4e / GSL Wizards in 4E have been 'neutered' argument...

[Celebrim]

Originally Posted by AllisterH

Um, did nobody play a pre 3e wizard?...1e/2e wizards were HARD to play. Seriously, with the restriction on magic items (can't buy them, pretty much an adventure in of itself to make one thus you had to get by with what slots you had) AND the rules of magic in combat (1 pt of damage and your spell is lost AND high level spells being relatively slow in combat) AND the rules for spells themselves (many spells being dangerous to the caster AND spell acquisition being more subject to the whims of the DM AND non-damage spells being less useful as you level)

Yes, I played it pre-3e wizard. And yes, I pretty much instantly discount the opinion of anyone who claims 1e wizards made other classes obselete and completely overshadowed other classes as in fact never having played 1e and not having much of an opinion worth listening to on this matter.

My general experience with 1e wizards is that they were too fragile to keep alive. Even at 6th or 7th level, a single class wizard simply didn't have enough spells to contribute anything more than an occasional emergency nova, and could easily be dropped by single attacks and was lucky to have an AC of better than 8 or so. Most of the time you kept behind cover, and occasionally flung a dart or dagger. In the highly unlikely event you got one to 10th level, you still probably had less than 30 h.p. and you were lucky if you'd managed to get your AC down to 0. It was very easy to have your character overwhelmed even at a time when your compatriots were reaching the point that they had so many hitpoints that nothing in game could drop them except a failed saving throw.

I never saw a single classed 1e wizard survive to high levels in all the time playing the game. I saw some fairly powerful multiclassed wizards who used the hitpoint boost (and sometimes AC boost) to get them through the low levels, but then you often ran up into an XP wall that made advancement almost impossible. Except by the most deliberate effort by the DM and cautious play by the player, I can't imagine how you'd get a 1e M-U up to casting 9th level spells.

Third edition vastly increased the power of the wizard (and the cleric!). This was necessary at low levels, but broke the game (somewhat, I'm sure we can find plenty of defenders of the usefulness of other classes) at high levels. Many of the safeguards Gygax had wrote into the rules to prevent abuse of powerful spells were written out, and that just made the problem worse.

I didn't however see alot of 3rd edition single classed wizards survive long at my table either, nor did I do alot of high level play. But I can sympathize with both sides. I can definately see the problem (and I could foresee the problem developing with my PC cleric) and see why something needed to be done, but I can very much agree that the steps taken leave something to be desired (and that something isn't 'lording it over my fellow players').

[Fanaelialae]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

In 3E(and before), Wizards(and spellcasters in general) could break the world if they wanted to. Spells fundamentally changed reality, and there's a lot of power in that. In 4E, the world has rules, and magic has to exist within those rules. If you want to wield the power to break the world, in 4E you're out of luck. It bears saying that the desire to be able to break the world doesn't necessarily mean you want to lord your power over everyone else at the table.

We lost one of our group when we switched to 4E because of this, though getting married and moving 45 minutes away contributed as well. We see him occasionally, and this is what he complains about in terms of 4E, not being able to wield ultimate power.

I wouldn't say that 4e wizards can never change reality per se, but rather that the capacity for breaking reality isn't a feature of spellcasting anymore, but rather of being epic level.

There are plenty of epic destiny powers and such that break reality in various ways. The most common probably being that instead of dying, you become meaner than you already were (death can be used to your advantage now).

I don't think there's anything quite on the level of Wish (the ultimate reality breaking spell), but Wish was one of the most problematic pre-4e spells for a number of reasons, so that's a good thing IMO.

[MerricB]

Originally Posted by Celebrim

I never saw a single classed 1e wizard survive to high levels in all the time playing the game. I saw some fairly powerful multiclassed wizards who used the hitpoint boost (and sometimes AC boost) to get them through the low levels, but then you often ran up into an XP wall that made advancement almost impossible. Except by the most deliberate effort by the DM and cautious play by the player, I can't imagine how you'd get a 1e M-U up to casting 9th level spells.

In my very limited experience as a player, what you needed was to get a magic wand. My AD&D magic-user, Meliander, picked up a wand of fire with about 90-odd charges in the Temple of Elemental Evil and went to town with it. Later, he gained a Staff of Power.

Wizards were (relatively) weak without magic items in AD&D; they were exceptional with a couple of good wands.

Cheers!

[AllisterH]

Exactly Celebrim (hey we agree on something).

A 3e wizard is NOT the same thing as a pre 3e wizard. The body may look the same (spells) but the chassis is so different than it is an entirely new car.


