General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
2. Spell preperation time: 10 min per level of spell. (So preparing 2 3rd level spells are one hour to prepare.) So a cast out high level spellcaster needs days of rest to replenish his spells and thus has an even harder time preserving his power in the course of an andventure.
On the flip side of the coin, however, 1e magic-users only needed to rest for ... I can't remember if it's 2 or 4 hours right now ... to prepare low-level spells. So it kind of goes both ways.
2. Spell preperation time: 10 min per level of spell. (So preparing 2 3rd level spells are one hour to prepare.) So a cast out high level spellcaster needs days of rest to replenish his spells and thus has an even harder time preserving his power in the course of an andventure.
it was 15 min. per level of spell in 1E: Someone worked out in a dragon mag letter that a 29th level magic-user would take 72 HOURS of straight prep time to replenish all his spells. Let's see someone want to wait three days for the wizard just to read War and Peace so that he's at his best.
__________________ "Conversely, I'm amazed at the number of people queueing up to tell people that don't like 4e that they are wrong. Why can't people just agree to disagree, and get on with actually playing the game?" --Delericho
If there's one dragon, it's a solo monster.
If there's five dragons, they're standard monsters.
If there's a dozen dragons, either most of them are minions or your DM is tired of the campaign.
--Lizard
it was 15 min. per level of spell in 1E: Someone worked out in a dragon mag letter that a 29th level magic-user would take 72 HOURS of straight prep time to replenish all his spells.
Therefore, Lich.
It doesn't sleep. It doesn't eat. It doesn't need to take a bathroom break. It doesn't have twelve children pulling at its ankle-bones (not for long anyway).
- - -
Clearly, this is why only madmen and monsters are high-level wizards. It's just too annoying for regular people who have any kind of a life.
Cheers, -- N
__________________
Brevity is the soul of wit, so trim your sig or look dumb.
Wizards still have probably the most impressive daily spells of any class in the game. Their dailies often effect tons of enemies, often last a very long time if not the entire combat, and have some extremely powerful effects that can absolutely swing a fight if used properly/the dice are at all favorable. It is not at all rare in our sessions to see a well-deployed wizard daily turn a tough encounter into a cakewalk. On the other hand, they can be tricky to use without hurting teammates, and they tend to do a whole lot of rolling (IME about 3-5 attack rolls per daily, plus a lot of saves and stuff), which means players scramble for any buff they can get. The result is that wizard players are still pretty damn careful about resource management, and still get to do their "god of cosmic power" thing once in a while. 4e made some major changes, no doubt. But play a few levels of the new wizard and I think you'll come to appreciate the ways that the designers have tried to build him in a way that would recreate some of the feel of previous editions.
Last edited by awesomeocalypse; 28th October 2009 at 03:17 AM..
Wizards still have probably the most impressive daily spells of any class in the game. Their dailies often effect tons of enemies, often last a very long time if not the entire combat, and have some extremely powerful effects that can absolutely swing a fight if used properly/the dice are at all favorable. It is not at all rare in our sessions to see a well-deployed wizard daily turn a tough encounter into a cakewalk. On the other hand, they can be tricky to use without hurting teammates, and they tend to do a whole lot of rolling (IME about 3-5 attack rolls per daily, plus a lot of saves and stuff), which means players scramble for any buff they can get. The result is that wizard players are still pretty damn careful about resource management, and still get to do their "god of cosmic power" thing once in a while. 4e made some major changes, no doubt. But play a few levels of the new wizard and I think you'll come to appreciate the ways that the designers have tried to build him in a way that would recreate some of the feel of previous editions.
This can be seen at early levels with spells like Flaming Sphere, Grasp of the Grave and Visions of Avarice. Any of these timed right can destroy an encounter by themselves.
In 3e, a Wizard just picks their "Zap against Reflex" spell against a cleric, or a "Zap your Fortitude" spell against a wizard, or a "Zap your Will" spell against a brute. It's the weak save that's the issue - and a 3e wizard has both a limitless capacity to learn spells which target all defenses, and more spells prepared per day because of bonus spells.
-O
A wizard does not, however, have a limitless capacity to cover all saving throw bases. Further, SR is likely to be a limiting factor, especially at high levels. I have rarely had a main villain type who was extremely vulnerable to saving throws of any stripe.
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).
May I ask, DannyA, how many players and NPC's do you typically have in your group?
Quote:
OTOH, if a party is built along the lines that Hussar suggested upthread, with 3 full-caster arcanists, a rogue, a warrior, and a cleric, that party will be killed if those arcanists don't do something each time they have the opportunity. The inaction of the rogue, the warrior or the cleric for one combat won't matter much.
