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.
So one of my best gaming buddies is a stubborn guy who I have been playing RPGs with for over two decades. I have a great time with him, and would feel like I was missing something if he wasn't involved in my gaming group.
He loves D&D, but is really skeptical about 4E, and says that his main sticking point (other than the fact that he feels it's too much like an MMORPG) is that Wizards and other spellcasters have been 'neutered' by the new system.
He says that while he sees that At-Will, and Per-Encounter powers can be used mutliple times a day, he feels that having to wake up early in the morning (as a spellcaster), and spend a lot of time and GP on rituals to 'buff' your character isn't 'classic D&D'.
He also says that if you compare 3.5 Wizards to 4E spellcasters, at higher levels, the 3.5 Wizards had a lot more versatility in choosing spells.
I'm just learning the 4E system, and have never seen a character over 3rd Level in play....How can I speak to this, and what arguments could I use to at least get him to give the system a look-see?
Yes, casters have been neutered, and they needed it. Before 3E designers flat out admitted the wizard was the strongest character by requiring them to gain more XP to level. In the advent of 3e, the designers tried to bring all characters on a level playing field. And failed because the assumption that X number of spells have to last N numbers of encounters can't be balanced unless the characters are forced into N numbers of encounters or everyone has the same X number of spells. 4E rebalanced all classes again by having a more unified power mechanic. Nobody gets to take out a significant foe in round one anymore and everyone has roughly the same potential of "going nova" now.
To address one point, rituals in 4E do not grant combat bonuses. He will never have to wake up early to use rituals to buff his his character; this is probably a holdover opinion from earlier editions where a wizard would wake up early to buff for the day. Which makes his comment really strange, since it would appear he wasn't casting prep spells in editions 1-3.5.
"Neutered" is a pretty emotive way of putting it. Not the word I'd choose.
They are certainly different, and don't much resemble 3.5 wizards. But that's because they're in a different game system, so they wouldn't. In the context of 4E they work just fine; in the context of "being the same as 3.5" then - well, 4E fails on every count there if that's your metric. If it was the same as 3.5 it'd be called 3.5.
Sounds to me like your player isn't keen on the 4E flavour. If he doesn't want to play it, he doesn't want to play it.
I have a similar friend who frequently rants about the "failings" of 4E. I keep trying to tell him that I'm not trying to sell him a copy of the 4E PHB and am perfectly comfortable with his RPG taste being different to mine.
The only real issue as I see it is that WotC chose to market this new game as a "4th edition" of something, despite it clearly being a new game.
If your buddy wasn't led to believe by WotC that wizards in the new D&D should be anything like wizards in the old D&D I do not believe this thread would even exist.
The only real issue as I see it is that WotC chose to market this new game as a "4th edition" of something, despite it clearly being a new game.
If your buddy wasn't led to believe by WotC that wizards in the new D&D should be anything like wizards in the old D&D I do not believe this thread would even exist.
I felt the same way when they did away with the "fighting man" class.
But your friend is right. Whereas a magic user/wizard could pretty much do everything a thief could do, but more reliably, in 4E that is no longer the case.
__________________ ENworld OAF (Old-school Admirer of 4th edition)
IMO, he's correct in that spellcasters were nerfed in 4e. However, there are a number of people who believe that pre-4e casters were overpowered. 4e brought casters down a bit, non-casters up a bit, and now everyone's on a (relatively) even playing field.
As has been stated, your friend is mistaken about having to use rituals to buff himself. Rituals are more along the lines of costly utility magic with long casting times. These kinds of spells certainly existed in earlier editions of D&D (Identify, for example) so they aren't new in that sense. The only major differences are which particular spells fall into this classification, and that rituals don't require a spell slot. Once you've learned a ritual you can cast it all day long, provided you can supply the components.
Wizards (unlike other spellcasters) do still memorize spells in the morning (they have a feature that allows them a choice regarding what spell to select for a daily or utility "spell slot" each day). Admittedly, their versatility has lessened by a significant margin, but it still exists.
In the end though, if he doesn't want to play a 4e wizard, he could always play a fighter or something...