I think what made wizards appear to be powerful was that the FICTION for the various D&D worlds. They always downplayed the restrictions IMO. Not just Forgotten Realms fiction where you had Elminister and the love given to spellcasting but even in Greyhawk and Dragonlance, the real movers and shakers of the campaign world were the spellcasters.

I think the only D&D writer that didn't write spellcaster as the uber-class in fiction was Salvatore and he's on record as being somewhat antagonistic towards the spellcasters.

[Celebrim]

Originally Posted by MerricB

In my very limited experience as a player, what you needed was to get a magic wand. My AD&D magic-user, Meliander, picked up a wand of fire with about 90-odd charges in the Temple of Elemental Evil and went to town with it. Later, he gained a Staff of Power.

Well, sure. But to really get himself going, a 1e M-U needed a fairly large stock of essential items that he just couldn't buy. I personally never came up with a Wand of Fire or a Staff or Power, though I did have alot of fun with a Wand of Paralyzation and a Wand of Polymorph.

In edition to at least one good wand you absolutely had to come up with bracers of defence and/or a good cloak of protection early on and neither of these were exactly common unless your DM was being nice. A set of bracers might turn up every fifty or sixty items, but outside of published modules brimming with every treasure imaginable (all the better to whisk your way through the story), your wand of fire only naturally turns up probably every 200 items or so. I mean, you are talking about an item that retails in 1e for more than a +5 holy avenger and is worth more than several artifacts. I don't know many DM's that just give those away.

[Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by AllisterH

Um, did nobody play a pre 3e wizard?

The tactic of getting up in the morning and buffing yourself seems to be a 3.x tactic which I don't really remember in 1e/2e.

I played a bunch of 2E, but not much 3E. Based on my experience in 2E, I would have to agree with your and Celebrim's comments about magic-users being a difficult class that wasn't an obvious "BEST" option. They were really fragile with their crappy cloth robes and low hit points, plus they dreaded spells being disrupted by range attacks.

Comparisons of a game that allows/encourages SO many custom rules and playstyles becomes difficult, but honestly, we just never experienced the magic-user stealing the show. He got so few spells that he rarely bothered to memorize (or even want to have in the book) something that was redundant with abilities of other classes.

[Thasmodious]

Allister is right. 3e was quite the different beast (as different from older editions as 4e is from 3e). Older edition wizards were hard to play and those restrictions imposed a lot of balance against their overall power at higher levels. The 1e wizard is definitely my favorite iteration of the class.

The 4e wizard, though, let's talk flavor. The assumptions are a bit different from 1e, the adventurers begin fairly powerful rather than farm hands and wet behind the ears apprentices, but from those assumptions, 4e has the most wizardly wizard since 1e, I would see. They just ooze arcane power. The 4e wizard can cast spells all day long and not just some combat spells.

My 4e wizard wakes up in the inn and as he's stretching, a cup of water is poured from the nightstand and brought to him. While he drinks it, his clothes, stained from travel and wrinkled all to heck, float over and affix themselves to him. By the time he descends the stairs, they are spotlessly clean and pressed. He orders breakfast without seeming to speak aloud and feasts hands free while he peruses arcane texts with the aid of a magical light that floats just over his shoulder. He never opens a door with his own hands, lights candles and campfires from a distance, is equally comfortable on cold or hot days and is a master of the prank if he wants to be. Cantrips all day long are all about the flavor.

[Herremann the Wise]

Originally Posted by Thasmodious

The 4e wizard, though, let's talk flavor. The assumptions are a bit different from 1e, the adventurers begin fairly powerful rather than farm hands and wet behind the ears apprentices, but from those assumptions, 4e has the most wizardly wizard since 1e, I would see. They just ooze arcane power. The 4e wizard can cast spells all day long and not just some combat spells.

My 4e wizard wakes up in the inn and as he's stretching, a cup of water is poured from the nightstand and brought to him. While he drinks it, his clothes, stained from travel and wrinkled all to heck, float over and affix themselves to him. By the time he descends the stairs, they are spotlessly clean and pressed. He orders breakfast without seeming to speak aloud and feasts hands free while he peruses arcane texts with the aid of a magical light that floats just over his shoulder. He never opens a door with his own hands, lights candles and campfires from a distance, is equally comfortable on cold or hot days and is a master of the prank if he wants to be. Cantrips all day long are all about the flavor.

