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

[pawsplay]

The last time I played AD&D, I was a 4th level abjurer. I remember that my character was able to use flaming sphere to help the party's javelin specialist annihilate a troll in, I think, three rounds, without any party member sustaining damage. I am telling this story for two reasons. First, to point out that pre-3e wizards were not a bunch of sad little beggars grubbing for magic wands; if all you had to rely on was your spells, it was rough, but a well placed spell could really save the party's bacon. Second, I'd like to point out that the javelin specialist did the bulk of the damage. My wizard's contribution was to supply a source of fire damage the troll could not regenerate and to hamper the troll's movement options.

A 3e wizard knows probably twice as many spells as an AD&D wizard, but I don't think it makes that much of a difference, because he can't cast twice as many in a day, much less in a combat or two. 3e did several things that did increase the power of the wizard. First, spells had fewer drawbacks, fewer weird requirements, chances for disasterous failure, and so forth. Second, a few more spells a day does make a difference. Third, not having to check for chance to know spell did increase AD&D wizard customizability (but not Basic D&D wizards). However, the wizard got stuck with the same hit die, while damage and hp overall went up. Uncapping Con bonus to hp and allowing unlimited hit dice (instead of 10 HD) evened the playing field somewhat, but the 3e wizard is still pretty fragile.

Despite some upgrades, some of which I would consider bland and unwelcome, the 3e wizard remains very similar to the AD&D wizard. In fact, the rogue and fighter have changed more, with the fighter increasing not simply proficiencies and combat options but gaining access to multiple numeric bonuses and easier acess to damaging magic items. The rogue gained more rapidly scaling damage and a generally improved reliability with skills.

Anyone who has played vampire or Hero or any of a number of games that are not D&D understands that "class balance" is a dream of a dream, not something you can put in a sack and weigh. Obviously, the classes need somewhat balanced capabilities, but a fighter does not need the abiliy to warp reality any more than a wizard needs the capability to pepper a giant to death with thrown weapons or wrestle a bugbear. In 3e, the fighter remains a noble ally to the wizard. In Pathfinder, both classes remain much the same. At the end of the day, the measure of a class is its ability to meaningfully contribute. A wizard is quite powerful, but two wizards are not necessarily more powerful than a wizard and a fighter, and is likely less in many contexts.

4e's solution to the identified of problem of wizards holding all the good utility spells was to spread them around. The thing about rituals is... if you have a wizard in the party, who would be a ritualist besides the wizard? The supposed innovation comes right back to the same mechanic, the wizard doing the scrying and teleporting and whatnot.

I don't think 4e hit the mark on rescaling the wizard without affecting the wizard's style. I think 4e's core design probably contributed.

Bottom line: wizards used to conserve their spells, keep a dagger handy, and occasionally go kaboom. If you preferred the original playstyle, the wizard is gone.

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Mouseferatu

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.

Really, spellcaster disruption isn't a binary thing. Or at least, it doesn't have to be.

IME, 1&2Ed Wizards might have a couple of spells disrupted in a session, but by and large, didn't fail to have an impact. When their casting was disrupted, it was, in a word, an interesting time!

3.X spellcasters, OTOH, seemed almost imperturbable...and that in an RPG that introduced formal rules for countermagic, inspired by the company's other game of note, M:tG.

However, if

1. the Concentration skill hadn't been so effective at letting spellcasters avoid disruption, and
2. The counterspelling system was more robust- more options (including dedicated anti-spellcasting spells, feats, and powers), more chance of success, possible side effects to disruptions (for both caster and counterspeller), and
3. Disruption could result in diminished or wild magic effects rather than simple fizzles

You'd still have spellcasters with fearsome potential, but with identifiable weaknesses that could be exploited by PC and NPC alike, without the game devolving into a simple "Wizards AWESOME/Wizards SUCK" binary game-state.

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.

Well, it depends upon how you define "contribute round after round in combat."

One of my best buds plays Wizards almost exclusively...has done so since I met him back in 1984 or so. His PCs usually have a spell-list that is about as optimized as anything Thanee ever posted.

His playstyle is one reason our group almost never sees the "15 minute workday": He'll cast a spell for impact, then maybe one more...then wait, staff or dagger or dart or whatever his main weapon was, at the ready. Often, his PC was looking for "targets from unexpected directions"- and make no mistake, trying to anticipate the unexpected is a valuable contribution- "evaluating the battlefield" or simply "conserving his energy." Or some such.

