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

[EroGaki]

I think this quote nails it right on the head. If a choice is obviously superior to all other choices, that's bad design in a nutshell. The fact that you would be shocked that someone wouldn't prep this spell speaks volumes towards the brokenness of the spell, not the creativity of the player.



Yup, 100% can the wizard bypass that trap better than a rogue. 1st level Summon Monster spell. Done. Never mind unseen servant or even Mage Hand.

Are you seriously going to try to say that a wizard can't out rogue the rogue?

A single 1st level spell - unseen servant - can bypass pretty much every trap out there simply by triggering it at range. Combined with a wand of knock and what do I need a rogue for anyway?

No, a wizard could never out rogue the rogue. For several reasons:

1. Unless a trap is obvious/out in the open, how is a wizard going to know it is even there in the first place? Only Rogues can find traps higher than DC 20 (in other words, find traps period).

2. Traps come in all sorts of shapes and forms. Are you telling me that an Unseen Servant or Summon Monster spell can deal with all of them?

Many traps are pressure sensitive, and are only activated by a certain weight. Unseen servants don't weigh anything, and they can only exert a small amount of pressure.

3. Even if the spells mentioned could trigger a trap and disable it, is a wizard really going to waste precious spells on something a thief could handle? Most wizards wouldn't. I know that when I play a wizard, or even a sorcerer, I'm not going to blow through my spells on trivial things like that.


Yes, a wizard can handle a few situations dealing with traps, but in doing so he wastes resources better spent on something else. A rogue can do his thing all day. A wizard, should he try to do the rogues job, will quickly find himself out of spells, plinking away with a light crossbow.

 

[Garthanos]

We honestly had few enough times for the thiefs abilities to shine and be story significant ... that a wizard having pass-wall, knock and a form of invisibility could indeed make the thief feel really superfluous ... not sure I ever got to see a thief do his thing as often as a wizard bypass the situation entirely with a rogue like super ability, it could have been a DM who didn't think his world ought to be covered by senseless numbers of traps and locks or something like that.

In some ways it will vary from campaign to campaign. But I seen it quite a bit.

 

[Hussar]

No, a wizard could never out rogue the rogue. For several reasons:

1. Unless a trap is obvious/out in the open, how is a wizard going to know it is even there in the first place? Only Rogues can find traps higher than DC 20 (in other words, find traps period).

2. Traps come in all sorts of shapes and forms. Are you telling me that an Unseen Servant or Summon Monster spell can deal with all of them?

Many traps are pressure sensitive, and are only activated by a certain weight. Unseen servants don't weigh anything, and they can only exert a small amount of pressure.

3. Even if the spells mentioned could trigger a trap and disable it, is a wizard really going to waste precious spells on something a thief could handle? Most wizards wouldn't. I know that when I play a wizard, or even a sorcerer, I'm not going to blow through my spells on trivial things like that.


Yes, a wizard can handle a few situations dealing with traps, but in doing so he wastes resources better spent on something else. A rogue can do his thing all day. A wizard, should he try to do the rogues job, will quickly find himself out of spells, plinking away with a light crossbow.

In 3e, Unseen Servant lasts 1 hour per level. By about 5th level and higher, that's one single 1st level spell that's likely going to last pretty much your entire adventuring day. Hardly blowing spells.

So, pretty much the only thing I'm going to miss is pressure sensitive traps. Meh, oh well. Damn, I fall in the pit trap from time to time.

Wand of knock, wand of summon monster 1 - not exactly huge expenditures. Heck, scrolls could likely do it too. Open/Close is a cantrip as is Mage Hand. These are very minor spells that the wizard probably has loads of anyway.

As far as finding the DC 20 trap, I don't. I set off every trap as I come to it. Have your unseen servant bang a hammer on the ground, or drag a heavy sack ahead of you. That catches all the tripwires and likely triggers a lot of everything else.

All for the cost of a single 1st level spell.

 

[Bluenose]

3. Even if the spells mentioned could trigger a trap and disable it, is a wizard really going to waste precious spells on something a thief could handle? Most wizards wouldn't. I know that when I play a wizard, or even a sorcerer, I'm not going to blow through my spells on trivial things like that.

