• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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

When everyone is a wizard then, effectively; no one is.

That is a villains quote you realize ;p

It is actualy the whole (ok one of the) theme of the movie...Dash in the car points out when it is brought up early in the movie, then later when Mr Incredable and Invsable woman are argueing it gets brought up again (in the vain of dash compeating) then of cource syndrome's threat...

the end result is up to the audince to decide, but I always hold the dash talk in the car in my heart when I think about life...

Dash "We're special"
Invsable woman "Everyone is dear"
Dash "thats just another way to say no one is"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The grease spell was awsome...:cool: and a great example of a spell being used well outside of it's intent becuse the player had an idea, and the DM went along... (I wish we had a clap smileing face here) now tell me if that player was a non magic casting class would he be less creative and awsome? Or is it just easier with casters to think outside the box???
This perhaps more than anything else separates the magic from the mundane. Magic does give the player a nice set of tools to work with that by their very nature give them an inventive advantage over their non-caster counterparts. That's not to say that non-casters and in particular the player's behind them can't pull something inventive out of the box, it's just not as easy. I'm a representative pool (8 ball) player and while I can play OK with a rack cue, having my own playing cue (a Predator P3 at 17.5 ounces with a medium hard Moori tip for those who know about such things), makes a huge difference in terms of control and the subtle yet consistent action I can put on the cue ball. A good cue like a caster gives you so many more options... and deservedly so.

GMforPowergamers said:
See by showing that bit of awsome sauce you also show the problem...the PCs are playing two diffrent games, casters can do anything they imagin, and non casters are limited to only what a real person could do, or atleast close...

That is why just nerfing the wizard would do nothign for D&D...takeing a power level 11 class like wizard to level 6 only helps if a power level 2 class like fighter is brought up to level 6 as well...witch I think they atleast got pretty close to.
I agree that they have balanced the casters with the non-casters very well bringing them down and up respectively within the constraints of the 4e gamespace.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
 


This perhaps more than anything else separates the magic from the mundane. Magic does give the player a nice set of tools to work with that by their very nature give them an inventive advantage over their non-caster counterparts. That's not to say that non-casters and in particular the player's behind them can't pull something inventive out of the box, it's just not as easy. I'm a representative pool (8 ball) player and while I can play OK with a rack cue, having my own playing cue (a Predator P3 at 17.5 ounces with a medium hard Moori tip for those who know about such things), makes a huge difference in terms of control and the subtle yet consistent action I can put on the cue ball. A good cue like a caster gives you so many more options... and deservedly so.

The idea that writing "Wizard" on your character sheet (as opposed to writing "Rogue" or "Fighter" ) means that you deserve to have more options is not one that I consider particularly valid. The particular situation you describe at the banquet is one with many possible solutions which could have been tried and which require player ingenuity and character skill, and all of them are pointless when the wizard can bypass them with a spell which is after all a class ability.
 
Last edited:

And rightly so!... although I'm still not jiving with all of this at 1st level. Count me a sucker for the occasional peasant to hero thing.

I have a minion costume in my closet for you...I always despised playing a peasant. I do NOT get the appeal of playing a character who dies at the drop of a coin.

Honestly, every member of my family has a bow. I have nice quick draw with it and a narrow pattern at 20 paces and my kendo is a fair talent as well (The sword collection in my living room spans to the library ). Quite honestly I want the heroic of movies and literary fiction and heck yeah legends and myth!!!, I dont really want to play me. When I game I want larger than life.

And its great that I am encouraged to free form visualize the details of how my characters power is implemented with "any class".

They did more than one thing right.

PS Garthanos: clicked on your link and found some good stuff. Well done!

Thanks!
 
Last edited:

On this I can agree and why I mentioned throwing the baby (the nice handy imaginitive tools - illusions in particular) out with the bathwater (the save or dies and the broken ones like Shapechange, Gate and Wish - with an inexperienced DM).

I think only the most ardent of 3.x supporters would ignore or fail to recognize the difficulties of balancing casters and non-casters at high levels. In my high level Age of Worms campaign (3.x: all above 16th level at the moment) handling the wizard so as to make the game enjoyable for all is pretty much the first thing I have to address in every single encounter.

The wizard's power needed to be addressed but not necessarily completely nerf-batted. The mystery of magic in 4e is not a feature of the game as it was in earlier editions (3.x certainly started this trend much to my chagrin).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Except that illusions were some of the worst "I win" buttons out there (provided you had a lenient DM).

