Casting Magic Missile?
4e Magic in practice
- Thread starter Mercule
- Start date
Ruin Explorer
Legend
Re: this whole '3e wizards were gods' meme.... Could someone tell me something, anything, that Wizards were better at than Clerics in 3e?
I dunno, given how easy it was for Clerics to get their dirty paws on most previously "Wizard" spells, I'd be surprised if there was much that at least one Cleric couldn't beat a Wizard on. Kinda a cheating, though, as I don't think you make a Cleric who could cast ALL the most powerful/effective spells a Wizard could, just some of them.
Intense_Interest
First Post
However when I was working in 2E there was no way to gain new spells without your DM gifting them: there was no inherent versatility of the Wizard Class because there were zero inherent spells: if your DM decided that Charm Person was impossible to find, it was.
You could note that I was careful not to conflate Artillery with Blaster-Mage. 4E is more of a Gatling Gun instead of a Cannon because of the different reload times and power, etc.
Still doesn't mean that "Ranged Blasting Guy" isn't the commonality of the Wizard class. Going Nova and Killing massively above your level isn't what define that archetype, to me.
While true that you were at the mercy of the GM (well there was spell research) you easily could have had many many many spells. Our groups wizards didnt have any problems having books of spells (but that is the different groups i played in and may be different for others).
I didnt see ranged blasting guy as the most frequent wizard in earlier editions. I tended to do that some cuz i liked it, but the wizard theme was very different and we usually actually had spell picks depending on what we were doing (investigative, combat, stealth, support) so the memorized spells really differed night to night.
So while I see your point I really have a completely different opinion on the comparisons.
Andor
First Post
And in 3e, or any other game, any spell the GM doesn't like ceases to exist. *shrug*
Mercule
Adventurer
In 1e, the wizard was the "system mastery" character. It's what you gave to the established players while the newbies played the fighter. That's a gross oversimplification, but there is a certain amount of truth to it. You had to think to survive the first 6-8 levels as a wizard.
Also, despite the spell progression table running to something like level 36, I never saw a wizard start at 1st and make it to name level. I've heard of them, but I haven't seen them. Of course, I always assumed that name level was pretty much retirement age, anyway. When the dwarf stopped advancing at 6th level, why bother?
I can buy into this. I liked 1e wizards because of the array of spells available. There was no assumption of bull's strength on the party or any such crap. You had a handful of spells and the rest of the party was still relatively strong without you, so you'd best manage your resources or plan to spend half the session knowing you're done.
That "relatively strong" is important, too. You didn't throw the fireball in the first battle. You waited until it was actually needed.
In the old days, people would have been embarrassed at the thought of a five minute work day. In the snow. Uphill. Both ways.
That's a different conversation. I think most people are fine with the cleric being toned down. Some people have a real issue with the wizard not having the potential to do just about anything.Re: this whole '3e wizards were gods' meme.... Could someone tell me something, anything, that Wizards were better at than Clerics in 3e?
Casters most certainly weren't polymorphing and teleporting all over the place and weren't using Wish at all.
As even another poster pointed out, sure you could memorize Knock but the fact that you didn't have many slots AT ALL meant in practice few wizards ever did. You certainly didn't get the "magic trumps skills all the time" effect.
For example, the 9th level shapechange didn't grant ANY powers that depended on innate intelligence, magic resistance OR innate magic abilities, wait, exactly why did 3.x simply unleash the monstrosity that was 3e shapechanging?
Wish aged the caster 5 years. Permanency would lower your CON by 1, Enchant Item had a 50% chance of each casting to do the same, Teleport would kill you Polymorph required a system shock roll. Highest level of Monster summoning would only summon a level 8 creature. Illusions that were subject to a saving throw were EASY to beat by the time you actually got said spell.
Furthermore, the treasure tables HEAVILY favoured the non-casters as things like scrolls and spellbooks were certainly less common on the treasure table than magic weapons.
Again, unless you were purposely favouring the wizard, by the book, wizards certainly were NOT the toolbox uber character of 3,x and you certainly played a blaster mage.
Certainly at 18th level, a mage in 1e/2e got effects that no fighter could duplicate but in terms of flexibility and power? that mage is WAY closer to a 4E mage than the 3E mage.
re: Restricting spells
Actually you didn't have to restrict spells at all in 1e/2e. Since the DM was fully controlling the spells in his campaign, it was quite easy to use say Charm Person and not once have the 1e/2e wizard find the spellbook with said spell in it.
As even another poster pointed out, sure you could memorize Knock but the fact that you didn't have many slots AT ALL meant in practice few wizards ever did. You certainly didn't get the "magic trumps skills all the time" effect.
For example, the 9th level shapechange didn't grant ANY powers that depended on innate intelligence, magic resistance OR innate magic abilities, wait, exactly why did 3.x simply unleash the monstrosity that was 3e shapechanging?
Wish aged the caster 5 years. Permanency would lower your CON by 1, Enchant Item had a 50% chance of each casting to do the same, Teleport would kill you Polymorph required a system shock roll. Highest level of Monster summoning would only summon a level 8 creature. Illusions that were subject to a saving throw were EASY to beat by the time you actually got said spell.
Furthermore, the treasure tables HEAVILY favoured the non-casters as things like scrolls and spellbooks were certainly less common on the treasure table than magic weapons.
Again, unless you were purposely favouring the wizard, by the book, wizards certainly were NOT the toolbox uber character of 3,x and you certainly played a blaster mage.
Certainly at 18th level, a mage in 1e/2e got effects that no fighter could duplicate but in terms of flexibility and power? that mage is WAY closer to a 4E mage than the 3E mage.
re: Restricting spells
Actually you didn't have to restrict spells at all in 1e/2e. Since the DM was fully controlling the spells in his campaign, it was quite easy to use say Charm Person and not once have the 1e/2e wizard find the spellbook with said spell in it.
Intense_Interest
First Post
Oh, you forget that in 2E, you could have as many NPCs as you want sling around the Banned Spell and still keep it out of the hands of the players mechanically. Doing the same in 3E was impossible- the spell either didn't exist or could be learned.
edit: ninja'ed like Oriental Adventures.
Last edited:
I actually liked the fewer number of slots.
In almost every game i played, casters were always polymorphing and teleporting all over the place and when we became high enough level Wish was used occasionally (though it was costly).
Depending on what was going on all sorts of spells were memorized. you didn't get magic trumps skills all the time (in 1e there weren't any skills for one thing
) but you did get magic could trump any skill at specific times.i see where you are going but i just absolutely dont agree with it. I dont see the 4e wizard very close to the 1/2e while i see the 3e very close but amped up a bit.
Their spells are basically the same with a bit different efficacy on damage vs SoD.
Mercule
Adventurer
As Monte Cook said, "Third edition wizards have exactly the wrong number of spells per day." (paraphrased)
Similar Threads