Well, I'm glad the the Rogue understands his role is to deal with the trivial things your wizard is too important to waste precious spells on.

 

[Nifft]

As far as finding the DC 20 trap, I don't. I set off every trap as I come to it. Have your unseen servant bang a hammer on the ground, or drag a heavy sack ahead of you. That catches all the tripwires and likely triggers a lot of everything else.

Unseen Servant has a low carrying capacity.

Check out the 1st level spell mount. For 2 hours per level, that's your trapfinder.

"My poor little pony...", -- N

 

[Hussar]

Heh, 20 pounds, IIRC, for Unseen Servant is enough to trip a lot of things. Granted, never occured to me to use Mount. That would work darn well too. Although, to be fair, you can't kill an unseen servant.

 

[MrGrenadine]

Wow, more perfect examples where a wizard spell solves a problem that could also be solved by a rogue. Let me say this again--creating perfect examples to illustrate how wizard spells could simulate other character roles does not prove there was a problem with the 3.5 wizard.

I have never played with a player selfish enough to waste time casting spells that would do what a rogue would do--unless of course, our rogue was killed or incapacitated. Otherwise, it doesn't make any sense.

And having the party wait around while a wizard sends an unseen servant ahead of them to check for traps sounds like the epitome of *not fun*. I remember the days of pushing a 10' pole ahead of us through dungeons. Also took forever...and also not fun.

Its a game. With real people playing. Who all want to have fun. That should be enough for those situations to never happen. In my experience, anyway.


Rogues I've played were great at finding and disabling traps, setting traps, sneaking and hiding for recon, slipping behind an enemy and doing major damage in the middle of a fight, bluffing, climbing, and a hundred other things.

And yes, other characters could do those things, too, but since we were a group that had the same goals we worked together to make sure everyone could participate using their skills for the benefit of the entire party.

And often, the wizard was busy casting spells in one area of the battle, perhaps protected by a fighter or cleric, while other characters used ranged weapons, or held the stairs so reinforcements couldn't aid our enemies, or fought off enchantments from enemy casters, or figured out how to free the whatsathingy from the whozewhatsit...in other words, there was so much happening, everyone was needed.

Baseball isn't broken because a player can pitch, catch, and play the outfield. Each player has a job to do, and the way a team works is that each player does his or her own job, and lets the rest of the team do the same.

Being flexible does not equal making other characters obsolete.

 

[Nifft]

Wow, more perfect examples where a wizard spell solves a problem that could also be solved by a rogue. Let me say this again--creating perfect examples to illustrate how wizard spells could simulate other character roles does not prove there was a problem with the 3.5 wizard.

What you're trying to imply isn't happening. Hide vs. invisibility isn't some obscure use of invisibility -- it's the obvious use. Same deal for Climb vs. spider climb (or worse, fly all day).

You want creative corner cases? Don't think about obvious stuff like invisibility. Think of all the uses of a free pony. Mount can:
- brace a door (weight and strength of a pony)
- find pit traps (weight of pony)
- fill a passageway, making it difficult for pursuers (size of pony)
- determine the depth and toxicity of a body of liquid (biology of pony)
- aid in carpentry (sawpony)

The utility of unlimited disposable ponies is phenomenal.

Being flexible does not equal making other characters obsolete.

It does if "flexible" means: everything you can do, I can do better. In 3.5e, for a Wizard, Druid or Cleric, that is what it means.

Hell, in 3.5e, a 1st level Druid's pet could be strictly more powerful than a 1st level Fighter, and that's before the Druid casts entangle and kills the fighter by throwing rocks at him.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Garthanos]

It does if "flexible" means: everything you can do, I can do better. In 3.5e, for a Wizard, Druid or Cleric, that is what it means.
- N

And what I am doing to defeat the bad guy doesn't help with what you are doing to defeat the bad guy (SoD) so they are completely in parallel doesn't make the caster a team player either.

So save or sucks are better than save or dies because you can argue the save or sucks do give some contribution.

 

[Nifft]

So save or sucks are better than save or dies because you can argue the save or sucks do give some contribution.

Absolutely.

Beyond those, some of the no-save-just-die spells (like the various power words) are good team spells.

Cheers, -- N