Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5793844" data-attributes="member: 42582">Gandalf is pretty wizardly (in my book, at least), but he can't do nearly anything. He can't fly or teleport - his best movement spells are his friendships with a really fast horse and with a giant eagle. (And the eagle friendship is clearly a &quot;per session&quot; ability at best.) His artillery ability is highly limited. He can't cast knock (rather, he runs through lists of magical passwords).The wizard in my 4e game is pretty wizardly. He conjures walls of flame, giant hands made of ice, and clouds of force-knives. He can teleport his enemies around the battlefield, or enshroud them in fire or darkness. He can open doorways between physically separate locations. He can consult with the Mystic Sages to learn ancient lore, perform object reading, and place a wide variety of wards.Nevertheless, in play he does not overshadow the fighter. His elemental attacks are no more dangerous than the fighter's elemental attacks (a contrast with pre-3E D&amp;D). And his battlefield control, while different from the fighters (longer ranged, in particular) is not superior - although it does have more powerful spikes.For me, this sums up the great puzzle about 4e and its reception.There is obviously something about classic D&amp;D, and the dependance upon a type of GM discretion in both encounter design and action resolution that almost no other RPG seems to have, that is immensely appealing to the audience for the game. I don't get it, but it seems hard to deny that it is there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5793844, member: 42582"] Gandalf is pretty wizardly (in my book, at least), but he can't do nearly anything. He can't fly or teleport - his best movement spells are his friendships with a really fast horse and with a giant eagle. (And the eagle friendship is clearly a "per session" ability at best.) His artillery ability is highly limited. He can't cast knock (rather, he runs through lists of magical passwords). The wizard in my 4e game is pretty wizardly. He conjures walls of flame, giant hands made of ice, and clouds of force-knives. He can teleport his enemies around the battlefield, or enshroud them in fire or darkness. He can open doorways between physically separate locations. He can consult with the Mystic Sages to learn ancient lore, perform object reading, and place a wide variety of wards. Nevertheless, in play he does not overshadow the fighter. His elemental attacks are no more dangerous than the fighter's elemental attacks (a contrast with pre-3E D&D). And his battlefield control, while different from the fighters (longer ranged, in particular) is not superior - although it does have more powerful spikes. For me, this sums up the great puzzle about 4e and its reception. There is obviously something about classic D&D, and the dependance upon a type of GM discretion in both encounter design and action resolution that almost no other RPG seems to have, that is immensely appealing to the audience for the game. I don't get it, but it seems hard to deny that it is there. [/QUOTE]

Verification