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

[Jack99]

Oldtimer Fallacy: Just because you couldn't manage to break the wizard doesn't mean he wasn't broken already prior to 3e.

[vagabundo]

The wizard changes in 4e are some of my favourite; the class truly became what it always should have been: magical.

If I do have a criticism they should have has some additional flexibility in the core options or allowed some of specialities as customisations. Not sure if arcane power made any difference in this regard.

[Belphanior]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

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.

A 'No True Scotsman' fallacy? Really? I thought ENWorld was better than that...

[FireLance]

I would say that the biggest thing that the wizard has lost in the transition from 3E to 4E is what I will call, for want of a better term, potential.

While the poster child for this change is probably the loss of the wish spell, you can see aspects of this loss of potential in other areas as well:

1. Save or Die
In 4E, the wizard has lost the possibility, however remote, of ending a fight with a single spell.

2. Creative Solutions
Spell effects are more tightly defined in 4E, which means that the scope for creating and/or discovering uses for them which the DM (and maybe even the designers) did not expect are reduced.

3. Learning Everything
The 4E wizard's spellbook is more limited than in previous editions. There is no longer the possibility, (again) however remote, of learning every spell.

4. Doing Anything
All of the above, plus the (normally) relatively cheap "cost" of spending a spell slot to prepare and cast a spell combined to make it seem as if the wizard could do anything. This was reinforced by many classic spells with very flexible effects such as polymorph self/other, phantasmal force and other illusion spells, and (of course) wish.

Mind you, while the wizard had all this theoretical potential, I doubt that many wizards in actual play ever achieved even a significant fraction of it. There were always limiting factors (which incidentally, also helped to balance the wizard with the other classes) such as: the availability of spells and other resource limitations, the need to prepare spells in advance, and simply not being high enough level to cast really powerful spells.

So, how you view the 4E wizard is thus very dependent on what you are looking at. If you are looking at how he performs in actual play, in comparison to the challenges he faces and in comparison to his other party members, there will not be very much of a difference between the 4E wizard and his predecessors. However, if you are looking at the 4E wizard's theoretical potential, then yes, he will appear to be quite limited.

[Rashak Mani]

I'm one more who thinks Wizards were neutered and correctly so as far as game balance is concerned.

I know most americans play in higher levels and so the Wizard tended to be overpowered. 3rd edition and prior it was understood that the Wizard sucked until around 8th lvl... and that the payoff was being much more powerful from 12th lvl onwards. Since we tend to play below 11th level more than over... the old Wizards were too frail. 4E neutered them in mid to higher... but made them more interesting and robust from 1st lvl onwards.

In 3.5E and before... the gaming group was like a carrier task force. The Wizard dished out much more damage/power and the rest were the cruiser/destroyer escort protecting the "Carrier/Wizard". Now wizards are just one more member of the group.... though a still versatile one.

[vagabundo]

@ Firelance: That potential is still there in ritual magic, and it is something that is underused. I think WotC should have a few articles expanding Ritual magic and how it is used.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

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.

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

Don't just suggest it - just do it!
Thanks to "exception-based design", you can relatively easily implement this. Just create new daily powers that do the impossible - at a price.

One concept I am contemplating on are spells that gain more power if you sustain them or "charge them". After 4 rounds of charging, you can unleash Kyros' Overpowered Fireball for 4 times the usual damage of a Fireball. But since you needed those 4 rounds, you give your enemies the time to react.

[FireLance]

Originally Posted by vagabundo

@ Firelance: That potential is still there in ritual magic, and it is something that is underused. I think WotC should have a few articles expanding Ritual magic and how it is used.

For me, at least, the big problem with rituals is that they usually cost money to use. What I think could have made rituals more popular would be if wizards were able to expend utility powers to use at least certain rituals, e.g instead of paying the component cost of the comprehend languages ritual, the wizard could expend a daily utility power of 2nd or higher level instead.

[vagabundo]

Originally Posted by FireLance

For me, at least, the big problem with rituals is that they usually cost money to use. What I think could have made rituals more popular would be if wizards were able to expend utility powers to use at least certain rituals, e.g instead of paying the component cost of the comprehend languages ritual, the wizard could expend a daily utility power of 2nd or higher level instead.

It is certainly doable. I think they could be the gateway to more non-combat magic, and they are available to all classes - with a little buy in - wizards obviously have a leg up on everyone else.

I would love a series of articles on DDI expanding the role of rituals in a campaign and not just giving more rituals. One of the wizard epic destinies allows free use of rituals; more of that please.