IOW, his PCs typically spend most of a combat "holding."

And he's perfectly fine with that.

In fact, he's not the only player in the group who feels that a PC can contribute without doing an action every chance he can, that sometimes, "holding" is the best thing you can do. (I'm another, and I tend towards melee-focused PCs with caster/roguish elements.)

This isn't to say this is the way we all play. Make no mistake, we have at least one guy who is Wolverine on Meth when it comes to combat...(and yet hasn't played a Barbarian- go figure!).

[Melkor]

Originally Posted by Herschel

And apparently your friend has never seen an earlier edition wizard before 3rd (or 6th) level of play. "I cast sleep, and hide" or "I cast magic missile, and run".

Well, in my buddy's defense, he said that in the old days, you worked, struggled, and tried everything you could to survive as a low-level wizard....and the payoff for all of that was you reaped a power reward if you survived to higher levels.

That's another 4E objection....He enjoyed that aspect of play...trying to use his wits to survive, and he thinks that is gone from the new game.

Another contributing factor to that is that we never had a campaign last (in 20 years of playing D&D together) past about 11th or 12th level, so he feels somewhat slighted that he never saw the real payoff as a Wizard in any of our campaigns. That is a different matter though.

[Melkor]

Thanks for all of the responses folks.

A few days ago, he was DEAD set against 4E. After showing him some of the books and Dragon articles, he is still somewhat bitter, but he has agreed to make up a character, and run through a few encounters to see what the system 'feels' like.

We'll see what happens.

[Herremann the Wise]

Originally Posted by Mouseferatu

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.

Hello Ari,

But those are the two extremes as if that is all the wizard can do. Why not suit the risk with the reward: make your basic cantrips at will, your "normal" arsenal as per and the "big stuff" the ones that can be easily disrupted or that can incur other penalties? In this way, you can play a conservative wizard who sticks to the reliable or you can always risk the chocolates going for the prize and all shades in between. You're not forced to stick to the sidelines this way. However, if you want to try and save the day with something big, you can and benefit from or suffer the consequences. This middling approach seems classic risk-reward to me.

Originally Posted by Mouseferatu

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.

I agree if it is every fight that is swingy. If the wizard (or any other class) can occasionally be the hero though, I don't see a problem as long as teamwork/interactivity of allied effort is maintained.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

[Theroc]

Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz

Mouseferatu (and others)- spellcaster disruption isn't a binary thing. Or at least, it doesn't have to be.

IME, 1&2Ed Wizards might have a couple of spells disrupted in a session, but by and large, didn't fail to have an impact. When their casting was disrupted, it was, in a word, an interesting time!

3.X spellcasters, OTOH, seemed almost imperturbable...and that in an RPG that introduced formal rules for countermagic, inspired by the company's other game of note, M:tG.

However, if

1. the Concentration skill hadn't been so effective at letting spellcasters avoid disruption, and
2. The counterspelling system was more robust- more options (including dedicated anti-spellcasting spells, feats, and powers), more chance of success, possible side effects to disruptions (for both caster and counterspeller), and
3. Disruption could result in diminished or wild magic effects rather than simple fizzles

You'd still have spellcasters with fearsome potential, but with identifiable weaknesses that could be exploited by PC and NPC alike, without the game devolving into a simple "Wizards AWESOME/Wizards SUCK" binary game-state.

This isn't directly on the D&D topic, but an offshoot of Danny's post, having played M:TG prior to playing D&D and then reading this.

It hadn't occurred to me until now, but that would have been an excellent concept, in my opinion. As much as I hate negative effects, adding some of the countering elements from Magic would be interesting. Heck, add spells to the game which simply dangled a sword above the Wizard's head. Such as a spell that places a curse on the target, causing them to suffer damage equal to the level of every spell cast for a certain length of time, causing the wizard to think about whether he WANTS to cast a spell.

[thecasualoblivion]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

A 3e wizard knows probably twice as many spells as an AD&D wizard, but I don't think it makes that much of a difference, because he can't cast twice as many in a day, much less in a combat or two. 3e did several things that did increase the power of the wizard. First, spells had fewer drawbacks, fewer weird requirements, chances for disasterous failure, and so forth. Second, a few more spells a day does make a difference. Third, not having to check for chance to know spell did increase AD&D wizard customizability (but not Basic D&D wizards).

