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

[Garthanos]

I don't know about 4e characters being more powerful at low levels. I don't recall seeing many 3e characters have trouble besting equal numbers of kobolds in relatively even ground. 4e characters are on the whole more durable, especially at low levels, but their standard opponents are similarly tougher and tend to have better damage.

There standard opponents now include minions.. which slews the entire concept of a comparison. It can definitely make 4e characters feel mightier. Depending on how the DM uses them (a few too many at low levels and they are nastier than they seem)

 

[Garthanos]

The appeal for me is part challenge and part the satisfaction of earning special abilities rather than having them handed to you on a silver plate to begin with.

Ah instead of my arrogant why would I want to be a peasant you... get but I earned my power! somebody just gave you yours... heh thats cool.

Apprentices were children in medival environments... at age 18 a medeival had been an adult 4 to 6 years. The begining AD&D character felt like both a minion and competance wise mostly like an apprentice.... and was sometimes in there thirties.

Minions can be high level (they just arent blessed with heroic luck).

And going down as easily as you did in D&D who would want to invest any well actual thinking/energy towards what the character is supposed to be like? Mechanical simplicity does not intrinsically mean character simplicity obviously but.. fragility and ease of mechanical reproduction were an active discouragement sometimes even if you didnt like cardboard characters.

Any of the above could ofcourse be a peasant or not ;-)...

 

[pawsplay]

Apprentices were children in medival environments... at age 18 a medeival had been an adult 4 to 6 years.

Most likely they would marry and have children in their 20s, with the permission of their parents.

The begining AD&D character felt like both a minion and competance wise mostly like an apprentice.... and was sometimes in there thirties.

The only hard rule was that they were considered to be at least 17, even in the case of elves.

 

[Garthanos]

Most likely they would marry and have children in their 20s, with the permission of their parents.

timed thusly because by then they could afford a family.

 

[Banshee16]

No, a wizard is mundane because he can't turn someone into a toad. The idea that complaints about the wizard are based only on inter-PC envy is mistaken and frankly insulting. Rather than psychologizing our fellow players, how about we talk about what is different about the class?

That lack of "feel" is one thing that disappointed me about Wizards in 4E. Now, admittedly, I had some issues with spell changes made in 3.5.....but I say that as a DM that never had issues with players abusing spells that some other DMs had problems with (Polymorph et al).

Everything seems limited to "blow this up", "move this there", etc. It just doesn't scratch my itch the way magic did in earlier editions.

I want magic to feel magic...4E doesn't do it for me....but no, it's not about one person being "better".....I always found in 3E that fighters were some of the most lethal characters in the game, and never understood the idea that they sucked compared to wizards. Maybe my players just weren't optimizers...I don't know. I do know that the fighters were the ones who with a few good hits, or a critical, could kill off an important enemy in one round, and could take a beating and keep going. They *were* vulnerable to charms, but that was fine...they had to have a weakness....but even with spells like Stoneskin, fighters were turning wizards into hamburger rather easily. The only time that wizards excelled was when they had 10 rounds more than everyone else to set up a whole bunch of buffs....but my players rarely did that....usually buffing began on the fly, in combat.....so by the time the wizard had his third or fourth buff spell active, the fighters had chopped up most of the opposition.

It doesn't mean anyone's wrong....they're very different games. This one just doesn't appeal to everyone.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

Yeah, that's a druid spell now. Good point.

And why? In fantasy literature, it's usually Wizards who do that.....whereas druid spellcasters are far less frequently discussed at all....let alone turning people into toads.

Banshee

 

[nightwyrm]

And why? In fantasy literature, it's usually Wizards who do that.....whereas druid spellcasters are far less frequently discussed at all....let alone turning people into toads.

Banshee

How many fantasy literature makes a distinction between wizards and druids? Unless the setting is distinctly celtic in origin, one rarely sees the caster described as a druid. Even if the caster is a nature oriented one, they would just fall under the umbrella term of wizard or witch.

For example, the main protagonist sorcerers in the Belgariad would all be classified as druids in D&D.