One of the main issues that earlier editions had to deal with is that the Wizards of fantasy could do fantastic magical things. The ability to do fantastic magical things is extremely powerful, and so some attempt to balance and limit that fantastic power was made. The results were not completely successful, because at some point the Wizard still outgrew those limitations and become the phenomenally powerful character of myth, legend, and story.
The problem in 3e got especially bad, because low level wizards got big ability boosts that carried over to higher levels. Non-combat classes didn't have the huge edge in hit points, attacks, saving throws or levels that they would have enjoyed in earlier editions. A high-level wizard didn't outshine a rogue quite as much as they would have in earlier editions (primarily because of huge boosts to rogue power levels), but they outshown a fighter to an even greater degree. And because of huge boosts to the power of clerics, this was true of clerics as well (and by 3.5 also druids).
4e fixes the spellcaster problem by giving them the same sort of abilities had by every other class. It's a fix, albeit not the sort many people expected (which might have been reduce the power of spells and increases the defenses non-spellcasters had against them, for example).
For many players, the old style was a feature, not a bug. If the goal was to play Merlin, Gandalf or whatever, then the player at some point wanted to wield phenomenal cosmic power. 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. While it creates a level playing field, it isn't paying much attention to simulating either fantasy source material or, as is probably more important in the case of your friend, the flavor of the play experience he's used to for the last 20 years or more.
I don't think this is a crossable gulf.
__________________ Shameless plug for my current Enworld project. Learn more than you ever wanted about the Slaad Lords here.
New updates semi-regularly. Please stop in. Feedback, positive or negative, much appreciated.
In 4e, Wizards have been smacked down so hard, they're only slightly better than Fighters. Wizards used to rule the world. Now they are merely a balanced class for those who like a certain playstyle.
For people who played wizards because they like to win D&D, this is a terrible setback.
For people who played wizards because they like to play D&D, this is a wonderful development.
"I like both", -- N
__________________
Brevity is the soul of wit, so trim your sig or look dumb.
I just want to point out that according to 4e players on ENworld who bother to participate in votes, the Wizard is the third most popular class (out of all 16 or however many there are in the PHB1 + PHB2 + FRPG + EPG), despite this nerf.
__________________
355 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 21th level Musings of an Epic Virgin
I'm just learning the 4E system, and have never seen a character over 3rd Level in play....How can I speak to this, and what arguments could I use to at least get him to give the system a look-see?
I would just say "We are going to give the new edition a try and you are welcome to join us." - and leave it at that.
He loves D&D, but is really skeptical about 4E, and says that his main sticking point (other than the fact that he feels it's too much like an MMORPG) is that Wizards and other spellcasters have been 'neutered' by the new system.
He's right. Full casters have been neutered. They are no longer multiple times better than any non-full-caster class; they no longer have entire books worth of spells that no one else can use, but which their character can learn all of; they can no longer end a wide array of fights almost immediately, or instantly solve a wide array of problems no one else can, with just the right spell; they can no longer approximate the abilities of almost anyone else in the party while simultaneously being good at their own thing;
...et cetera. Yes, the classes which once were "full casters" have been neutered, and drastically so.
They can and do still contribute to the party--still more so than the fighter or rogue, in fact. But they can no longer be the party if needed.
----
He is wrong about rituals, though. Rituals are utility magic meant to be performed "on the spot"; unless he plans on drawing a magic circle around him on a large carpet and then summoning unseen servants to carry him around on it, he will not be getting up early to buff himself with them.
(In fact, the preparation of daily spells in the morning is assumed to take no unusual amount of time;if the wizard needs time to hang his spells, the fighter needs time to clean his sword and exercise.)
I'm just learning the 4E system, and have never seen a character over 3rd Level in play....How can I speak to this, and what arguments could I use to at least get him to give the system a look-see?
I would try to avoid the argument entirely. Try to persuade him to just give the game a go, and judge it on its own merits.
You might even concede that no, it's not "classic D&D" - it's a new D&D for a new age. That doesn't necessarily mean better, and doesn't necessarily mean worse, but it does mean that it's different.