One thing people always forget about when talking about 1E/2E and 3E is the difference in pacing. 3E is a much slower running game, both overall and in terms of combat than 1E/2E. In addition to having a few extra spells thanks to bonus spells for high stats, the 3E Wizard usually had to face fewer challenges between rest periods thanks to the slower pace of the game. The Wizard was theoretically balanced by assuming it would have to face X amount of combats between rests, but the slow pace of the game made a shorter day much more common. This powered up the Wizard as much as anything else.

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Despite some upgrades, some of which I would consider bland and unwelcome, the 3e wizard remains very similar to the AD&D wizard. In fact, the rogue and fighter have changed more, with the fighter increasing not simply proficiencies and combat options but gaining access to multiple numeric bonuses and easier acess to damaging magic items. The rogue gained more rapidly scaling damage and a generally improved reliability with skills.

What you speak of is a matter of perception. Its not what was added to Wizards, or that what they could do was changed. What changed about Wizards was the removal of the majority of their weaknesses and drawbacks. Its not as obvious to the eye as the additions to Fighters and Rogues, but it had a much greater impact on actual play.

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Anyone who has played vampire or Hero or any of a number of games that are not D&D understands that "class balance" is a dream of a dream, not something you can put in a sack and weigh. Obviously, the classes need somewhat balanced capabilities, but a fighter does not need the abiliy to warp reality any more than a wizard needs the capability to pepper a giant to death with thrown weapons or wrestle a bugbear. In 3e, the fighter remains a noble ally to the wizard. In Pathfinder, both classes remain much the same. At the end of the day, the measure of a class is its ability to meaningfully contribute. A wizard is quite powerful, but two wizards are not necessarily more powerful than a wizard and a fighter, and is likely less in many contexts.

I hear this excuse a lot, and it never really addresses the fact that 3E was unbalanced in practice to a greater degree than pretty much any commonly played system.

Originally Posted by pawsplay

4e's solution to the identified of problem of wizards holding all the good utility spells was to spread them around. The thing about rituals is... if you have a wizard in the party, who would be a ritualist besides the wizard? The supposed innovation comes right back to the same mechanic, the wizard doing the scrying and teleporting and whatnot.

The solution is that there are other classes who can Ritual in the absence of the Wizard. The Wizard's presence is far from mandatory. As much as Rituals are necessary, the Bard, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Invoker, Psion, or anyone with the feat can perform them. 4E frees you up to skip having a Wizard altogether.

Originally Posted by pawsplay

I don't think 4e hit the mark on rescaling the wizard without affecting the wizard's style. I think 4e's core design probably contributed.

Bottom line: wizards used to conserve their spells, keep a dagger handy, and occasionally go kaboom. If you preferred the original playstyle, the wizard is gone.

Indeed. Its a shame that playstyle caused as much problems as it did and had to be set aside. At least people who prefer it that way still have the old edition.

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by DannyA

IOW, his PCs typically spend most of a combat "holding."

And he's perfectly fine with that.

But, do you think that should be the default stance in the game? That "Holding your action" should be the expectation I should have when playing a wizard?

That your friend is groovy with that is fine and great. But, I would hardly expect everyone to be fine with warming the pines while everyone else gets to do stuff, just so I can be super spectacular once in a while.

I don't play D&D to be a pinch hitter.

[Dannyalcatraz]

Its been hinted at in other threads, but it hasn't been mentioned here, AFAIK.

In earlier editions of the game, Wizards didn't simply get their pick of spells when they leveled. They had to see if they successfully learned the spells they were looking at, and if they didn't, they kept trying to learn spells until they succeeded. They might not learn the spell they really wanted until they found a scroll or tome...or leveled again.

In 3.X, that seemingly insignificant speedbump was gone. I say "seemingly insignificant" because suddenly, you could make your spellcaster as lean and efficient as you cared to, and that changed the power balance in the game. Any oddities in your spell list reflected 1) PC concept, 2) player quirk, or 3) player inexperience.

IOW, the "sportscar" class of previous editions had suddenly become a top-fuel dragster.

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Hussar

But, do you think that should be the default stance in the game? That "Holding your action" should be the expectation I should have when playing a wizard?