Whoops, I think there was a miscommunication there somewhere. I said three FIGHTER types, a cleric, wizard and thief. Not three wizard types.
That archetype, combined with much lower hit points, meant that wizards could sit back and not contribute to a given fight and it didn't matter all that much.
Heck, take a 2nd level 1e party vs an ogre. The ogre has 4+1 HD, meaning it's got, on average 19 hit points. It also does about 10 points of damage per round, if it hits, which, with a THAC0(yeah, I know 1e, but they still had THAC0 then) of about 16 (I'm running from memory here, so my numbers are probably a bit off.
The ogre probably won't even drop a 2nd level fighter in a given round. It will likely need two rounds. Meanwhile, the fighter types are doing d12 points of damage to it from their longswords. Three attacks plus the cleric means that probably 2 hits per round. Ogre dies in the second round most of the time and the party might get away without any damage if their lucky, or a cure light wounds amount of damage being fairly likely. Note, the thief and the MU sat back and watched this fight.
Compare this to a 3.5e 2nd level party squaring off with the ogre. Mr. Ogre now has 29 hit points on average (50% more) and does 2d8+7 points of damage (and has reach possibly giving it some extra attacks. It's got a pretty decent chance of dropping the 2nd level fighter types and the cleric or the rogue had better be VERY careful. Yeah, they will probably win, but there's a very, very good chance of outright PC death.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
May I ask, DannyA, how many players and NPC's do you typically have in your group?
In the group that went through RttToEE? 1 DM, 7 regular players. There were 2 guys who joined briefly, but only for a few sessions.
Almost no NPCs were included in the party- 1 ally (for 3 combats), mp hirelings, no mounts, no companions, and my PC lost his familiar in the 2nd session. The single-classed Wizard didn't have a familiar, nor did the Rog/Sorc. There were 2 draft horses that were frequent rally points (a la Richard the Sorcerer's battlecry here).
The party was 1 Wizard, 1 Diviner/Ftr/Rgr/Spellsword, 1 Ftr/Clc, 1 Rog/Sorc, 1 Monk, 1 Fighter, 1 Brb/Drd. We finished at level 11. No PC had more than 4 divine casting levels. The Rogue had only 1 or 2 Sorc levels. He was also the single PC who died, but was brought back by an NPC.
Quote:
Whoops, I think there was a miscommunication there somewhere. I said three FIGHTER types, a cleric, wizard and thief. Not three wizard types.
Perhaps I misunderstood this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
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.
(bolded emphasis mine)
Are you saying there that if the Wizard isn't spellslinging every round then he goes from 3 warriors to 1? Are you describing attrition?
If so, my bad!
However, it still doesn't match anything I've seen in gameplay.
Our parties do best when our spellcasters hoard their spells and only use them when absolutely necessary. Typically, that means 1-3 spells in a given combat from arcanists plus 1-3 from the divine casters (depending on type)- they still tend to wait until afterwards to cast the heals. The exceptions are usually when we have foes that aren't affected by the melee attacks of the front-liners or sometimes when we're facing a "boss."
But even "boss battles" don't necessarily draw out the "nova." When the RttToEE party was facing an Aboleth & allies, one of the interim players was playing a single classed Druid (and 2 other players were absent). He cast a Summon Nature's Ally into the Aboleth's water sphere- I believe it was a shark- and a Flaming Sphere, while the Wizard cast 3 mid-level spells directly on the Aboleth (who saved once- and the third spell was the kill-shot) and one spell at its minions. The rest was handled by melee combat. My Diviner and the various multiclassed divine casters cast no spells until after the combat.
The combat lasted 10+ rounds with only 6 total spells cast, one without effect. The Aboleth wasn't killed until after the 7th or 8th round.
The spellcasters didn't cast every round. No PC died, despite our being shorthanded for the evening.
Would the combat have been shorter if the casters had gone nova? Sure...but we would have had our butts handed to us about 20 minutes later in the combat that followed.
Which, for the record, was the 6th combat the party had gone through in that campaign day (IOW, between opportunities to rest & rememorize spells).
Also for the record: despite 6 combats in that "day," the Wizard finished the day with a Fireball still ready to go.
When I said 3 fighters to 1, I meant in 3e, when you go from 6 assumed PC's (1e) to 4 assumed PC's (3e) you lose two fighter types. The assumption in 1e is 3 fighters, a cleric, MU and a thief. The assumption in 3e is 1 fighter, a cleric, wizard and a rogue.
The loss of those two fighters HURTS.
I would also point out that your seven PC's five were casters. That's a pretty far cry from the baseline assumptions of 3e D&D. You've got a party that's almost twice the size of normal. Of course that means that your wizard can pick and choose combats.
