Do you enjoy playing High Lvl Wizards?

[Footman]

Hello! To those who played a High Lvl Wizard, did you enjoy playing him? Why did you enjoy it?
Recently i played a High Lvl Wizard (Lvl17), in a Oneshot (4 Sessions) Game, and i was rather bored by the Class.

There were several Reasons for that. I played the Wizard as the Typical GOD support with a bit of Save or Suck thrown in. I really got into Building my Wizard at First, and i tried to prepare him for every possible Situation. It worked. Far Far too well. I really felt like just pressing the "Fast Forward Button" all the Time. One big nasty Monster? Save or Die, Bye Monster. Lots of Enemies? Cast Battle Field control Spells. Yawn while the Meele Guys have an easy Time doing clean up. Utility Challenge? Cast Spell, Fast forward it. I don't have that Spell prepared? Oh don't worry i have a Scroll/left a Slot free for that.

Also with the Combo of Mind Blank + Invisibilty + Overlandflight i was pretty much Invincible. And in the rare Case that something DID come close, yeah well, just pop an Emergency Force Sphere. There was no Danger, and even if i would get killed, i had already cloned myself and the whole party.

So pretty much all i did was pressing the "Fast Forward" Button all the time. Also the Paperwork was a PAIN in the Butt, Pages of Pages of Spells, Stats for Summoned Monster, urgh! I known Wizard is the Most Powerful class, and i often read about many People argue about how great the Wizard is. And he is Powerful, he is so Powerful that it gets boring for me. Might just not be my Class to play, i am usually a Fighter Guy myself.

But i just gotta ask: Have some of you played a High Lvl Wizard an enjoyed it? If so why did you enjoy it? I know different People enjoy different things, but it really puzzles me how to enjoy this Class High Lvl Mechanics.

(That being said I DID have fun, being the old Guy who endlessly Blathers all his knowledge all the Time. My Favorite Part was doing that in the Middle of Battle while our Meele Guys moped up the Enemies, and couldn't run away from me. I swear if we had Sanity Damage in this Game my character would have driven the Party insane XD.)

[PhantasyPen]

I played a summoner wizard once, but this was 3.5, not pathfinder. I rather enjoyed the experience, having my spells lined up pretty much immediately as soon as combat was announced, I think it was the only character I've ever played where I had every single action I could use planned out before I ever touched a die, so the expediency and watching those spell chains come together without a hitch made it rather interesting for me. Such a shame the DM basically quit that campaign for a new one.

[Eldariel]

Yeah, I've loved every time I have gotten to really cut loose but it requires a lot from the DM. DMing a high level game requires a DM experienced in high level game capable of adjusting the paradigm away from simple dungeon crawling to more interactive multiplanar, global system with interactive pieces. Walking through a dungeon and pressing "Die" on enemies is pretty dull when you get good enough at it be you a Wizard or a Fighter, but having to play the game of who's the hunter and who the hunted, prescanning target areas with an array of divination, having to prepare for enemy ambushes at literally any place you go to, rolling as many saves as you're forcing, coming back to life as an immediate action from a basic death, etc. raises the bar a bit. The best high level module I've played is Bastion of Broken Souls, but even there I had to do a lot of changing around creature stats and improving their tactics for them to stand up basic Core 17th level party.

The module setup with information gathering, encounter locations, nature of the creatures involved, etc. is definitely appropriate for this level though. But when DMs with experience in high level play run games on high levels built for T1 by T1, the games can be awesome too - at least every time I've had to worry about everything from spatial to temporal to planar threats while also presenting similar threats to the opposing parties, it's cool. And again, having to figure out your enemies' weaknesses or blowing through their strengths and knowing that death is barely a footnote that will in and of itself be ultimately quite irrelevant unless followed up by a more permanent form of defeat (generally sealing, using, storing or annihilating the soul). It's really a very multifaceted system that's very unlike anything else you can experience in gaming (you could draw parallels to Exalted but it's stylistically very different), but it requires for everyone to be on board.