That your friend is groovy with that is fine and great. But, I would hardly expect everyone to be fine with warming the pines while everyone else gets to do stuff, just so I can be super spectacular once in a while.

I don't play D&D to be a pinch hitter.

To continue the baseball analogy...

He's less of a pinch hitter and more of a discriminating HR hitter who is a tough out. He makes the DM throw strikes, or he's not swinging.

Its up to the other PCs to hit the singles and the bunts and so forth- he's up there to knock the ball out of the park, and not every pitch is worth his energy.

And no, I don't think it should be the default.

My point was that some players- both those who prefer arcanists and those who don't- don't think that a PC has to cast a spell or swing a weapon in order to "contribute" to combat. That point was in response to Mouseferatu's assertion about players who are unhappy when they don't contribute. I was presenting a differing perspective on what "contribute" means.

Observation, situational analysis, or simply guarding against the unexpected- flying, hidden, invisible, dimension-hopping or even mundanely ambushing foes are always a possibility- can be just as important as doing another 1d6 damage in a given round.

Heck, the conservation of spell energy by not casting is, in its own way, contributing.

I mean, what is more important- casting a spell that will finish off the combat by disabling all of the remaining foes, or letting the other PCs mop things up (knowing they're not in any real danger) and saving that spell for later. (The answer to that becomes even clearer when the caster in question is a Cleric who could spontaneously channel that spell into healing down the road.)

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz

Its been hinted at in other threads, but it hasn't been mentioned here, AFAIK.

In earlier editions of the game, Wizards didn't simply get their pick of spells when they leveled. They had to see if they successfully learned the spells they were looking at, and if they didn't, they kept trying to learn spells until they succeeded. They might not learn the spell they really wanted until they found a scroll or tome...or leveled again.

In 3.X, that seemingly insignificant speedbump was gone. I say "seemingly insignificant" because suddenly, you could make your spellcaster as lean and efficient as you cared to, and that changed the power balance in the game. Any oddities in your spell list reflected 1) PC concept, 2) player quirk, or 3) player inexperience.

IOW, the "sportscar" class of previous editions had suddenly become a top-fuel dragster.

Eeeehh. You're chance of learning a spell was pretty good by and large. Assuming an 16+ Int (and that's not a tough assumption IME) you had about a what, 60, 70% chance of learning a spell. If you ever hit 19 Int, that issue when away.

Now, the max spells per level could certainly be an issue though. You couldn't just keep adding spells to your spellbook forever. There was an upper limit. It was a pretty high upper limit, but, upper limit there was.

As far as

My point was that some players- both those who prefer arcanists and those who don't- don't think that a PC has to cast a spell or swing a weapon in order to "contribute" to combat. Observation, situational analysis, or simply guarding against the unexpected- flying, hidden, invisible, dimension-hopping or even mundanely ambushing foes are always a possibility- can be just as important as doing another 1d6 damage in a given round.

goes, well, again, sure, there are some players like this. I don't deny that. But, again, I don't think this should be the default. I think it should be the player's choice. If I as the player, choose to do that, it's because I want to, not because I have so few spells per day that I'm pretty much forced to by circumstance.

Again, there's no reason you can't play like that in 3e or 4e either.

But, something to be really aware of in all of this was the assumption of party size. It was perfectly okay for the wizard to sit back and watch in 1e and 2e because the party was assumed to be 6-8 rather than 4. Those extra 2-4 PC's make an ENORMOUS difference.

In 1e, you were assumed to have 3 frontline fighter types. Plus the cleric and you have 4 PC's that can form a nice wall for the wizard to hide behind. Because the monsters were quite a bit smaller hit point wise and damage potential wise, the three fighter types could put a serious pounding on pretty much any threat.

The wizard was just icing on the cake.

In 3e, the assumption is that there is no icing, there is only cake. The wizard HAS to pull his weight every round or the party is going to start losing PC's. The monsters are not only considerably tougher, but their damage potential is significantly higher. Sometimes to the tune of doubling their 1e damage. 1st to 10th level PC's aren't all that different in any system 1e-3e as far as hit points go.

Suddenly, you had only 1 fighter type in the front instead of 3 spreading out the damage and the monsters were doing possibly twice as much damage per round.

