It’s also about the people here in this forum who expect god wizards and hate 4e for nerfing their god wizards while keeping fighters’ faces in the mud.
Not to change the subject, but was 4e really that bad? I never played it (well, okay, maybe once when it first came out) but I hear stuff like this a lot on ENWorld.
EDIT: I really don't want an edition war here. I'm just curious about the differences between the 4e wizards and the 5e ones.
IME, wizard as a class in my experience attracts more than its share of players or characters who feel like they are entitled to be the best class or gods who lord over other players and dominate play at the table through their magic.
Not to change the subject, but was 4e really that bad? I never played it (well, okay, maybe once when it first came out) but I hear stuff like this a lot on ENWorld.
We know from behind the scene stuff that the lead designer had to fight his own team all the time because they kept trying to make the Wizard more powerful. They debatably overshot in the other direction and the Wizard was probably the weakest class in the PHB, even tho some of the PHB classes used a dual-primary design that was eventually ditched as the game progressed (for exemple, your Cleric could be STR or WIS or both, and Warlock CON or CHA or both). It was the only Controller in the PHB and it didn't really help to define the Controller role very well. The Invoker (Bascally all the Laser from Heaven bits of the Cleric) and Druid in PHB2 were much more well received as far as Controllers went.
4e sent almost ALL utility magic to their Ritual System, leaving mostly combat stuff in the Wizard (they got free Rituals though), and 4e ditched the School of Magic classifications until Essentials shoved them back into the system as a needless keyword addition.
Also, they made Magic Missile an At-Will with an actual attack roll (It was a good one too, inflicted Force damage and had crazy good range).
So... all the Wizard players were pissed their Magicest Magic God King wasn't there anymore.
Fighters, on the other hand, were pretty much one of the best class in 4e from start to finish. They didn't get to be Archer (I mean, you COULD, but it wouldn't do you much good besides ranged marking for a turn) so that was its own kind of bellyaching (if you were too much of a pedant to just play a Ranger for all your Archery needs), but as a Defender they were probably one of the best. Capable of preventing multiple enemies from running past them, having powerful attacks, and even ways to strengthen themselves (Battlerager Fighters could just collect Temp HP at-will if it wanted to! At the cost of Heavy Armor) and the best AC available. For the first time in the game, a Fighter holding the front line ACTUALLY held the frontline! There was no need of a gentleman's agreement with the DM that they wouldn't ignore the Fighter, they just couldn't! And the Wizard (or the Invoker or the Druid) didn't have access to all the broken 3e stuff that would allow them to replace the Fighter, they had to rely on their team mates to hold the line.
So the players used to self-reliant casters were pissed.
It’s also about the people here in this forum who expect god wizards and hate 4e for nerfing their god wizards while keeping fighters’ faces in the mud.
Are you on different forum than I am? Do you happen to have any of these posts bookmarked? I've seen more people complain that martials aren't powerful enough...
So, in some of the fighter vs. wizard threads I've questioned the balance, tried posting options to bring martials up to a higher power level and bring the power of spells (the only issue*, really, not just "wizards") down to keep things more in balance.
The problem is different people want different things from the game. It isn't the class. Some people want superheroic fantasy, others want more toned down games. Unfortunately, WotC has thrown balance out the window. They designed most martials for the toned down games, but left full casters (again, not just Wizards!) with the power they need (via spells and some of those other class features) for the superheroic games.
I've only been playing 5E for four years, but I've never (not once!) had a player of a wizard (or any class) "feel entitled to be gods" or anything like it. I really would have to question a player who acted like that and they probably wouldn't remain in my game long because they would quickly find out their PC (Wizard or whatever) is not a god or anything like it.
Tell me why instead of just making blanket statements. Convince me.
IMO Bards are worse offenders: full-casters with a variety of spells and more known spells than others (including magical secrets!), expertise, other helpful features, and with the right subclass choice good in combat as well!
What are Wizards without spells? Nothing really. Clerics, Druids, Bards, even the half-casters, have features separate from their spells. If you took away their spells or decreased spells' power, those classes could still contribute. If you take away spells from Wizards, they literally have nothing. So, the ISSUE is spells, more than anything.
While it's true Wizards have the largest selection of spells, it is because they have nothing else. Wizards have limited access to their spell list, and depend on DM fiat to get more. Meanwhile, Clerics, Druids, and Paladins have access to all their spells. Even known spell casters have access to their entire spell lists, even if they have limited options to change them out.
Some might argue Wizards have too many options when you consider the versatility of their spell list. Yes, they do have a lot of spells that can do a lot of things and overcome a lot of challenges--if they choose them. They can't have them all--there are always gaps. Even if they have a well-chosen list, they still need a long rest to prepare a spell (if they even have it...) that isn't prepared to meet a challenge. That option isn't always available.
FWIW, it isn't hard to redistribute the spell list. It isn't hard to slow down the spell progression of full casters so their power more matches the other classes. If you want other classes to have more powerful features, you can go the other way and make those, too.
If you think Wizards are boring, etc. that is a different issue and fine with me. Everyone has their preferences for what classes they like or don't, find interesting and fun to play or don't.
I love the class, it is one of my top three (along with Fighter and Rogue). I enjoy it because it is a challenge to select spell and prepare the right ones for an adventure. I also don't cast spells like candy, because as a player I never know when my wizard will get another long rest to get those spell slots back.
Frankly, I would LOVE to see one of these "wizards should be gods" players and the game they're in, because I really don't see how they can be played like that.
But I do think ENWorld is, on average, more understanding of game balance than other places. And has a good contingent of Martial fans. Whiny Wizard players dog piled on 4e pretty badly back in the days.
Yeah, I remember that thread. Wizards (any full-caster really) is "all that" (Bards just as easily fit the bill, if not better in some ways...) but as I noted in my last post, that is just because spells are not balanced against what non-casters can do.
I am more looking for posts about people whining and yelling don't nerf my wizard, and not inclined to search that thread or others to find them.
But I do think ENWorld is, on average, more understanding of game balance than other places. And has a good contingent of Martial fans. Whiny Wizard players dog piled on 4e pretty badly back in the days.
I don't really visit any other forums on D&D (this one keeps me entertained enough ), so I'll take your word for that.
Also, since I have no experience with 4E I will bow to your experience as well unless I hear otherwise.
The only thing I know of 4E, which would be a huge factor in me not liking it, would be the forced structure of it. I prefer more organic or at least explainable systems.
Most of the time it's not outright 'Don't nerf my Wizard' and more 'Naaah, the Wizard is fine! No need to nerf it! Fighters should just role-play more!'...
and you have outliers like ECMO3 who claims 'choosing weapon and armor' as a Fighter is somehow complicated?! Not that I want to rag on the guy, but he always throws me for a loop with his experience.
), so I'll take your word for that.