In your case, it frankly sounds like the campaign wasn't designed to be sufficiently challenging. Or rather, it wasn't designed with the 9th level spell paradigm in mind; were you truly in a situation where you had to do anything but walk forward and kill martial/simple enemies straight out of the Monster Manual? Because that's just a minor footnote in the big picture which is the strategic game of finding your goal, preparing for the other parties challenging you for it, gauging their abilities and how to take them out, preparing accordingly, etc.

However, it appears to me your experience is sadly somewhat common based on what I've read of peoples' liking of high level games. They just aren't made to be sufficiently challenging causing the players to just walk through: High level campaigns should revolve around creatures with abilities relevant to high level characters (with stats using all the books in an intelligent manner, not just the default core sources, and not holding back on minionmancy), generally Outsiders, Dragons, Undead, and Humanoid casters.

Even a high level Fighter or Ranger can one-round almost anything printed in Monster Manual with just core sources, but high level game shouldn't be just about the combat rounds, attacks, damage and so on. Spell effects enable easy, fast resurrections, near instantaneous global and planar travel, all manners of underlings, acquiring information from the gods themselves, et cetera. Almost all the potential is wasted in an encounter-focused game. And indeed, all creatures in the world have to not use most of their abilities for the game to be reduced down into encounters.

My group learned this the hard way in our first 3.5 campaign. When running tests for a new replacement character in the high teens, a player built a Half-Dragon Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker and in a test scenario effortlessly one-shot a Balor on level 15 or something. First we thought his build was broken but since we realised the Balor just standing there waiting to lose initiative and getting charged with no items and only the Monster Manual build is not a reasonable representation of a Balor and that the encounter would look entirely different with a Balor using the same sources the PC was using, with items, and existence before the encounter, and the option to take proactive action before the encounter starts.

[heavyfuel]

Yeah, I've loved every time I have gotten to really cut loose but it requires a lot from the DM. DMing a high level game requires a DM experienced in high level game capable of adjusting [snip]

Indeed that's the biggest problem with high level Tier 1s, finding a DM that's not only good, but also willing to put in the work necessary to not make the game trivial anymore. However, this work requires not only plenty of experience, but also, time. Time that people with lots of experience (normally people that aren't in their mid 20s, but people with jobs and families) just don't have, or don't want to spend on a game.

On a similar note, your fellow players need to be equally experienced. Playing a high level Tier 1 when there's a guy on your party playing a high level Monk isn't fun for anybody

Given this, I'll say that no, I've never enjoyed playing high level Wizards. You either hold back, or you make the challenges trivial and boring. Maybe in the future, if all the stars align, I'll have the chance to play one that is actually fun.

[Quertus]

Well, my signature character, Quertus, for whom this account is named, is one of several high-level Wizards I've played. And, yes, I enjoy high level play as a Wizard.

Why? That's a trickier question. To answer that, I need to explain a lot about the gaming experience in general.

First and foremost, I'm a war gamer. The idea of a fair, balanced fight is simple: either side should have a 50/50 chance of victory or defeat. That means, to a war gamer, after 10 challenging encounters, there should only be less than a 1/1000 chance of not having had a TPK.

But, even if you win, in a fair exchange, you probably suffered losses. I mean, how often do you wipe out someone's entire army in a war game without losing a single piece, and call it a fair fight? So, to make the math simple, let's say you expect, on average, around 50% casualties from any engagement you win. Assuming a balanced party, with no reason for unbalanced casualty distribution, that means each character has a 50/50 shot of dying in each engagement that they won, for less than a 1/1000 chance of surviving 10 engagements that their side won.

Putting it all together, and, for a proper war gamer level of challenge, a character who survives 10 battles should literally be a one-in-a-million scenario! That just doesn't work in most RPGs. Playing at a proper level of challenge will get you labeled a killer GM, or worse. And lacking character continuity will hurt the story, the everything.

So, D&D combat is an easy mode snooze-fest compared to a proper war game. It's like having a skilled hunter shot fish in a barrel. It's laughable.

Now, easy mode has its advantages. You have that constant "you win, good job". That steady drip of morphine is nice. But you need to look elsewhere for the gambler's rush. Fortunately, there's more to an RPG than combat.

