Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="NerfedWizard" data-source="post: 4573889" data-attributes="member: 68865">I don't think ANYTHING will settle this long-running dispute, but obviously, I'm trying! I'm quite happy to play an unarmoured wizard - I just think that D&D has always made them very, very much underpowered at low to mid levels - and most campaigns that I've played end before wizards even come into their own.  In summary:- BECMI / AD&D 1st ed:- wizards were rubbish by comparison to elven fighter/magic-users, but eventually they hit their level limit and wizards began to come into their own - clerics had slightly weaker spells than wizards, so wizards did OK AD&D 2nd ed:- I can't exactly remember, but I think the cleric power-creep had started by 2nd edition - probably because someone realised that people don't like playing healers because it's boring, and wanted to compensate for that AD&D 3rd ed:- suddenly whoosh clerics are deliberately 20% more powerful than any other class, and at least double the power of wizards - so I would be happy to play a 3rd ed wizard but only if you give me +2 free levels at all times 4e:- suddenly everyone is exactly the same as everyone else, all pretence of roleplaying has been jettisoned and we have a very curious tactical battlegame ;-) [OK that's a bit of a wind-up, f4nboys pls don't take it personally] So basically the bottom line is in 3rd edition I would play a wizard quite happily if I knew he had a +2 levels bonus for determining what spells he can cast, at all times. Or if he had cleric hitpoints, weaponry and armour. That's where I see the game-balance lying.</blockquote>

Verification