Wizards, nerfed or not?

[FourthBear]

2) Out of combat, 4e wizards are far less magical than in older editions. Rituals do not make up for the inability to instantly cast "fun" spells.

Don't forget that 4e wizards have four cantrips, each of which can be used instantly at will. Prestidigitation is so broadly defined that it can cover damn near many kind of "weird little magic" that the wizard wishes to use.

Could you name some of the "fun" spells you think the wizard would need to cast instantly and therefore wouldn't fit within rituals? While I very much approve of the ritual system/utility power breakdown, it would be good to know where limitations lie. Ironically, rituals are a point where I feel the D&D gains in simulation quality, since many times they help describe a magical world better than one in which each wizard can have a battery of no-cost, instant cast spells capable of changing the immediate game world. The old "why don't wizards with Teleport without Error, Scrying, Polymorph Other and many other spells with no cost and able to be spam cast result in a world where this and this and this happen."

 

[Ahglock]

They get mashed together in a lot of RPGs. Less so in fiction.

I still think that mashing is a dumb trope.

I don't care who gets the job title "wizard." I just prefer theme and variety to my spellcasters.

I've seen a lot of mashing in fiction as well, or if there was a theme it wasn't totally locked in concepts. Necromancers might have lightning bolts or could teleport and transform people. They may be heavily focused on somethings and do the rest worse than other specialists, but they had the option.

I think hard coded locked in theme classes is a bad idea, you should not have to multiclass to get some versatility to your power set. At least give the wizard the versatility of like I don't know every other class in the PH. Though I think every class could use a versatility booster. I read the wizard and supposedly the player would have two options, blaster wizard or controller wizard, I read the powers and I find out he has the blaster wizard option at least.

I'm not that bothered by them coming out with a all these magic specialist classes but they seem to have thinned the wizard list a bit too much. I am not looking forward to more power sources though, I don't really like them in the first place so more is bleh.

 

[portermj]

It seems that a lot of people are looking at the question through the lens of "how much damage does the Wizard directly do". It ignores the damage to the PCs that the Wizard's spells can prevent or the extra damage done by other classes that is available because the Wizard set the situation up.

 

[AllisterH]

"Generalists vs Specialists"

Don't forget that in 1e, illusionists had their own separate spell list which contained not only spells at different levels but also unique spells that a 1e wizard couldn't EVER learn"

When 2E came out, the spell lists got mashed together but there was a very strong reason to be a specialist due to the benefits....

Much less so in 3e....

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Wizards in 4E are awesome. They get large-scale at-will area attacks. And as long as there are multiple enemies around, odds are that they will hit something, which is more than can be said of most other classes.

Plus their AC and hit points tend to be good enough that it isn't instant doom if they are left undefended for a round.

 

[Dausuul]

Wizards got a major whacking with the nerf bat in 4E.

Of course, they had it coming. And I say that as a guy who's been playing wizards and sorcerors for pretty much my entire D&D career. I wish the 4E wizard had more control and less blasting, but I have no complaints as far as power level.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

Wizards have one advantage over the other controllers. They have access to double (and sometimes triple) the amount of Dailies and Utilities. This alone makes them dangerous and a force to be reckoned with...

 

[Derren]

Wizards have one advantage over the other controllers.

Other controllers?

 

[smdmcl]

Considering the class without its spells is pointless IMHO. The Wizard were his spells!

Exactly! The problem with the 3rd edition cleric, druid and wizard was that their power were their spells and that 1/3 of the PHB was basically devoted to these classes.

In 4th edition the wizard can survive longer with better HP and AC and never runs out of spells (cantrips and at-wills) making the class strong when compared to the base (or low level) 3rd edition wizard. What was nerfed (IMO) was the wizards access to spells and magic items (use and creation) that broke the game.

 

[Roland55]

I believe the OP is comparing to previous editions. When you look at the powerhouse of a level 10+ 3E wizard, of course the 4E class is "nerfed". (Considering the class without its spells is pointless IMHO. The Wizard were his spells!)

I think it's best to consider the 4E Wizard a completely new class and not simply a new version of the 3E Wizard.

The old archetype of a frail old man who can wipe the board clean of enemies if his allies only keep him alive long enough is gone. In its stead we have a class more or less equal to any other class.

This.

There is literally no Wizard class in 4E. Instead, for the sake of balance, WOTC divided the Wizard into a number of classes ... not all of which have been seen yet ... and then modified the arcane spell-casters to fit their overall strategy (and assume a number of roles).

Nothing wrong with that.

I think people should avoid making comparisons to earlier versions of D&D. 4E is a noble effort and a great departure from previous Editions. Try to take it on its own terms and see if you like it.

Heck, I'm not sure ANY class is much like what it used to be. The new Rogue really isn't -- he seems much more like a Swashbuckler to me.