I tend to play characters with role-playing "stretch goals". Ideally, I'm looking for the level of challenge, the likelihood of failure that produces the same high as winning a proper war game challenge.

But, at the same time, I have an impossible goal of 100% accurate portrayal of my character.

So, suppose I set my stretch goal of a character with a certain level of wit. Someone who throws out memorable one-liners. I have them always talking, like, say, Spider-Man, then I set my goal for how witty I want them to sound high enough that I rarely hit it.

That way, I have my cake, and eat it, too. Optimize your fun.

(That being said I DID have fun, being the old Guy who endlessly Blathers all his knowledge all the Time. My Favorite Part was doing that in the Middle of Battle while our Meele Guys moped up the Enemies, and couldn't run away from me. I swear if we had Sanity Damage in this Game my character would have driven the Party insane XD.)

And that is no small part of the fun of playing Quertus.

[skunk3]

I've never had the chance to play one but I do think that all of the 'paperwork' and prep would be annoying, and also the DM would need to have some really well-designed encounters prepared (or freestyled on the spot) to make it challenging enough to not be totally boring, yet not overwhelming and basically impossible.

[Anxe]

I really don't like the paperwork aspect of playing a wizard. I like sorcerers a lot better. No need to figure out what spells I'm prepping today! When I've played high level wizards I generally play them like sorcerers. Prep the same stuff everyday and don't worry too much about it. That approach works because that is how the designers imagined the game would be played. The hyper-preparation approach also works, but then the DM has to work harder to challenge you and keep the rest of the party involved.

[Calthropstu]

I find the wizard extremely limited myself. It runs out of spells way too fast for my taste, and I never have enough money to "become god" as you put it. I prefer Sorcerer or DSP psion, more numerous spells per day, excellent special abilities... I don't ever feel like I'm on the verge of uselessness with those classes. As a wizard, I feel like I am just a couple spells short all the time.

[Dragovon]

I have played high level wizards in most iterations of D&D, from BECMI, to 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, PF (I didn't enjoy 4e or 5e enough to get that far). I've played them both from 1st level where I had to grow and develop and they had stories. I have also played 1 off characters that I built just for a specific short game.

I loved pretty much every one that I played from 1st level (or other low level) as they all have well developed personalities and histories. Who they are impacts how I played them. That meant that they weren't always as effective as I might've made them in some ways because it didn't suit their personalities. They were all very powerful, but their personalities made them fun. Their stories made them fun. In some of their cases, the GMs made them plenty challenging regardless of their level.

The ones I made already at high level are probably with rare exceptions more powerful than the ones I leveled up (though the usually had worse gear). They had not personality going in. They had no story. The were just cookie cutter numbers on paper (or on computer). They weren't very fun...because I wasn't attached. What happened and what they did never mattered. They also took far too long to create for a short term game. These days if a GM wants to run a one off at high level, I'll give him a choice from some of my existing characters who are otherwise retired (as the game they are from has finished) and I can play them and have fun with them.

[Calthropstu]

I have played high level wizards in most iterations of D&D, from BECMI, to 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, PF (I didn't enjoy 4e or 5e enough to get that far). I've played them both from 1st level where I had to grow and develop and they had stories. I have also played 1 off characters that I built just for a specific short game.

I loved pretty much every one that I played from 1st level (or other low level) as they all have well developed personalities and histories. Who they are impacts how I played them. That meant that they weren't always as effective as I might've made them in some ways because it didn't suit their personalities. They were all very powerful, but their personalities made them fun. Their stories made them fun. In some of their cases, the GMs made them plenty challenging regardless of their level.

The ones I made already at high level are probably with rare exceptions more powerful than the ones I leveled up (though the usually had worse gear). They had not personality going in. They had no story. The were just cookie cutter numbers on paper (or on computer). They weren't very fun...because I wasn't attached. What happened and what they did never mattered. They also took far too long to create for a short term game. These days if a GM wants to run a one off at high level, I'll give him a choice from some of my existing characters who are otherwise retired (as the game they are from has finished) and I can play them and have fun with them.