It's not an option for the wizard to not do damage. If the wizard is just watching the fight, the fighter is seriously going to get pummeled.

I think that's a point that gets lost in a lot of these comparisons. The biggest shift between pre-3e and 3ed is the assumed size of the party and the huge increase in monster hit points and damage output.

[Mouseferatu]

Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz

My point was that some players- both those who prefer arcanists and those who don't- don't think that a PC has to cast a spell or swing a weapon in order to "contribute" to combat. Observation, situational analysis, or simply guarding against the unexpected- flying, hidden, invisible, dimension-hopping or even mundanely ambushing foes are always a possibility- can be just as important as doing another 1d6 damage in a given round.

Sure, such players exist. But they're enough of an outlier that a core part of the system cannot afford to cater to them at the expense of other uses.

Now, that said, I'd love to see an optional system added to 4E that did include more nova-style wizards. It would be far more complex, and far more swingy, but I have no problem with that for what amounts to an Unearthed Arcana-style option.

But it would have to be just that: an optional add-on. Not a default assumption, and not the only way to play a wizard.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

One thing people always forget about when talking about 1E/2E and 3E is the difference in pacing.

Forgotten in what way? I am quite familiar with AD&D.

3E is a much slower running game, both overall and in terms of combat than 1E/2E. In addition to having a few extra spells thanks to bonus spells for high stats, the 3E Wizard usually had to face fewer challenges between rest periods thanks to the slower pace of the game. The Wizard was theoretically balanced by assuming it would have to face X amount of combats between rests, but the slow pace of the game made a shorter day much more common. This powered up the Wizard as much as anything else.
[quote]

I don't see how any differences in the editions would mandate this. AD&D was not, in my experience, a faster game. In fact, at low levels, high damage rolls often prompted a rest break. Potions of CLW were generally less common. If anything, 3e extended the work day by giving wizards half again as many spells in many cases.

What you speak of is a matter of perception. Its not what was added to Wizards, or that what they could do was changed. What changed about Wizards was the removal of the majority of their weaknesses and drawbacks. Its not as obvious to the eye as the additions to Fighters and Rogues, but it had a much greater impact on actual play.

Pshaw. I can think of no single playstyle difference between AD&D and 3e than the dual-wielding rogue sneak attacking an ogre to death in a single round.

I hear this excuse a lot, and it never really addresses the fact that 3E was unbalanced in practice to a greater degree than pretty much any commonly played system.

I make no excuses, just observations. And the only reason you are right about 3e is because it was the most commonly played system, and 4e is more rigorously balanced in most respects.

The solution is that there are other classes who can Ritual in the absence of the Wizard. The Wizard's presence is far from mandatory. As much as Rituals are necessary, the Bard, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Invoker, Psion, or anyone with the feat can perform them. 4E frees you up to skip having a Wizard altogether.

Sure. But making the wizard unnecessary is in my mind a less important design goal than making them useful. 4e seems to agree with me; rituals make many characters potentially part-time spellcasters. It is not that there are no wizards any more, just that any fighter can be "part wizard" in previous edition terms.

Indeed. Its a shame that playstyle caused as much problems as it did and had to be set aside. At least people who prefer it that way still have the old edition.

Interesting choice of words. I don't think the playstyle "had to" be put aside; indeed, I view the 4e design as less desirable in most ways for my purposes. I think it is a tragedy that the playstyle was not given the same level of support as the central style supported by 4e: long endurarance encounters punctuated by the occasional daily. I think it is as much a tragedy as if 4e had decided mundane fighters were not a concept worth preserving and all paragon level fighters exuded magical energies to allow them to go toe to toe with dragons and such. Rogues have just about been dispensed with; "rogue rituals" (aka skills) are also readily available, leaving rogues mainly in the role "sneaky fighter," in effect making them fighters. Apart from legacy concerns, rogues and rangers could just about have been two builds of the same class, Scout or whatever you wanted to call it.

The Vancian wizard is not exinct, nor has he been proven cumbersome to play. He has merely been proven unpopular at this time. How far does a 4e party progress when it's dailies have been expended? 4e lends itself, if anything, to a shorter workday. The issue was, is, and will be, GM pacing of encounters.

[Mouseferatu]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

But those are the two extremes as if that is all the wizard can do. Why not suit the risk with the reward: make your basic cantrips at will, your "normal" arsenal as per and the "big stuff" the ones that can be easily disrupted or that can incur other penalties?

