4e Magic in practice

[Andor]

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.

How exactly were the NPCs casting it in 2nd edition without having it in their spell books? Oh, right, they couldn't.

Capturing enemy spellbooks was the number 1 way to get spells in 1/2nd edition.

 

[Mercule]

Capturing enemy spellbooks was the number 1 way to get spells in 1/2nd edition.

And it helped to maintain a "good for the goose/gander" balance.

 

[GSHamster]

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

Being a class that people actually wanted to play? Not being forced to waste actions healing people who got themselves hurt for no good reason?

The real truth is that having a healing spell is a negative, not a positive, unless the system is set up to minimize the time cost of said spells.

(Sorry, jaded WoW paladin raider here.)

 

[Rhenny]

Here's my take on 4e Wizards vs. earlier versions.

Like everything in 4e, it will be difficult for players who want old D&D mechanics. The new game has old D&D feel at times, but I believe players will have more fun if they think about 4e as new game, not an extention of the old.

4e wizards are certainly more balanced, as are all of the classes. One of the biggest problems with past editions was that playing a 1st, 2nd or 3rd level wizard was not so exciting. It meant avoiding combat, often running out of spells and resorting to complete support roll for a number of encounters unless the group was ready to rest for the day. On the other hand, at higher levels spells were devastating, if opponents failed saving throws. That's a big "if".

In 4e, wizards can feel more a part of the party in every encounter, plus, they can always do something that is more thrilling than firing an ineffective crossbow bolt after all spells were depleted.

I do agree that there is less creativity in spell selection and use in 4e, but perhaps, 4e wizards can use Arcana, History, Dungeoneering more to roleplay the brainy problem solver. Additionally, at-will spells like ghost sounds and mage hand, can be used creatively. Also, like some others have said, as more rules and supplements are added, there will be more utility spells and other creative spells or rituals that will add more creativity to the spell casting.

The bottom line for me is that I cannot say 4e wizards are better or worse, more fun or less fun to play. They are different.

Cheers

 

[Hairfoot]

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.

I agree. I always considered the wizard to be an "advanced" class for players who knew how to make the most of its complexity. I enjoyed having to play with extra smarts to get to a level where the wizard's power came into its own, and it worked from a narrative perspective, with the PC who always needed protection becoming vital to the party's survival.

 

[AllisterH]

How exactly were the NPCs casting it in 2nd edition without having it in their spell books? Oh, right, they couldn't.

Capturing enemy spellbooks was the number 1 way to get spells in 1/2nd edition.

Yes but it was ridiculously easy to have the enemy caster simply memorize the spell but NOT have the spellbook anywhere near them.

Which is what I suspect a lot of DMs actually did.

Reason why I say the wizard in 1e/2e is closer to a 4e wizard is because IN PRACTICE, the feel and use of magic is much more similar to 4E even though the spells are different. Here's a scenario.

A 10th level party comes across a locked door in a dungeon in 1e/2e, 3e, and 4e. What are the chances that the *spellcaster* (and rogues wielding a wand via UMD is a spellcaster) will "solve" the problem via NOT blasting the door.

In 1e/2e, you first had to have been lucky enough to previously get Knock as a spell (most assuredly not a certainity as others seem to imply) and you then had to use one of your *4* slots to actually memorize it (since practically, this was the only sure way to have the spell since you weren't making a wand of knock or a scroll of knock).

Yeah right, maybe once in a blue moon would this happen given the "other" choices available at 2nd level.

Now contrast this with 3e and 4E and I can not see how anyone can claim that "3E is much closer to 1e/2e".

3E's base mechanics is not JUST 1E/2E with "extra spell slots" but a vastly different system which took off all the limitations on spellcasting.

 

[fuindordm]

An amusing bit of trivia:

In the Holmes edition of OD&D (prior to the basic/advanced split), wizards could create scrolls from level 1 for 100 gp/spell level.

I really have no idea why EGG decided to make scroll and potion creation so incredibly difficult, since that is the best way of giving utility spells air time.

I think that so far 4E has done a very good job of making sure that utility magic doesn't trump skill users, via rituals and tightly controlling the skill bonuses that magic is capable of providing. (For example, IIRC the Disguise Self spell gives only a +5 to bluff checks for impersonating someone.)

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

Well, maybe my experience is an exception but my first 1E was an illusionist and I had zero clues about the rules when I started playing the character. And I was pretty effective and having a blast to boot.
I believe that's because there's one thing that new players have in spades: creativity.
In 1E and 2E it was actually possible to play successfully without knowing the rules in and out. This changed in 3E. It's the price you pay for having a rule for every conceivable situation.

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?

This, however, matches my experience exactly. My highest 1E AD&D character ever reached 9th level. In all of my 2E game groups the highest level any of the players ever reached was level 12. Advancement at high levels slowed to a crawl.

In 3E it's been a lot easier to reach high levels so the power level of wizards (and spell casters in general) was noticed by a larger part of the player base. On top of this Metamagic feats accelerated the increase in power.

Yes but it was ridiculously easy to have the enemy caster simply memorize the spell but NOT have the spellbook anywhere near them.

Which is what I suspect a lot of DMs actually did.

Umm, did noone do what I did in 3E? In my campaign I'm using material from several source books for monsters and npcs that are off limits for players. Of course I've also banned some things completely.
I guess, I never shared the (common?) opinion that players are somehow entitled to get access to everything that's ever been published.

 

[apoptosis]

As Monte Cook said, "Third edition wizards have exactly the wrong number of spells per day." (paraphrased)

i totally agree with this. They do.

I wouldve been cool to be limited to even 10 or so spells but the spells be really potent, but then again that would not work for some game styles.

 

[Mercule]

Well, maybe my experience is an exception but my first 1E was an illusionist and I had zero clues about the rules when I started playing the character. And I was pretty effective and having a blast to boot.
I believe that's because there's one thing that new players have in spades: creativity.

I think you're the exception, based on what I've heard. To be fair, my experience is actually more that some people are naturally somewhat geared toward the resource management of wizards. I'm better at tactics than strategy, so I tend to play what are now called "strikers" and avoid "controllers", but I'm darn scary playing a rogue.

Umm, did noone do what I did in 3E? In my campaign I'm using material from several source books for monsters and npcs that are off limits for players. Of course I've also banned some things completely.
I guess, I never shared the (common?) opinion that players are somehow entitled to get access to everything that's ever been published.

Yup. PHB are standard spells. Expansion books are what I draw from to represent "personal" spells for NPCs. Players may petition for expansion spells, but it's understood to be personal research.

I don't think you need to go beyond the PHB to see the effects that others are talking about, though.