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

[billd91]

If they were in a D&D-based world, Eowyn would have been able to hurt the Witch King not because of prophecy, but because she was the only one with a <insert magic metal here> weapon.

Ahem. This is pretty much precisely why Merry was able to injure the Witch King. He had the blade pulled out of the barrow, forged by men of Westernesse using methods lost to the people of Middle Earth. Nothing else, other than a woman, was going to hurt him.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

since no one has mentoned it, I say again...

ANy 5th+ level straigh caster can have a whole arsanal of 'I can do that better' built up.

a party of a Druid, Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer was not only a match but suppior to a party of Fighter, Rouge, Bard, Barbarian...

Infact I bet that if we made a dungeon for 9th level characters...and loaded it with traps, level correct monsters and other challenges, then sent two teams through

Team 1 Druid 8, Specilist wizard 8, Cleric 8, Sorcerer 8
Team 2 Fighter 10, Rouge 10, Bard 10, Barbarian 10

that team one has the easier time...heck I bet it isn't even close...

Do the same thing in 4e, only even the levels
a dungeon of level 9
team 1 Druid 9, Wizard 9, Cleric 9, SOrcerer 9
team 2 Fighter 9, Rouge 9, Bard 9, Barbarian 9

and I bet there is little diffrence in the hardness of the dingeon (with the only real diffrence being one has no defender the other has no controler)

Does anyone here dispute that a team 2 levels lower full of caster in 4e was BETTER mechanicly then there higher level non caster counterparts?

Now can someone explain how that is fair?

 

[MrMyth]

My basic assumptions may not hold as much when you are talking about an eight year old playing a 12th level wizard in a Living Forgotten Realms Game, but I think it must be admitted that at that point, it may be difficult to generalize what, exactly, to expect.

I think my own issue with your comments is that you seem to equate "not having the most ideal spells chosen" with... being 8 years old.

This entire mindset of "you don't have any place playing a 12th level character without meeting a certain requirement of system mastery"... that is everything people are complaining about 3.5 in a nutshell.

Why should I have a character with the perfect spells and equipment prepared for every possible encounter? Why shouldn't I instead just be able to build an appropriate character concept who is effective at what he does, and not have this mean my instant death when shadows come pouring out of the walls? Why can't I have a wizard who enjoys hurling fireballs at his foes, rather than driving them away with repulsion and trapping them with walls of force?

There shouldn't be a certain list of items or spells required to succeed. There shouldn't be a "you must be this tall to ride" sign, with a certain level of system mastery needed to play at level 12. And the expectations you seem to have are very high - not just for random 8 year old players, but for plenty of people who have played this game for years.

You might be shocked that a 12th level wizard didn't have wall of force, and not know what to say. For myself, I am similarly struck speechless by the idea that you cannot even conceive of someone player a wizard at that level without that one specific spell.

 

[Filcher]

since no one has mentoned it, I say again...

Does anyone here dispute that a team 2 levels lower full of caster in 4e was BETTER mechanicly then there higher level non caster counterparts?

Now can someone explain how that is fair?

You mean 3.x, right, not 4e?

If so, I agree with you 100%.

 

[Filcher]

Collapsing it all together is the D&Dism.

....

By collapsing all this into one person, and doing it for EVERY D&D character, you turn those individual little mystical neat ideas and turn them into a set of uninspiring rules that everyone just knows.

....

We're all characters in that awful Van Helsing movie, apparently. Or we're running a scene out of Abbot and Costello meet Dracula.

This was an interesting post to me. By and large, most mythological heroes had, what, 7-10 or fewer astounding encounters in their career? In order to even entertain the conceit of D&D, we have to come to terms with the idea that any campaign of PCs is going to encounter "an entire mythological career" nearly every level. Otherwise, the whole idea is just bunk (or you start playing E6).

 

[pawsplay]

I think my own issue with your comments is that you seem to equate "not having the most ideal spells chosen" with... being 8 years old.

Actually, no, that was a response to someone mentioning the play style of eight-year-olds.

This entire mindset of "you don't have any place playing a 12th level character without meeting a certain requirement of system mastery"... that is everything people are complaining about 3.5 in a nutshell.