Hah, that's just mummery for the locals. The 3e wizard comes into the tavern, kills him and takes his stuff... and ya knowit

There are so many ideas of what constitutes a wizard; so many different flavours and all of them equally valid. For me though, a wizard should be able to make a threat and be able to back it up with his magic. A wizard should be able to make the impossible possible, all while having an air of mystery. In this regard, the 4e wizard fails for me; but as a well-balanced controller, he succeeds several times over.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

[thecasualoblivion]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

Hah, that's just mummery for the locals. The 3e wizard comes into the tavern, kills him and takes his stuff... and ya knowit

There are so many ideas of what constitutes a wizard; so many different flavours and all of them equally valid. For me though, a wizard should be able to make a threat and be able to back it up with his magic. A wizard should be able to make the impossible possible, all while having an air of mystery. In this regard, the 4e wizard fails for me; but as a well-balanced controller, he succeeds several times over.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

But that isn't exactly true. After a few levels, the 4E Wizard is more than capable of making a threat and backing it up. He makes the impossible possible, and has an air of mystery.

The only difference is that he can't do it to his peers. He has to do it to those lesser than him. This is because the measure of power is no longer "casts spells". Its now level.

[Herremann the Wise]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

But that isn't exactly true. After a few levels, the 4E Wizard is more than capable of making a threat and backing it up. He makes the impossible possible, and has an air of mystery.

The only difference is that he can't do it to his peers. He has to do it to those lesser than him.

Now don't get me started on minions otherwise we're headed for threadlock!

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

[thecasualoblivion]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

Now don't get me started on minions otherwise we're headed for threadlock!

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Wasn't talking about minions. I was talking about level. Level is the measure of power in 4E, not whether or not you use magic. Minions are merely an alternate way to stat out lower level enemies.

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Celebrim

Yes, I played it pre-3e wizard. And yes, I pretty much instantly discount the opinion of anyone who claims 1e wizards made other classes obselete and completely overshadowed other classes as in fact never having played 1e and not having much of an opinion worth listening to on this matter.

Wow... Just... wow...

You're saying that anyone who claims to have an experience different from yours is either lying or an idiot.

Do you apply that to all things, or just this specific one?

I did play 1e D&D. I did see wizards completely dominate the game.

I also didn't see 6th level wizards with an 8 AC. I did see rings of protection combined with cloaks of protection and quite possibly bracers of defense.

In any case, I guess since my experience differs from yours I'm either lying or stupid. Which one is it?

[Thasmodious]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

For me though, a wizard should be able to make a threat and be able to back it up with his magic. A wizard should be able to make the impossible possible, all while having an air of mystery.

I would say the 4e wizard more than meets those requirements, much more so than the 3e wizard especially, and from 1st level as well. In previous editions, a low level wizard couldn't back up much of a threat with just his magic. It ran out too quickly.

"I will kill you with my magic!"
casts magic missile, orc survives
"I can now a)kill you with my crossbow or b)come back in 8 hours"

[Herremann the Wise]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

Wasn't talking about minions.

But I was (as they are the only things out there lesser than Thasmodius's diet lite wizard!) Sheesh, having to explain jokes is always the pits. It's like a guy in our group who will always laugh three times at a joke. Once when it's told, once when it's explained to him and then again two minutes later when he gets it.

Originally Posted by Thasmodious

I would say the 4e wizard more than meets those requirements, much more so than the 3e wizard especially, and from 1st level as well. In previous editions, a low level wizard couldn't back up much of a threat with just his magic. It ran out too quickly.

"I will kill you with my magic!"
casts magic missile, orc survives
"I can now a)kill you with my crossbow or b)come back in 8 hours"

OK buster, before we go anywhere with this, any wizard who has competence in the crossbow should be struck off the Wizardly register! What do you think wands were for huh? Just waving around in the air like they do now days? And no; a low level 3e wizard is an apprentice, generally in awe of his betters - not a real wizard; not yet anyway. Real wizards kill you dead then take your stuff.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

[Dannyalcatraz]

Having played since 1977, I can speak to all editions of Wizards...and won't!

I must, however, respond to this:

I would say the 4e wizard more than meets those requirements, much more so than the 3e wizard especially, and from 1st level as well. In previous editions, a low level wizard couldn't back up much of a threat with just his magic. It ran out too quickly.

"I will kill you with my magic!"
casts magic missile, orc survives
"I can now a)kill you with my crossbow or b)come back in 8 hours"

I happened to play a Sorcerer (OK, not a Wizard, but the issue is the same) who, at first level, would have said this...

