4e Magic in practice

[apoptosis]

Um, you guys do know that the 3E wizard got SIGNIFICANTLY upgraded from 2e right?

The 1e/2E wizard is much, MUCH closer in feel to the 4e wizard than the 3e uber-wizard.

The 3E magic system is a vast change from the 1e/2e world of magic.

Honestly that does not at all seem right to me.

4E is a complete change with how wizards work.

3E just allowed wizards to have more slots (and of course item creation).

I dont see much of a difference from 1/2e to 3e and i see a huge difference to 4e.

Obviously you see it differently, would you mind going through your reasoning?

 

[AllisterH]

1e/2e wizards WERE blaster wizards.

Nobody used Save or Die since by the time you actually got those spells, the bloody NPC would fail only on a 4 or less.

Similarly, the "versatility" that 3E has just didn't exist in 1e/2e. Wizards didn't automatically get new spells per level AND you couldn't easily gain new spells. The only reliable method was by going on adventures and capturing new spellbooks (In the years of playing 1e/2e, I've never seen the cloudkill/wall of force combo because no DM would give out BOTH spells or at least allow them to be kept). Even if a izard reached the teens, there was no guarantee they would even have Fly or Spider Climb or Knock.

Furthermore, given that wizards couldn't create magic items (a.k.a spell slots ), 1e/2e wizards weren't busting out non-combat spells left right and center since those spells had to come from their limited (no extra slots for high int) repetoire. A wzard n 1e/2e COULDN'T trump the thief in 2e due to the extremely limited number of slots. Does a 3e wizard after 7th level even bat an eye in making 1st and 2nd level scrolls?

In practice, the 3E wizard was an abnormality in D&D history. Spellcasters were NEVER intened to be that freaking powerful that they became in 3.x

 

[apoptosis]

1e/2e wizards WERE blaster wizards.

Nobody used Save or Die since by the time you actually got those spells, the bloody NPC would fail only on a 4 or less.

Similarly, the "versatility" that 3E has just didn't exist in 1e/2e. Wizards didn't automatically get new spells per level AND you couldn't easily gain new spells. The only reliable method was by going on adventures and capturing new spellbooks (In the years of playing 1e/2e, I've never seen the cloudkill/wall of force combo because no DM would give out BOTH spells or at least allow them to be kept). Even if a izard reached the teens, there was no guarantee they would even have Fly or Spider Climb or Knock.

Furthermore, given that wizards couldn't create magic items (a.k.a spell slots ), 1e/2e wizards weren't busting out non-combat spells left right and center since those spells had to come from their limited (no extra slots for high int) repetoire. A wzard n 1e/2e COULDN'T trump the thief in 2e due to the extremely limited number of slots. Does a 3e wizard after 7th level even bat an eye in making 1st and 2nd level scrolls?

In practice, the 3E wizard was an abnormality in D&D history. Spellcasters were NEVER intened to be that freaking powerful that they became in 3.x

I guess I see it very very differently. they did a lot of damage spells due to their effectiveness (vs SoD due to easier saves) but they did a lot of things in combat due to the almost unlimited nature of the spell system, which is really similar to 3E.

Now they had fewer slots and fewer made-to-order magic items but in general they tended to play very similar. 4E is a blaster mage and that is what he is (no unlimited toolbox take that as pro or con, non-judgemental).

Wizards could trump thieves but it was not efficient as they had better uses for their spells than doubling up on thieving spells.

I see your reasoning but completely disagree. I think k1/2/3e wizards are very similar while 4e is really different.

 

[Intense_Interest]

Now they had fewer slots and fewer made-to-order magic items but in general they tended to play very similar. 4E is a blaster mage and that is what he is (no unlimited toolbox take that as pro or con, non-judgmental).

....

I see your reasoning but completely disagree. I think k1/2/3e wizards are very similar while 4e is really different.

His reasoning is that the utility of Wizards is fairly constrained in 1e/2e; because the lack of dedicated subsystems and hard-coded game assumptions worked against the spellcaster from being anything but Artillery-Focused with some additional tricks.

So therefore if the common scope of the class's purpose and effective use is to be a Blaster-Mage, the unlimited-toolbox of 3E is a diversionary step.