And you still wind up with the same problem, although not to the same level. If the wizard "save up" all his good stuff until the opportune moment, and then--due to the penalties he incurs--it fails utterly, I think even the most patient of players is going to be frustrated.

Or you wind up with the wizard's companions handling all the "minor" fights, and the wizard hogging all the glory against the main villains.

As I said in my prior post, I'd be all for an optional sub-system to allow this sort of thing. But I truly believe there's no satisfactory way to make it work for the bulk of the audience as a core conceit.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Hussar

But, do you think that should be the default stance in the game? That "Holding your action" should be the expectation I should have when playing a wizard?

What, for a round or two? Why not? I mean, seriously. I can grok the whole cinematic style thing, but there is a lot to be said for the literary style as well. It's perfectly possible to play your character without doing a few points of damage every round. Because 4e gives everyone at-Wills, the wizard is in the exact same stance of "nothing exciting to do," except zotting with this or that is substituted for nothing or taking a defensive action or whatever.

And personally, I would prefer less casual magic use. If I wanted to give wizards something to do every round, I'd let them use swords or inspire their allies or something. Not sit around zotting like a Gauntlet character. That is my preference, which may not be others' preference.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Mouseferatu

Or you wind up with the wizard's companions handling all the "minor" fights, and the wizard hogging all the glory against the main villains.

Whereas if you give all the characters the same powers, you end up with a different problem. Everyone will go nova on the main villain. Which means that when fully loaded, they will blow away lesser encounters too easily, or else their nova is necessarily underwhelming and main villains equally so. Variation is what characters interesting, not consistency. The more characters are alike, the less each PC contributes in terms of adding interest to the encounter.

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Hussar

In 3e, the assumption is that there is no icing, there is only cake. The wizard HAS to pull his weight every round or the party is going to start losing PC's. The monsters are not only considerably tougher, but their damage potential is significantly higher. Sometimes to the tune of doubling their 1e damage. 1st to 10th level PC's aren't all that different in any system 1e-3e as far as hit points go.

Suddenly, you had only 1 fighter type in the front instead of 3 spreading out the damage and the monsters were doing possibly twice as much damage per round.

It's not an option for the wizard to not do damage. If the wizard is just watching the fight, the fighter is seriously going to get pummeled.

I think that's a point that gets lost in a lot of these comparisons. The biggest shift between pre-3e and 3ed is the assumed size of the party and the huge increase in monster hit points and damage output.

If that assumption were true, then our groups shouldn't be able to survive. And yet they do.

Typically, our 3.X groups are built along the lines of earlier editions: There will probably be a rogue of some kind, there will be a healer, there will be an arcanist, and warriors of some kind outnumber any other archetype.

Oftentimes, there is no solo-class healer, and only one pure arcanist- almost everyone multiclasses (discounting PrCls).

And yet, we're doing just fine without the Wiz slinging spells every round.

2 campaigns ago, we were playing RttToEE, and my buddy was- as I described- playing his typical Wizard. I was playing a heavily multiclassed Specialist Diviner/Warrior type PC who had almost no offensive spell capability (he knew Lesser Orb of Electricity). We were the only arcane casters.

For campaign reasons, my PC approached the Wiz to see if he could arrange for a little cross-tutelage in the ways of magic. I'd teach him my divinations, he'd teach me some evocations and the like. Thus, the party would have a little bit more low-level firepower and detection ability. He refused (in character).

He also didn't change his playstyle.

Despite this, we still managed to finish off the campaign with only 1 PC death (the rogue).

[Echohawk]

Originally Posted by Melkor

he said that in the old days, you worked, struggled, and tried everything you could to survive as a low-level wizard....and the payoff for all of that was you reaped a power reward if you survived to higher levels.

he feels somewhat slighted that he never saw the real payoff as a Wizard in any of our campaigns. That is a different matter though.

These two statements seem rather contradictory. Either your friend liked "olden days" wizards because of the high-level rewards for surviving the lower levels, or he's bitter because he never got to see those rewards. But not both, surely?

[Mouseferatu]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Whereas if you give all the characters the same powers, you end up with a different problem. Everyone will go nova on the main villain. Which means that when fully loaded, they will blow away lesser encounters too easily, or else their nova is necessarily underwhelming and main villains equally so. Variation is what characters interesting, not consistency. The more characters are alike, the less each PC contributes in terms of adding interest to the encounter.