[AllisterH]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

The 2e wizard was so similar to the 3e wizard as to be virtually indistinguishable, from their spell list to their gear. You could probably take an AD&D wizard, recalculate their AC, BAB, and saves, and drop them into a 3e game converting everything else on the fly. I just do not agree that changes in 3e completely changed their playstyle. Daily spells in 3e were still limited. Wizards in 2e were capable of keeping their distance and casting relatively fast spells without interruption. Wizards in AD&D could largely pick their main spells, and wizards in Basic D&D could learn every wizard spell in the game. You can argue all you like, but you have this: A guy, in robes, possibly wearing bracers, with a dagger or staff, who casts some spells throughout a combat but not every round.

While I can certainly imagine you feel the 3e is too much changed, I do not think a sizeable percentage of people who reviewed both classes in the book as well as in play would agree they were very different or the 3e version was completely over the top because all of its weaknesses had been removed.

You might be surprised. I personally think the 3e wizard was WAY more effective than the 2e wizard anyday and your assumptions don't actually hold true.

Take for example the spell list.

An AD&D non-specialist wizard only gained 1 spell every SPELL level (thus, 1 every other character level). Every other spell had to be either found or researched by the spellcaster. The 1e/2e wizard is NOT going to have the same number of spells as the equivalent levelled 3e wizard IMO and almost as importantly, what the 1e/2e wizard actually does have would be totally random compared to the best spells of that level which the 3e wizard would have.

Similarly, with the shall we say draconian method of item creation, the 1e/2e wizard has to depend on mostly finding magic items so even at 10th level, a wizard would have an AC that even a kobold could still hit on a 15+

There's anorher factor that made spells more effective in 3.x. The creation of the weak save. A 20th level wizard targetting the weak save of a 20th level creature/enemy has a much higher chance of success than when he tried it at 1st level in 3e. This is in direct contrast with the 1e/2e wizard where a 20th level enemy can laugh in the face of magic since their saves scale upwards but spell effectiveness remains constant.

[Byronic]

Your friend is right, the Arcane classes are now one of the weakest in the game when before they were some of the strongest (I'm not counting any of the Power books since I haven't read them fully).

You wouldn't be able to convince him... unless of course you showed him the epic destiny that specialises in Rituals. And even then it's iffy. they just aren't magical anymore.

[avin]

3E casters were unbalanced. When my friends (usually the powergamers) QQ about how 4E Wizards became "weaklings" I remember them how many times people were reading comic books and talking about other stuff when they nuke every combat.

The solid complaining point, I think, it's their loss of that out of combat utility spells which long time casting Rituals don't replace properly.

[Fanaelialae]

Originally Posted by Byronic

Your friend is right, the Arcane classes are now one of the weakest in the game when before they were some of the strongest (I'm not counting any of the Power books since I haven't read them fully).

You wouldn't be able to convince him... unless of course you showed him the epic destiny that specialises in Rituals. And even then it's iffy. they just aren't magical anymore.

Arcane is one of the weakest? Orb of Imposition is one of the weakest? The sorcerer, with his striker bonus to AoE damage, is one of the weakest? Maybe it's just me, but I'm just not seeing the weakness of arcane...

I won't argue against the fact that casters were brought down from 3.x. They definitely were. IMO, they needed to be for the game to have any true sense of balance. I don't see arcane as being a weak power source at all though.

[billd91]

Originally Posted by Mouseferatu

And you really don't see how that's a problem? Giving one class the chance to completely short-circuit the dramatic final encounter without the other players being able to contribute is not good design. It only works in a game where everyone agrees from the get-go to accept that as a possibility--which once again takes me back to the "optional rule" comment. It's fine for some groups, but it's not a good thing to build into the core system.

But why does the dramatic final encounter have to be everyone effectively ganging up on the opponents and beating them down... like every other fight you've had to that point? That's part of the charm of powerful magic - sometimes it's really effective, sometimes it's not, and it sometimes saves you from round after round of combat.

[Fanaelialae]

Originally Posted by billd91

But why does the dramatic final encounter have to be everyone effectively ganging up on the opponents and beating them down... like every other fight you've had to that point? That's part of the charm of powerful magic - sometimes it's really effective, sometimes it's not, and it sometimes saves you from round after round of combat.

Perhaps because if Aragorn, Frodo, Gimli, and Gandalf all sacrificed and struggled to reach Sauron's inner sanctum, it's really anti-climactic for Gandalf to strike the Dark Lord down with a single spell and a nat 1, before Sauron can even act.

Everyone (presumably) worked hard to get to the dramatic encounter and everyone ought to get a share of the fun and glory. It's a team game after all.

[billd91]

Originally Posted by Fanaelialae

Perhaps because if Aragorn, Frodo, Gimli, and Gandalf all sacrificed and struggled to reach Sauron's inner sanctum, it's really anti-climactic for Gandalf to strike the Dark Lord down with a single spell and a nat 1, before Sauron can even act.

Everyone (presumably) worked hard to get to the dramatic encounter and everyone ought to get a share of the fun and glory. It's a team game after all.