 

[Victim]

There standard opponents now include minions.. which slews the entire concept of a comparison. It can definitely make 4e characters feel mightier. Depending on how the DM uses them (a few too many at low levels and they are nastier than they seem)

Well, that's why I said STANDARD enemy, to exclude minions, elites, solos, etc. But 4 or 5 HP isn't all that different from 1 (especially for attacks that include an attribute bonus to damage), so it's more like ALL the (unadvanced, unleveled) kobolds and goblins were minions before, dying two at time to cleave.

 

[Voadam]

I can understand that. Basically, the rules of 3E really require that the team have at the very least a primary Divine caster such as a Cleric or Druid, and strongly recommends a Wizard (though a Sorcerer or Psion may suffice). This is not explicit, but your average group of players will have a very hard time going through the game using the rules as written without those specific classes. If the game is heavy on stealth and traps, than either a caster skilled with anti-trap utility spells or a Rogue is pretty necessary.

Really, the 3E designers have admitted several times that the game was basically entirely designed with a four person team of a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric in mind. For example, designers spoke about how the rules in Savage Species were only written and tested based on how monster PCs would work using those four classes, and they didn't really examine how a Druid or Ranger monster PC would play out (even though those classes probably make more sense for the average monster PC than Rogue or Wizard). They just didn't bother to tell anyone that in the game books themselves. This had some messy repercussions regarding the design of most of the later classes, in my opinion. It is because of the problems caused by 3E's party assumption that 4E developed explicit class roles, which ultimately allows more flexibility in the class composition of the party.

In short, where 3E basically forces you to have a Wizard and Cleric and assumes you also have a Rogue and Fighter, 4E only requires a Leader and Defender at minimum, with a balanced team of all four roles being recommended.

Of course, because of things like healing surges and rituals, a 4E party really doesn't need to have any class in particular, or even a particular role, in order to get by.

I'm not seeing this difference of guideline versus requirement between the editions.

The basic roles have not really changed between the editions, 4e is just explicit about labeling some roles.

In 3e if you don't have a cleric or druid as a healer then you have a paladin, ranger, bard, or UMD rogue with wands of cure light wounds with only minor healing in combat or you use potions and pull back after fights to heal up.

I've played in a group where as a ranger with a wand I was the only healer for multiple levels of play and it went fine.

In 4e if you don't have a leader you are limited to second wind in combat and then have to survive until out of combat. I like surges as they make wands unnecessary. They are an improvement in not needing a healer.

In 3e if you don't have a trapfinding rogue you use certain magics to get around traps (fly over pits, neutralize poison to get around poison, heal the damage taken, clerical find traps will not help you) or you take the effects of the traps and soldier on (the barbarian trap finder method).

In 4e if you don't have a rogue or someone with thievery do you have more options than in 3e?

You said defenders are required in 4e, but it feels just like 3e to me, heavy combatants are useful but if you don't have someone in that role it can work it will just be different style of combat engagement without a tough shield wall hacking into the opposition.

In 3e UMD allows use of low level utility magics, sorcerers can use arcane items to fill out their needs for spells they don't know, cleric and druid magic does many things a wizard's does (divination, buffing, combat magic, terrain control), archer characters can provide the ranged artillery. Winged boots replace the need for a fly spell with other magic items serving similar functions for most any character. Wizards are useful and powerful but I don't see them as required in 3e but only guidelines for them in 4e.

Isn't the joke that the optimal party in 3e that can handle anything is all clerics or druids?

I like the 4e DMG analysis of different party compositions based on different missing roles, but I think it applies to 3e as well.

Significant differences:

4e healing surges allow less need of a healer role.

4e thievery can be mastered with a single feat. In 3e trapfinding tough traps is limited to a Rogue class feature combined with skills.

4e anybody can do utility magic with a feat and appropriate skill. In 3e magic is fairly class specific with some overlap between spell lists plus at higher levels you can fake it with UMD skill, mitigated a little with easy multiclassing for weak magic use.

 

[pawsplay]

How many fantasy literature makes a distinction between wizards and druids? Unless the setting is distinctly celtic in origin, one rarely sees the caster described as a druid. Even if the caster is a nature oriented one, they would just fall under the umbrella term of wizard or witch.

For example, the main protagonist sorcerers in the Belgariad would all be classified as druids in D&D.

Whereas the only spellcasting druids in literature I can think of would be Merlin, of the Arthurian saga, and the druids in the Shannara books, who are associated with the magic-user/wizard archetype in D&D.