Wizards in 4E have been 'neutered' argument...

[thecasualoblivion]

Now don't get me started on minions otherwise we're headed for threadlock!

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Wasn't talking about minions. I was talking about level. Level is the measure of power in 4E, not whether or not you use magic. Minions are merely an alternate way to stat out lower level enemies.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, I played it pre-3e wizard. And yes, I pretty much instantly discount the opinion of anyone who claims 1e wizards made other classes obselete and completely overshadowed other classes as in fact never having played 1e and not having much of an opinion worth listening to on this matter.

Wow... Just... wow...

You're saying that anyone who claims to have an experience different from yours is either lying or an idiot.

Do you apply that to all things, or just this specific one?

I did play 1e D&D. I did see wizards completely dominate the game.

I also didn't see 6th level wizards with an 8 AC. I did see rings of protection combined with cloaks of protection and quite possibly bracers of defense.

In any case, I guess since my experience differs from yours I'm either lying or stupid. Which one is it?

 

[Thasmodious]

For me though, a wizard should be able to make a threat and be able to back it up with his magic. A wizard should be able to make the impossible possible, all while having an air of mystery.

I would say the 4e wizard more than meets those requirements, much more so than the 3e wizard especially, and from 1st level as well. In previous editions, a low level wizard couldn't back up much of a threat with just his magic. It ran out too quickly.

"I will kill you with my magic!"
casts magic missile, orc survives
"I can now a)kill you with my crossbow or b)come back in 8 hours"

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Wasn't talking about minions.

But I was (as they are the only things out there lesser than Thasmodius's diet lite wizard!) Sheesh, having to explain jokes is always the pits. It's like a guy in our group who will always laugh three times at a joke. Once when it's told, once when it's explained to him and then again two minutes later when he gets it.

I would say the 4e wizard more than meets those requirements, much more so than the 3e wizard especially, and from 1st level as well. In previous editions, a low level wizard couldn't back up much of a threat with just his magic. It ran out too quickly.

"I will kill you with my magic!"
casts magic missile, orc survives
"I can now a)kill you with my crossbow or b)come back in 8 hours"

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.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Having played since 1977, I can speak to all editions of Wizards...and won't!

I must, however, respond to this:

I would say the 4e wizard more than meets those requirements, much more so than the 3e wizard especially, and from 1st level as well. In previous editions, a low level wizard couldn't back up much of a threat with just his magic. It ran out too quickly.

"I will kill you with my magic!"
casts magic missile, orc survives
"I can now a)kill you with my crossbow or b)come back in 8 hours"

I happened to play a Sorcerer (OK, not a Wizard, but the issue is the same) who, at first level, would have said this...

"I will kill you with my magic!"
breathes Dragon Breath (Lightning) in 30' line, orc dies, so do several of his buddies...
"I can now a)kill you with my Maul or b)come back in 8 hours"

Or my previous PC, a Specialist Diviner who would have used True Strike to eye-shoot the orcish SOB with his X-bow...

Or...or...or...and so forth- more than anything else 3.X was about flexibility.

(Yes, over time, this flexibility will probably appear in 4Ed as well, but I'm not waiting around for it...)

Should the Wizard have been nerfed? IMHO, no...at least, not in the way 4Ed did, or others think it should have been done. I think the 3.X arcanists should have been more vulnerable to disruption than they were, but should not have had their overall potential dropped.

To me, the 4Ed Wiz is an example of balance sapping flavor. In a Moorcockian sense, Law has triumphed over Chaos, and the result is an unending steady state.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I think the 3.X arcanists should have been more vulnerable to disruption than they were, but should not have had their overall potential dropped.

Nail on head!

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Toras]

I think part of my problem with 4e has always been the shear dragging mundanity of it all. Wizards pulled down rather than raising up the non-casting classes. Let me have Hercules that is capable of taking the world from Atlas's shoulders, a Samson capable of slay hordes with the jaw bone of an ass. Let my thief steal fire from the gods, the heart of maidens fair and vanish like smoke from even the sharpest eye of man. Let him steal the words from your mouth and the thoughts from your mind.

Let my cleric part the sea as Moses's upon the mount or call down fire from the heavens upon a city of men.

Let my sword's man slice the wind and my monk balance on the head of a pin.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Nail on head!

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.

Either way, someone's having a really bad experience.

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.

 

[Ourph]

Re: Nerfing Wizards... I liked playing casters in 3.5. Most of my characters were Wizards, Warmages, Druids or some other type of primary caster.

And I have to say that after playing some 4e I just can't go back to playing those 3.5 classes. Despite their awe-inspiring power at higher levels, the lower levels weren't very "magical". By comparison the 4e Wizard is extremely versatile. The idea of playing a low level 3.5 caster again (other than MAYBE a Warlock) is really unappealing. Too much of a low level Wizard's time in 3.5 was spent doing non-magical things because either 1) the resources had run out; or 2) resources needed to be "saved for later".

I recently got invited to play in a friend's 3.5 game and started to roll up a Warmage. I got to the point of buying equipment and realized I would need the ubiquituos Light Crossbow for when my spells ran out and just crumpled up the character sheet and threw it away. The idea of playing a *BANG*BANG*BANG* now break out the crossbow-type character after playing 4e was just too frustrating. I rolled up a Fighter instead.

 

[Hussar]

What's really funny though is the idea that this is something new with 4e.

EVERY 3e replacement class for casters published in WOTC splats was weaker than core casters. From the first days of 3e, designers knew that the core casters needed to be reined in. Whether it was sorcerers, or warmages, or any other caster substitute, you see a massive reduction in scope compared to core wizards.

It's pretty telling, to me anyway, that even after 8 years of 3e supplements, clerics, druids and wizards were STILL considered the strongest classes in the game.