But, ultimately, if his mind is set against 4e, you won't change it. And, in fact, by pushing him hard to play the game, you may find he actually harms your group more than he helps it.
Your friend is right.
Casters in 4E lost a lot of power and versatility. And while the first was warranted, the second one is the real let down.
If your friend is concerned about the power, then maybe showing him the minion blasting ability of the wizard might help (and providing him with enough fodder in the game). If it is versatility it gets harder. You might try to describe skill checks made by the wizard as being magic, maybe even going so far to change the ability score for skills the wizard is trained in to Int in order to represent that he uses spellcasting here if you are willing to tinker with the system.
Or you could add little page 42 side effects to the spells of the wizard and allow him to use those spells outside of the combat.
__________________ Everything about RPGs is subjective, so everything I say about them is I my opinion and not hard facts
Having a backstory is good. Using this backstory in game is better. And for that you need background skills.
4E, the game where you play HSMFOS
Heroic
Only good, or at least unaligned adventurers are supported and no monster you can fight is good aligned.
Super-
The PCs become masters in any skill automatically and it is impossible for them to be bad at a mundane task
Mutants
Compared to NPCs of the same strength, PCs poses a ungodly amount of HP and can withstand huge mountains of punishment. That or they can spontaneously regenerate wounds.
From Outer Space
Yet despite no matter how powerful the PCs become, they can never do anything special what the "natives" (=NPCs) can do like animating a skeleton.
If it is versatility it gets harder. You might try to describe skill checks made by the wizard as being magic
Or you could point out that with at-will cantrips, a number of really handy utility powers and ready access to rituals, a Wizard still has a lot of non-combat options that make it one of the most versatile classes in the game.
4e fixes the spellcaster problem by giving them the same sort of abilities had by every other class. It's a fix, albeit not the sort many people expected (which might have been reduce the power of spells and increases the defenses non-spellcasters had against them, for example).
For many players, the old style was a feature, not a bug. If the goal was to play Merlin, Gandalf or whatever, then the player at some point wanted to wield phenomenal cosmic power. 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. While it creates a level playing field, it isn't paying much attention to simulating either fantasy source material or, as is probably more important in the case of your friend, the flavor of the play experience he's used to for the last 20 years or more.
I don't think this is a crossable gulf.
My problem with prior eddition wizards (especially 3x wizards) and to a lesser degree other casters, is not just that they become "weilders of cosmic power" it's that they became weilders of cosmic power in (for the most part) bursts of 6 seconds or less.
4e lets wizards do many of the same things a 3x wizard could do, but as as a ritual; which means there is both a cost and that it takes longer. There are already about 250 rituals and the number is growing. Wizards will have plenty of "cosmic power" but not in the 6 seconds of prior edditions.
One of the things that turned me off 4e is the new wizard. It's not because I play wizards (or often play at all) and it's not because of some belief the wizard must be insanely powerful. In previous editions, wizards have been wonder workers. The 4e wizard is both too weak, because he is on even footing to make someone fly or whatever compared to many other characters, but also too strong, because his at-will powers and such make magic seem too... easy. 4e wizards lack a certain flavor, there's just not much bibbedy in their bobbedy boo. I would like wizards who are able to shine in certain areas, just as fighters or rogues shine in their own, and hence 4e is a good game for somebody who is not me.
There are a number of options to increase the versatility of the wizard class in the game. Lots of powers and items and class choices that increase their versatility, often by letting them either swap spells around or choose from a wider variety of spells than other classes can usually choose from regarding their powers. It's not as many as in prior editions, but it is more than others.
Depending on what level you are starting at, I bet a few of us could stat up an example of a highly versatile wizard in 4e (though obviously more options come with higher levels).
For these players, 4e is entirely unsuited to their gaming goals because a wizard can do nothing that isn't fundamentally mundane.
Another perspective is, yes, my 4E is wizard is equal to Merlin, as long as I can accept that the fighter is equal to Hercules, the paladin, to Arthur, the rogue, Gray Mouser. A wizard is only "mundane" because the player wants him to outshine his peers.
__________________ ENworld OAF (Old-school Admirer of 4th edition)
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