I'm thinking that your expectations have been very strongly colored by your experiences.
Having two healers, and three casters means you have a gazillion spells per day. Of course you can go longer.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
1) We may have had a gazillion spells, but remember, 1 guy was a diviner with Disrupt Undead and Lesser Orb of Electricity as his sole damage dealing spells, the Rog/Sorc had spells that let him be a better rogue (IOW, no offensive spells), and no healer cast better than Cure Moderate Wounds...and not many at that. In the eyes of a powergamer, that's not a lot of spellpower for a 10th level party.
What we had was a lot of fighter levels, meaning HP. However, you'll note that since only one PC was a pure warrior, BABs were not tops, so sometimes, hitting was an issue.
(And for the record, I guarantee you that the Monk and my PC weren't dealing out huge piles of damage. The Monk was a Gnome, and my PC was a 2WF build...with Whip and a Heavy Pick.)
2) As for the assumption of party structure, I agree that every edition has suggested/recommended that a typical party cover the 4 roles: Warrior, Rogue, Divine Caster, Arcane Caster.
However, I have never seen anywhere that the game's designers assumed that typical party size was 6 in earlier editions and 4 in the post-3Ed regime.
3) As for the actual size of our group, that was just our big group. Our other groups- really, satellite subgroups of the main one- typically had 3-6 gamers (including the DM) and the same playstyle. No difference.
For these players, 4e is entirely unsuited to their gaming goals because a wizard can do nothing that isn't fundamentally mundane. Sure, they can do damage, attack something other than AC, apply conditions, move the target, and move themselves and some of this impressive and perhaps can't be explained easily in mundane terms, but every other class can do all the same things and sometimes these things can't easily be explained in mundane terms either.
Rituals, the things that any self-respecting wizard should have tons of, can do a lot of the cosmic power. Teleportation, raising of the dead (something wizards couldn't do before), and so on.
Wizards already get a leg-up as far as rituals are concerned by getting the feat for free. Do rituals not count or something because other classes can get them by spending feats? Or is it that they have a casting time greater than 6 seconds?
To be honest, this argument seems like a bunch of sour grapes that wizards can't just make any problem in the game vanish with three clicks of his fingers.
I have rarely had a main villain type who was extremely vulnerable to saving throws of any stripe.
Well, of course not. Then the fight would last a single round because he would be an instant pile of dust. In order to make the encounter interesting, you basically have to remove a large amount of the wizard's arsenal of spells from the equation, either by nigh-unbeatable SR or by nigh-unbeatable saves.
I remember a lot of our 3e fights at high level were the fighters keeping the unstoppable beastie in place by engaging it in hand-to-hand while the casters lowered its saves with various spells (like enervate) until it would fail a save-or-die.
That kinda sucked. I much prefer the situation as it is now, where the wizard isn't a total liability at first level and then becomes a useful party member by about level 5, and from that point onwards disappears into the clouds as far as game balance is concerned. Clerics and druids were worse though, going from quite overpowered at level 1 to ridiculously overpowered later on. Animal companions, endless summoning, lots of blasting, the ability to HEAL 150 POINTS OF DAMAGE IN A SINGLE ROUND which made every villain without the ability to deal 150 points of damage in a single round completely powerless. Man, that spell was ridiculous. I'm not even going to talk about mass heal.
A wizard does not, however, have a limitless capacity to cover all saving throw bases. Further, SR is likely to be a limiting factor, especially at high levels. I have rarely had a main villain type who was extremely vulnerable to saving throws of any stripe.
Why don't they have that limitless capacity?
At worst, a Wizard knows 4 spells of every level below their highest. In most cases, they'll know a lot more. So unless a DM is really strangling spell access for Wizards (and thereby removing their sole advantage over sorcerers), any competently-made Wizard will have plenty of options.
SR is a kludge, and has been since 1e. It's a gamist invention (which I'm fine with, for the record!) to counteract the fact that most spells automatically work. Basically, it does what 4e did and gives spells an attack roll against the target. Even then, a good Wizard will have at least one of a few options... (1) Assay Spell Resistance. (2-???) Conjurations and the like which don't allow SR.
At worst, a Wizard knows 4 spells of every level below their highest. In most cases, they'll know a lot more. So unless a DM is really strangling spell access for Wizards (and thereby removing their sole advantage over sorcerers), any competently-made Wizard will have plenty of options.
1 knowing every spell does not equate to preparing every spell. Three defenses also equates to splitting your attack spell slots into three categories to cover the possibilities. Having the right high powered spell for the situation is powerful, but not guaranteed with a prep caster. For instance, in one game we knew we were going against a powerful undead killer and I prepared fort and reflex defense spells. Surprise! He turned out to be a templated fighter rogue assassin with great fort and ref saves.