Variation does make characters interesting. I find the classes in 4E to be quite varied. Just because they use the same basic progression doesn't make them identical.

Now, would I like options for more variation? Sure. But if we never get them, I'm okay with most of what we have.

And you know what happens when 4E parties blow through early fights too early? They get their butts kicked later on, and have to learn to retreat. There's absolutely still a question as to when it's proper to bring out the big guns, and when they should be saved for later. And not everyone's going to agree on when those moments are. I've seen fights where one character is completely out of dailies, but other characters haven't used even one.

So... Different powers, different choices as to when those powers should be used, different contributions to combat. Seems interesting enough to me.

[thecasualoblivion]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Forgotten in what way? I am quite familiar with AD&D.

I don't see how any differences in the editions would mandate this. AD&D was not, in my experience, a faster game. In fact, at low levels, high damage rolls often prompted a rest break. Potions of CLW were generally less common. If anything, 3e extended the work day by giving wizards half again as many spells in many cases.

I'm not talking about in-game time. Where 3E was slow was at the table, and resolving in-game events took more real life time at the table. The fact that things took longer to resolve tended to have an effect on adventure design, as you design adventures for both in game pacing, and at the table real time pacing. People tended to write adventures with fewer events to deal with simply because they took longer to resolve in real time.

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Pshaw. I can think of no single playstyle difference between AD&D and 3e than the dual-wielding rogue sneak attacking an ogre to death in a single round.

I never saw Wizards or other spellcasters stand around and do nothing in 3E to the degree they did so in 1E/2E and was described earlier in this thread. Even at 1st level, a 3E Wizard could have three level 1 spells without breaking a sweat. By level 3, a Wizard could have 7 spells to cast in 3E.

Originally Posted by pawsplay

I make no excuses, just observations. And the only reason you are right about 3e is because it was the most commonly played system, and 4e is more rigorously balanced in most respects.

The issues described for 3E didn't really exist for 1E/2E, and that has been discussed in this thread. Overpowered Wizards being a problem, while occasionally happening in earlier editions, came to the forefront in 3E. As for other systems, while I'm not familiar with Hero, I am familiar with Vampire. One can claim that from a system standpoint Vampire isn't a well balanced game, in practice its less of an issue. The game isn't focused on combat, or the system for that matter. Most of the Vampire games I've been involved with didn't utilize the system anywhere near the degree that occurs in D&D. When the game is as freeform as Vampire tends to be, you see the imbalances less. When you go three sessions without engaging in combat, the guy who twinked himself out into a killing machine falls into the background.

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Sure. But making the wizard unnecessary is in my mind a less important design goal than making them useful. 4e seems to agree with me; rituals make many characters potentially part-time spellcasters. It is not that there are no wizards any more, just that any fighter can be "part wizard" in previous edition terms.

And what is the issue here?

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Interesting choice of words. I don't think the playstyle "had to" be put aside; indeed, I view the 4e design as less desirable in most ways for my purposes. I think it is a tragedy that the playstyle was not given the same level of support as the central style supported by 4e: long endurarance encounters punctuated by the occasional daily. I think it is as much a tragedy as if 4e had decided mundane fighters were not a concept worth preserving and all paragon level fighters exuded magical energies to allow them to go toe to toe with dragons and such. Rogues have just about been dispensed with; "rogue rituals" (aka skills) are also readily available, leaving rogues mainly in the role "sneaky fighter," in effect making them fighters. Apart from legacy concerns, rogues and rangers could just about have been two builds of the same class, Scout or whatever you wanted to call it.

I don't see the previous editions Wizard as being an issue. Its specifically the 3E Wizard that was the problem. I played 2E for years, and have no beef with the 2E Wizard.

Originally Posted by pawsplay

The Vancian wizard is not exinct, nor has he been proven cumbersome to play. He has merely been proven unpopular at this time. How far does a 4e party progress when it's dailies have been expended? 4e lends itself, if anything, to a shorter workday. The issue was, is, and will be, GM pacing of encounters.

Daily powers don't dictate the 4E workday. Healing Surges do. As long as you have surges, you can go on forever. Dailies don't mean squat.