Ditto. I love playing characters to their eventual conclusion, setting goals and wandering through the world presented me by my gm... then getting to high levels and upending the geo-political structure or setting up a huge business enterprise or seting up a long term quest that the character desires to fulfill.
Building one from scratch is just as you said... a bunch of numbers on a piece of paper.

[bahamut920]

Coming from someone who habitually plays casters... yes, I do enjoy playing high-level wizards. My usual gaming groups are probably around the upper end of mid-op, though, so I'm not usually playing the near-omniscient super magic Batman that the guides recommend. I'm also comfortable playing support characters who do most of their work before battle starts or in the first couple rounds, then spend most of their actual turns in battle simply frustrating the enemy.

I find the wizard extremely limited myself. It runs out of spells way too fast for my taste, and I never have enough money to "become god" as you put it. I prefer Sorcerer or DSP psion, more numerous spells per day, excellent special abilities... I don't ever feel like I'm on the verge of uselessness with those classes. As a wizard, I feel like I am just a couple spells short all the time.

See, that's the low-level Wizard, though. High-level Wizards have plenty of spell slots; a level 20 Wizard has 180 total spell levels available to him, not counting bonus spells from a high Intelligence score. You should always have something to do, even if it's just "I cast haste". Polymorph the fighters. Wall of force off parts of the battlefield. I've been tempted to save my "big guns" for a more important battle I've known is coming, but as a high-level Wizard, I've never completely run out of options.

[Quertus]

I find the wizard extremely limited myself. It runs out of spells way too fast for my taste,

See, that's the low-level Wizard, though. High-level Wizards have plenty of spell slots; a level 20 Wizard has 180 total spell levels available to him, not counting bonus spells from a high Intelligence score. You should always have something to do,

Mostly this. Don't get me wrong, my signature tactically inept academia mage, for whom this account is named, still acts like a low-level Wizard, conserving spell slots and just reading his book during most combats. But that's hardly necessary behavior for a Wizard.

That having been said, since actual Wizards in the field don't always have the perfect spell available, Wizards who use their spells when they aren't needed may be sad about it later.

[unseenmage]

Yup, I enjoy it. But then I also enjoy playing with layered effects too.

As a GM myself setting personal challenges for my high level characters comes easily to me so that even when the fights/plots are 'fast forward' I can let my character's flaws/goals get in the way.

[Kobold Esq]

I did, for a while. It helped that I was playing in a group that wasn't particularly good at optimization. They would try, mind you, just they weren't particularly successful or aggressive about it. I was the only T1 PC (the pixie rogue/wizard/AT eventually got a druid cohort, and I got a cleric cohort, but my cohort was basically a healbot, and the druid cohort alternated between healbot and mediocre tank).

I eventually just decided to keep all my best spells in reserve, ALL THE TIME, unless absolutely necessary. If the fight seemed to be going well, I'd constantly hold back and just fight with my Staff of Orb of Electricity. Only if the fight had an extremely dangerous foe would I worry about them. Some might compare this to Lebron deciding to half-ass some pickup basketball game against a bunch of D-league players. In a sense it was. But it also meant I could devote huge swaths of my spell slots to utility spells, because I didn't need to hit the I Win button very often.

It also helped that our DM preferred fewer encounters per day. We rarely did true dungeon crawling, much more set piece battles. So I was rarely worried about attrition or lack of spell slots.

[lbuttitta]

I find the wizard extremely limited myself. It runs out of spells way too fast for my taste, and I never have enough money to "become god" as you put it. I prefer Sorcerer or DSP psion, more numerous spells per day, excellent special abilities... I don't ever feel like I'm on the verge of uselessness with those classes. As a wizard, I feel like I am just a couple spells short all the time.

I have never actually played a psion, but I have played a high-level wizard or two, and I enjoy them.

[Elkad]

Yes. And a good part of it is the versatility.

I never just get the same spells back the next morning. I always change something in my loadout, and I may change nearly everything. Some of that is adapting to conditions, but a good portion is just wanting to change things up.

I tend towards god-mode wizard by default, but getting up in the morning and taking 90% blasting spells happens.

It does take good DM support. If he's just throwing bigger melee encounters at you, it gets boring. If he's countering you with casters of his own, it's glorious.