 

[BryonD]

In practice, the 3E wizard was an abnormality in D&D history. Spellcasters were NEVER intened to be that freaking powerful that they became in 3.x

I'm stunned to see that claim. I'll agree that 3E wizards become very powerful (thought not broken). But this is far less true than it was in prior editions. In 1e and 2e the wizard started out weak and by higher levels was the god on the table.

On the OP, I agree with the concern. The 4E wizard is completely unsatisfactory. The problem is that the number one priority of designing the 4E wizard was not making the best possible model of a wizard. The number one priority was forcing the wizard class to fit the universal Character Advancement table constraints. Once that limitation is locked in, you make the best class you can with what freedom you have left. For some classes this works ok. And for others it is terrible. The wizard, as far as I am concerned, is on the far end of terrible.

 

[Zetesofos]

As far as non combat utility for wizards between the editions, I don't think the gap is as large as some people may see initially. Sure, if you look through the back of the 3.x book, you see a HUGE list of spells.

If we ignore damage type spells for a moment, 4E powers that deal no damage, and do other things are far less than the ones then in 3.x. However, when you count Rituals, it's not enough simply to compare the number of rituals with the number of spells. The average ritual in 4E combines at least 2 different versions of a 3.x spell. In 3.x, you would have the effectiveness of the spell revealed by the level OF the spell. In 4E, it is instead one spell, that becomes more powerful (usually via a skill check), as you level. So things like discern lies, comprehend languages, passwall, forbiddence, etc while they appear as one spell or ritual, their 3.x equivelent could be anywhere between 2 and 5 spells.

Yes, there are some that are missing still, create water comes to mind. But really, is it that hard to make up a ritual to create water of the top of your head.

(ex. Make an arcana check, divide that result by 2, thats the number of gallons you can make. Simple, no?)

 

[Mallus]

The problem is that the number one priority of designing the 4E wizard was not making the best possible model of a wizard.

I guess I missed the meeting where the 'best possible model for the wizard' was decided... because I think the 4e system (class abilities + open access to Ritual Casting feat) is fine for my character modeling needs.

 

[apoptosis]

His reasoning is that the utility of Wizards is fairly constrained in 1e/2e; because the lack of dedicated subsystems and hard-coded game assumptions worked against the spellcaster from being anything but Artillery-Focused with some additional tricks.

So therefore if the common scope of the class's purpose and effective use is to be a Blaster-Mage, the unlimited-toolbox of 3E is a diversionary step.

I didnt see 1e/2e mages as artillery myself though that was an effective strategy. There were many things they could do, it is just that blasting was viable due to low hp of critters. So blasting was very effective. SoD and similar spells were less effective in some (many) ways but still effective. But casters could still do many many other things (disintegrate, polymorph, comprehend languages, illusions, summon demons, wish, charm, transform) all these things could be done by a 3e wizards (and in a similar fashion) but not so much by 4e wizards and not in a similar fashion (once again not pro or con/ nonjudgemental).

In terms of artillery there isnt very much similarity due to the extreme difference in hp in 1e vs 4e. In 4e they are artillery but critters have lots of hps so they blast but any individual spell is not particularly effective (relative to 1e/2e blasting). 2 fireballs in 1e could kill a huge ancient blue dragon you dont see a comparable kill in 4e, so i don't really even see the blaster mage as that similar.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What is this "1E/2E wizards were all blasters!" gibberish?

What?!

Nonsense. 1E/2E Wizards had access an insane array of bizarre and powerful non-blasting-type spells, and, in my experience, took very good advantage of that. Summoning, mind-controlling, illusions, polymorphing (themselves and others) and making huge use of "utility"-type abilities was practically the hallmark of the Wizard, Fireball and Lightning Bolt be damned. I mean, Wizards nuked when appropriate, but very often, it was best to use a Summoning spell or the like unless you knew you could hit a lot of fairly weak enemies with a blast-type ability, or try to one-shot some dangerous thing with a one-shot-type spell.

Whilst I'm fine with the 4E "Harry Dresden"-type Wizard, the idea that well-played Wizards in previous editions were "all blasters" is utter heresy.

 

[Andor]

Re: this whole '3e wizards were gods' meme.... Could someone tell me something, anything, that Wizards were better at than Clerics in 3e?