2 The lower level the spell the less relevant. Having dozens of first and second level attack spells on scrolls does not mean much at high levels, it is the highest level spells that are most relevant. Lightning bolt and magic missile wands in our 17th level game were minor effects at best against high CR foes.
However, I have never seen anywhere that the game's designers assumed that typical party size was 6 in earlier editions and 4 in the post-3Ed regime.
I thought 3e was pretty explicit about their assumption of a 4 person base party. CR is built around that assumption.
More than four sounds right for my memory of most earlier edition module suggested party number ranges. Usually something like for 5-7 characters of levels 5-7.
The lower level the spell the less relevant. Having dozens of first and second level attack spells on scrolls does not mean much at high levels, it is the highest level spells that are most relevant. Lightning bolt and magic missile wands in our 17th level game were minor effects at best against high CR foes.
Yes and no; many lower level spells can still have useful effects and provide a basis for a high level caster to use in parallel with their pinnacle spells.
For example, Dimension Door, Ennervation, Polymorph, Greater Invisibility, and Disintegrate are all still highly viable spell options for a 17th level caster (despite having higher level spell options). This means that a wizard is no longer hoarding spells for encounters just picking what cool effect to use this turn.
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.
A 'No True Scotsman' fallacy? Really? I thought ENWorld was better than that...
Ouch!
Within the context of playful banter back and forth with Thasmodius and thecasualoblivion, you missed the tongue in cheek hyperbole of this (cutting off the context bolded above when you quoted). Sorry this was lost in translation but seriously, sometimes we all need to lighten up a little and laugh at ourselves. If I was feeling snippy I'd throw your statement about EN World back at you but instead I'll let the reference and quote stand as they are.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Want to see through my crystal ball and what's in store for 5E? Take a glance at my Dreams of 5th Edition
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
Yes and no; many lower level spells can still have useful effects and provide a basis for a high level caster to use in parallel with their pinnacle spells.
For example, Dimension Door, Ennervation, Polymorph, Greater Invisibility, and Disintegrate are all still highly viable spell options for a 17th level caster (despite having higher level spell options). This means that a wizard is no longer hoarding spells for encounters just picking what cool effect to use this turn.
In addition, Web (a 2nd level spell) can ruin a great deal of melee based enemies (without access to teleportation), regardless of whether they make their save or not. It may grant cover, but even with an extremely good strength check it will still consume at least a full round of actions from anyone attempting to escape. Enemies also often escape at a staggered rate, which makes picking a group off one by one child's play.
All that regardless of the enemy's level, spell resistance, or saves.
4E decreased variability between classes in several regards, presumably in the name of balance. Of relevance here, it decreased the variability between the frequency with which different classes can use their abilities. For example, a character of a given level in 4E can use the same number of dailies, encounters and at-wills as any other character, regardless of class. Whether you're a fighter, a wizard, or (name a class), you have the same resource-management decisions to make. Contrast this with any previous edition, where a fighter can make his most effective attack a limitless number or times, while a wizard can make his most effective attack a limited number of times. The trade-off is that the fighter's best attack is (generally) less effective and/or flexible than a wizard's.
4E has removed that variation. It has homogenized the classes in that regard. This change has several effects. First, it limits the options available to players in regards to the kind of character they want to play. A player can no longer choose to play a class that has very limited (but fairly effective) options -- there is no such class. A player cannot choose to play a class that has a multitude of options that are less effective, but maintain flexibility -- there is no such class (see bard 3/3.5 as an example).
Specifically to the OP, a wizard is no different than any other class in this regard. It has been homogenized in the name of balance. IMHO, this particular homogenization is part of what the OP's player is addressing. Unless this player was somehow abusing the wizard class's abilities in previous editions, he undoubtedly sees 4E's treatment as an attempt to solve a problem that never existed for your group. To expand, given the OP's facts, this player never played a high-level wizard, and thus never ran into the problems that are commonly cited. Further, from what I understand, those problems occurred primarily among power-gamers or players who were just attention hogs. I can honestly say that never once during extensive 2E and 3E play did I run into the problem(s) that 4E attempts to solve by radically altering wizards.
Essentially, the authors of 4E have told the OP's player that he must change the kind of character he plays because other people may have abused it the way it was. I can fully understand why that kind of mandated change might stick in his craw.
My suggestion is that the OP's player play another class in 4E. In essence, the problem is that he is going to be playing a different class with the same name as the old class (wizard). Since he is going to be playing a new class, he might as well play one with a new name, thus helping to ease the cognitive dissonance.
__________________ Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution? -- Groucho Marx
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
