turn.

As a DM, I was not prepared to take the game to that level. I am not out to kill my players characters, I am there to provide fun and interesting stories, and allow my players to experience them through their characters. As they got more and more powerful, the encounters became shorter and more one sided. One player was a Wizard/Psion/Theurge who had devoted himself almost entirely to problem solving. An other was a Beguiler/ fatespinner who took luck out of the equasion, and was potent battle field control/ utility in her own right. The rest of the party were VERY effective damage dealers from a variety of sources. They had all their bases covered, and their tactics down. I became a little disapointed with myself for not challenging them like I used to. After the party reached 22nd level, I had completed the campaign that I had written, had no real idea where to go next with it even if I wanted to, and needed a break from DM'ing to recharge.

After the campaign had ended, I talked to my players about my disapointment in not being able to challenge them toward the end, and how I felt that it had pretty much gotten to a point where I refused to escalate things further as it would most likely result in a party wipe, or at least a few deaths. They then gave me the best compliment they could give me. They said that it didn't matter that they weren't struggling every battle. They were having fun, and enjoying playing the game, in large part because I was fair and not adversarial. They may have had an answer for every encounter, but their room for error and mistakes were very low most of the time. They got to enjoy their characters doing what they were meant to do, and have a good time.

Long rambling post short.... If the players are having fun, does it really matter that they are really powerful? D&D is a game, meant to be played for the enjoyment of the players. It's suprising how many DM's forget that. Now, if the rest of the party isn't having fun, and are completely outshown, then that needs to be addressed, and there are a variety of ways to do that without nerfing anyone.

My two cents on the subject.

This may surprise you but I actually agree. I don't feel there is that big a problem nearly as bad as many OP centric gamers seem to see. That being said, most of my players are not particularly inclined to chain wishes or anything. We do favor the gentleman's agreement and the Sorcerer ourselves ( I prefer the flavor). If you read the original post I don't want to nerf the poor wizard. I want the BBEG to be intelligent as the party & for some reason the modules seem to assume that the party arrives in time to interrupt the ceremony summoning the Snarl. time moves forward & the party does not have time to rest fully, resupply & re-memorize spells, much less research new spells from scratch. (Aside: this thread will probably spawn a couple others on principle).

How is it railroading to say that time moves forward?