[Eldariel]

Yes. And a good part of it is the versatility.

I never just get the same spells back the next morning. I always change something in my loadout, and I may change nearly everything. Some of that is adapting to conditions, but a good portion is just wanting to change things up.

I tend towards god-mode wizard by default, but getting up in the morning and taking 90% blasting spells happens.

It does take good DM support. If he's just throwing bigger melee encounters at you, it gets boring. If he's countering you with casters of his own, it's glorious.

Luckily almost all high level monsters are either casters or have caster-level SLAs (Pit Fiend & al.).

[Endarire]

My high level Wizard experience has been in 2E (with Baldur's Gate II and Icewind Dale), 3.0, and 3.5. I've enjoyed having access to so much power, but I've generally hated how easily it was shut down by GMs who used antimagic as a toggle for effectiveness. There was also a lot of bookkeeping - largely to track each character's stats with and without magic - but high-level characters in general require preparation and bookkeeping.

I did enjoy being a high-level Wizard (the Angel Summoner, sometimes literally) sometimes, but I had mixed feelings about being so magic-dependent. I felt I never got to properly use the reality-defining pinnacles of Wizardry that optimization theory said should have been easy for me, but also theory is not experience/empirical. I enjoyed the versatility of being able to be a crowd controller in eary game to a heavy buffer in mid game due to a GM who pretty much forced all his rolls to succeed.

[Bonzai]

Usually I find wizards to be a stressful class to play, as I try and be THE utility/solution to any problems that arise. I get frustrated when I don't have the right stuff prepared. It's self imposed stress, but I can't help myself.

That being said, the most fun character I ever had was a Conjurer in an all wizard campaign. By being mostly limited to conjurations, it took the stress away. I had my wheel house and stuck to it. This lead to some surprising innovations in spell use and play style. He ended up being the most effective and potent character I have ever played. Sadly the campaign ended just as we got 9th level spells. At that point he could theoretically gate in 5 Xixical's in one round. We were already taking on epic level encounters as it was. I dont blame the dm for stopping there, as the party was getting rediculous.

[Buufreak]

The highest level of wizards I have ever played was 11, and by that point I was insta-gibbing anything that was a big enough threat while also trivializing most things the DM threw at us. I don't think he fully understood how insane casters could be anywhere above level 7. Case in point, he sent a bunch of kid thugs after me in an attempt to mug me. I, in turn, turned their leader into an inside-out squirrel-chicken hybrid, which subsequently died moments later from the trauma and inability to breathe.

In short, I loved playing the wizard. However, in certain cases it was definitely considered a "**** move."

[TalonOfAnathrax]

Sure I do! There's nothing better than a high level Evoker/Conjurer/Enchanter. Sure it's suboptimal, but you're literally a one-man WMD and that's great.

I usually play casters, but I like to play them as closer to Jarlaxle than Batman. Max Bluff, increase movement speed and Tumble as much as possible, and try to solve every problem in a cinematic way (with magic of course). Magnificent Badass is my goal, and the usual Batman optimisation routes tend to detract from being a Rogue with magic...
It's no surprise that unless it's a high-OP game, I pick Sorcerers :)

[Footman]

Thanks for your Answers, that gave me a bit more insight. It was actually the first High lvl Game for our DM, she was probably a bit overwhelmed by our Overpowered Characters/Magic Options.

[Eldariel]

Thanks for your Answers, that gave me a bit more insight. It was actually the first High lvl Game for our DM, she was probably a bit overwhelmed by our Overpowered Characters/Magic Options.

First time we started from level 13, we played members of an organization of Elf Supremacists in Waterdeep and the first thing we were ordered to do was rough up some drunkard who loudly voiced his anti-elf sentiments in his stupor. Yeah, your DM is not the only one with paradigm adjustment issues. Though remember, the term "overpowered" is relative; you can only be overpowered in relation to something else. A character cannot really be overpowered in vacuum and neither can magic, but you can always be overpowered compared to the preconceptions, fellow party members, campaign power level or so on. It sounds like yours was a case of the last item on the list.