I'm not sure I'd find that anti-climactic. I'd be willing to bet the gaming group would be talking about that fight years later because the results really stand out. Can people say the same about all their knock-down, drag out, attrition-based fights against BBEGs?

It is a team game, sure. But what kind of team game is it? It used to be more like baseball. PCs did their job to advance the team, but did so in fairly different ways. A good DM would make sure everyone got their time at the plate - some classes were better at knocking it out of the park, but others consistently got on base. Now, it's a lot more like football without a passing game - everyone's participating at the snap but all plays are designed for short to moderate yard gains.

[TerraDave]

A fast growing thread with a lot of posts, so I will summarize

Pre 3E play: Varried masively across groups, with magic items, party size and composition, play style, and DM adjudication making, well, massive differences.

Pre 3E Wizards: Were balanced by weak defenses and few spells (known and casting) at low levels, and monster immunities, magic resistance, and absolutist saving throws at higher levels. Basicly he evolved from the brittlest glass cannon to a much more robust charecter that frequantly ran into oponents that his big bad spells might not do much against. But also see my first point.

The 4E wizard at low levels: Is just so much better then all past wizards it is not even funny. He is more everything and then some. Ok, some spells miss. But then he just casts it again and again. And he can live!

4E wizard fire power and versatility: Has this declined in a relative sense? You would hope so. Do wizards need rituals and their cantrips to retain their versatility-yes. Are things in supplements (illusion magic, summoning, familiars) that should have been core-yes. Does the sorcerer or druid seem better in some ways-yes. But wizards still have some of the best dailies and with the right player can feel quite potent.

Magical: Wizards still got more then anyone else, and more then ever before. But my feeling this is more about perceptions and roleplaying then mechanics.

[Obryn]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

The 2e wizard was so similar to the 3e wizard as to be virtually indistinguishable, from their spell list to their gear. You could probably take an AD&D wizard, recalculate their AC, BAB, and saves, and drop them into a 3e game converting everything else on the fly. I just do not agree that changes in 3e completely changed their playstyle. Daily spells in 3e were still limited. Wizards in 2e were capable of keeping their distance and casting relatively fast spells without interruption. Wizards in AD&D could largely pick their main spells, and wizards in Basic D&D could learn every wizard spell in the game. You can argue all you like, but you have this: A guy, in robes, possibly wearing bracers, with a dagger or staff, who casts some spells throughout a combat but not every round.

While I can certainly imagine you feel the 3e is too much changed, I do not think a sizeable percentage of people who reviewed both classes in the book as well as in play would agree they were very different or the 3e version was completely over the top because all of its weaknesses had been removed.

My recent 2e experience is minimal, but I have a lot of recent 1e experience. So I'll talk about that.

The 3e wizard and the 1e wizard have somewhat similar playstyles, but the 3e wizard has more power in just about every case. Bonus spells for the 3e wizard are one of the biggest differences. Larger spellbooks for 3e wizards are another, along with free choice of spells with no chance of failure to learn.

On a less mechanical note, the 3e wizard also has a much vaster library of spells available... The 1e wizard is fairly limited, on the other hand.

There's spell disruption, too - it's a gigantic factor in 1e. A 1e wizard casting a high-level spell needs to be very, very careful, because any hit will disrupt him. A 3e wizard just needs the Concentration skill to cast defensively and will never risk disruption in practice.

Spell saves are very different, too - in 1e, they're based only on the class and level of the target. In 3e, they're based on the (probably maxed + buffed) ability scores of the caster and the spell level. And spell resistance in 3e is, IME, much, much weaker with feats like Spell Penetration picking up the slack.

Also, the 1e wizard couldn't use a crossbow. Or wear any kind of armor, and risk spell failure chances. OTOH, they could throw three darts every round, which I suppose is a perk!

-O

[vagabundo]

Originally Posted by Fanaelialae

Perhaps because if Aragorn, Frodo, Gimli, and Gandalf all sacrificed and struggled to reach Sauron's inner sanctum, it's really anti-climactic for Gandalf to strike the Dark Lord down with a single spell and a nat 1, before Sauron can even act.

Everyone (presumably) worked hard to get to the dramatic encounter and everyone ought to get a share of the fun and glory. It's a team game after all.

What version of Tolkien's work did you read???? O_o

[Melkor]

Originally Posted by Echohawk

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?

To clarify, he liked the fact that you had to struggle, and claw your way to higher levels, before you would get the 'payoff'. We never played a campaign past 11th or 12th level, so while he liked the concept, he never achieved that super 'payoff'.

So now, he's kind of bitter that he never obtained the payoff, and now we are considering switching to 4E, and with everything being 'balanced', and in his opinion, spellcasters being 'neutered', he thinks he won't ever see that payoff.

Like I said, I have never seen 4E past 3rd level, but I have a feeling that high-level spellcasters in the new edition are none too shabby when it comes to what they can do.