"I will kill you with my magic!"
breathes Dragon Breath (Lightning) in 30' line, orc dies, so do several of his buddies...
"I can now a)kill you with my Maul or b)come back in 8 hours"

Or my previous PC, a Specialist Diviner who would have used True Strike to eye-shoot the orcish SOB with his X-bow...

Or...or...or...and so forth- more than anything else 3.X was about flexibility.

(Yes, over time, this flexibility will probably appear in 4Ed as well, but I'm not waiting around for it...)

Should the Wizard have been nerfed? IMHO, no...at least, not in the way 4Ed did, or others think it should have been done. I think the 3.X arcanists should have been more vulnerable to disruption than they were, but should not have had their overall potential dropped.

To me, the 4Ed Wiz is an example of balance sapping flavor. In a Moorcockian sense, Law has triumphed over Chaos, and the result is an unending steady state.

[Herremann the Wise]

Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz

I think the 3.X arcanists should have been more vulnerable to disruption than they were, but should not have had their overall potential dropped.

Nail on head!

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

[Toras]

I think part of my problem with 4e has always been the shear dragging mundanity of it all. Wizards pulled down rather than raising up the non-casting classes. Let me have Hercules that is capable of taking the world from Atlas's shoulders, a Samson capable of slay hordes with the jaw bone of an ass. Let my thief steal fire from the gods, the heart of maidens fair and vanish like smoke from even the sharpest eye of man. Let him steal the words from your mouth and the thoughts from your mind.

Let my cleric part the sea as Moses's upon the mount or call down fire from the heavens upon a city of men.

Let my sword's man slice the wind and my monk balance on the head of a pin.

[Mouseferatu]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

Nail on head!

Whereas I'd argue that the game would have swiftly become unplayable for a large number of people.

Hear me out.

I'm not arguing that 4E's method was the best way to go. Maybe it was, maybe not. But I will argue that "balancing" wizards by making their spells really powerful, but easy to disrupt, would've been one of the worst things for the game.

Here's the thing. I know that lots of people have a problem with WotC's use of the term "fun" lately. I don't pretend to know what everyone thinks is fun, but I do know what most people I've ever met, talked to, or even heard of think is fun.

And I don't know anyone who enjoys sitting around twiddling their thumbs because they're unable to contribute round after round in combat.

It may not be safe to assume that nobody would enjoy that, but it's absolutely safe to assume that the average gamer doesn't look forward to sitting around doing nothing. That's not what gaming's about.

With a wizard who has Phenomenal Cosmic Power, but at the cost of being easily disrupted, every combat is almost guaranteed to go one of two ways:

1) The wizard obliterates everything, and the other players are cast in the role of sidekick at best.

2) The wizard fails to do anything.

Either way, someone's having a really bad experience.

Are there some groups who would enjoy playing that way? Absolutely. Would it have worked for most groups? I'm willing to bet no. And would it have turned off more new players than it ever brought in? I'm willing to guarantee the answer is no.

Is it possible for balance to grow so strict that flavor suffers? Absolutely. But that doesn't change the fact that a game with any hopes of retaining popularity has to have some focus on balance. And making every fight a swingy one, based on the success or failure of a single class, is absolutely detrimental to any sort of balanced system.

[Ourph]

Re: Nerfing Wizards... I liked playing casters in 3.5. Most of my characters were Wizards, Warmages, Druids or some other type of primary caster.

And I have to say that after playing some 4e I just can't go back to playing those 3.5 classes. Despite their awe-inspiring power at higher levels, the lower levels weren't very "magical". By comparison the 4e Wizard is extremely versatile. The idea of playing a low level 3.5 caster again (other than MAYBE a Warlock) is really unappealing. Too much of a low level Wizard's time in 3.5 was spent doing non-magical things because either 1) the resources had run out; or 2) resources needed to be "saved for later".

I recently got invited to play in a friend's 3.5 game and started to roll up a Warmage. I got to the point of buying equipment and realized I would need the ubiquituos Light Crossbow for when my spells ran out and just crumpled up the character sheet and threw it away. The idea of playing a *BANG*BANG*BANG* now break out the crossbow-type character after playing 4e was just too frustrating. I rolled up a Fighter instead.

[Hussar]

What's really funny though is the idea that this is something new with 4e.

EVERY 3e replacement class for casters published in WOTC splats was weaker than core casters. From the first days of 3e, designers knew that the core casters needed to be reined in. Whether it was sorcerers, or warmages, or any other caster substitute, you see a massive reduction in scope compared to core wizards.

It's pretty telling, to me anyway, that even after 8 years of 3e supplements, clerics, druids and wizards were STILL considered the strongest classes in the game.