That's not my position at all. I feel that by 12th level, 100+ encounters should impart a minimal mastery of the system. If you start the game at 12th level, I hope you have experienced players. If not, expect the unexpected. I would not hammer a group of novices playing 12th level characters... I would not run a game at 12th level for novices, I would pick somewhere in the 1st to 3rd range so they would have some chance of understanding what was on their character sheet.

Why should I have a character with the perfect spells and equipment prepared for every possible encounter?

Never said that. A cold iron morningstar is not the "perfect" weapon for very many characters, but it is 1) blunt, 2) also piercing, 3) wieldable in one or two hands, and 4) cold iron. It's an all-purpose tool, and owning one saves you all kinds of what-if scenarios.

Why shouldn't I instead just be able to build an appropriate character concept who is effective at what he does, and not have this mean my instant death when shadows come pouring out of the walls? Why can't I have a wizard who enjoys hurling fireballs at his foes, rather than driving them away with repulsion and trapping them with walls of force?

Everybody needs a day job. But seriously, if you are going to throw fireballs, then you should look at Consecrated Spell and Trandimensional Spell, to get you non-fire damage and the ability to affect incorporeal foes, respectively. There are numerous options, but you should gear up for more various situations than just barbecuing orcs.

There shouldn't be a certain list of items or spells required to succeed.

That is correct. But there is also no guarantee that dragons will be nice to you if you do not explore any good adventuring options at all. There is not one specific way to be a trial lawyer, but there are still competent lawyers and less competent lawyers. There is not just one painting style, but every good painter needs to develop a style that works.

There shouldn't be a "you must be this tall to ride" sign, with a certain level of system mastery needed to play at level 12.

I'm sorry, here you're just wrong. It's not the GM who makes 12th level challenging, it's having 12 levels of options and facing CR 12 foes.

And the expectations you seem to have are very high - not just for random 8 year old players, but for plenty of people who have played this game for years.

Maybe. Apart from the "ghoul incident" about three years ago, and one crazy critical hit against a non-raging Barbarian, the only deaths I've seen in my games were immediately proceeded by warnings from other players that the player in question might want to reconsider their actions. This is in a 1st to 18th level campaign. So I think overall my expectations are pretty realistic.

You might be shocked that a 12th level wizard didn't have wall of force, and not know what to say. For myself, I am similarly struck speechless by the idea that you cannot even conceive of someone player a wizard at that level without that one specific spell.

It's a handy spell. I mean, seriously, at 9th level, there are lots of choices, but by 12th level, when you have 6th level spells, I think that's a good 5th level spell to know. If you are a sorcerer, sure, there are always hard choices to make, but for a wizard, getting a 5th level spell means, at most, shelling out some gold or going on a minor quest.

Force wall blocks doorways, halts forward movement, blocks most spells, blocks dragon breath, and is very difficult to get rid of.

I have a hard time imagining a wizard not having magic missile (unless Evocation is a banned school, of course) by 4th level. Same thing. Is there any 12th level wizard who does not know magic missile?

 

[Bluenose]

This was an interesting post to me. By and large, most mythological heroes had, what, 7-10 or fewer astounding encounters in their career? In order to even entertain the conceit of D&D, we have to come to terms with the idea that any campaign of PCs is going to encounter "an entire mythological career" nearly every level. Otherwise, the whole idea is just bunk (or you start playing E6).

Hercules is the most obvious example of someone who had a career approaching that of a D&D character. The Twelve Labours could all be adventures, and then there's plenty of other famous deeds on top of them. Still he's an unusually active hero, and many D&D characters make him look like an underachiever.

 

[Garthanos]

Hercules is the most obvious example of someone who had a career approaching that of a D&D character. The Twelve Labours could all be adventures, and then there's plenty of other famous deeds on top of them. Still he's an unusually active hero, and many D&D characters make him look like an underachiever.

Odysseus.. and some others are in similar class as Herakles. I suspect. Not all the stories told about these characters become part of common parlayance. The knights of the round table had a number of members who were extraordinarily prolific. Lancelot was ummm something else in this regard.