A level 1 wizard could use a silent image spell to "conjure" an enormous dragon that could cow anyone and everyone into submission. Of course, some DMs would simply reply that "everyone knows there aren't dragons in these parts" and have everyone automatically disbelieve. (I've personally seen both scenarios at the game table.) The functionality (or abusability) of a spell should never be reliant upon whether your DM is a push over or a hardnose.

FWIW, today's Dragon article (Wizard Spells of the Feywild), introduces a level 2 Wizard Encounter Utility that allows you to create the illusion of a medium or smaller object or creature. Illusions were hit by the nerf bat (because in conjunction with an inexperienced/lenient DM they could easily become game breakers) but they're present and more are slowly trickling in.

Oh, and I completely agree with Bluenose. Writing Wizard on your sheet shouldn't be a "creativity license" that no one else can even apply for.
 

Ignoring high fantasy for the moment, you can dig back into myth and legend as well. The heroes of these old stories performed super-human feats, that's what MADE them myths in the first place.

Yet, no one seems to say that the choice is between S&S fantasy and traditional myth and legend.

I wonder why that is.

A hero can do deeds beyond the capability of normal folk. A heroic fighter can take punisnment that would kill more than a dozen men and single handedly slay creatures that could wipe out entire villages. As a hero living in a world where there is magic, he or she doesn't have to use or manipulate magic to be such a hero. The magical powers of a wizard are very different from those of the martially focused hero.

The martial hero shouldn't be doing the things a wizard does and the wizard shouldn't try and fight with weapons like the fighter.

There should be situations that require magic to succeed and there should also be situations where magic will be of little use. Having every hero accomplish the same tasks with a differently flavored power is like having a superhero team with just different fluff and costumes.

The more common magic becomes the more it transforms into a kind of accepted technology. The whole concept of a wizard as a mysterious practitioner of magic is lost if every hero is essentially a spellcaster.
 

The constant reference to this quote is pointless and circular.

Dash "We're special"
Invsable woman "Everyone is dear"
Dash "thats just another way to say no one is"
One thing we might note is that every member of their adventuring party WAS special. Mr. Incredible didn't head shot every big bad fight, obviating the need for the rest of his family. They overcame things as a team once they became such. That was actually a better delivered message of the film than that ham-handed club-to-the-head about excellence and mediocrity.

All of the player characters and a subset of the GM characters are all "special" relative to regular people. This was true in every edition I've played to some extent. The debate here (such as it is) is whether or not the wizard gets to be MORE special than everyone else.

So everyone needs to stop trying to score points with that quote. In the context of a game about heroes that has absolutely nothing to do with ordinary people... I do not think it means what you think it means.
 

A hero can do deeds beyond the capability of normal folk. A heroic fighter can take punisnment that would kill more than a dozen men and single handedly slay creatures that could wipe out entire villages. As a hero living in a world where there is magic, he or she doesn't have to use or manipulate magic to be such a hero. The magical powers of a wizard are very different from those of the martially focused hero.

The martial hero shouldn't be doing the things a wizard does and the wizard shouldn't try and fight with weapons like the fighter.

Totally on board with you up to here.

There should be situations that require magic to succeed and there should also be situations where magic will be of little use. Having every hero accomplish the same tasks with a differently flavored power is like having a superhero team with just different fluff and costumes.

The more common magic becomes the more it transforms into a kind of accepted technology. The whole concept of a wizard as a mysterious practitioner of magic is lost if every hero is essentially a spellcaster.

And here we part company. There should be situations that "require magic to succeed"? First off, how is that not extremely heavy handed DMing? Shouldn't those decisions be left to the players?

Why is screwing over one class and then another considered a good thing? If magic is required, then the non-caster classes get to watch from the benches. If magic is of little use, then the caster gets to sit down. Why is mechanically forcing players to take a time out considered good design?

If I, as the player, choose to not participate, that's one thing. That's totally up to me. But, when the DM turns to me and says, "Oh, sorry Hussar, today, you get to watch Bob over there do everything", that's just really bad game design to me.

Yes, I come to play. That means I want to play as much as possible. That doesn't mean I'll never die or anything like that. That's fair enough. That's a consequence of play that makes sense. But, "Sorry, you're a rogue so you get to watch while everyone else deals with these constructs" isn't a logical consequence of the game.

Again, why does writing "wizard" on my character sheet automatically give me more options in play? Why is that a good thing?
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top