Disappointed in 4e

[Turjan]

Extremely charitable. Had he merely said that, it would be one thing. To say he's wrong and should check his facts is another.

As for a link... it was a news item and discussion in the 4e forums. I don't have it myself, but I had presumed this podcast, and the general "parse out the core" sales philosophy is espoused, were well known.

Indeed, they are. I remember them, too.

 

[pawsplay]

A non-D&D spellcaster who is a "general practitioner": the queen in Sleeping Beauty. She curses someone, controls minds, grows and animates thorns, throws fireballs, and turns herself into a dragon (it never helps).

 

[Allister]

A non-D&D spellcaster who is a "general practitioner": the queen in Sleeping Beauty. She curses someone, controls minds, grows and animates thorns, throws fireballs, and turns herself into a dragon (it never helps).

BADGUY

Personally, I'm not adverse to the uber-wizard but I simply prefer if the game tells me upfront, "wizards are uber"

 

[Fifth Element]

Extremely charitable.

Nothing wrong with that. Many threads would be greatly improved if we just applied a little charity in our interpretations.

Thanks for the links.

 

[Fifth Element]

Personally, I'm not adverse to the uber-wizard but I simply prefer if the game tells me upfront, "wizards are uber"

Indeed. Ars Magica, for example, makes no pretense about it.

In D&D, you have always been led to believe that one class is as good as any other.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

In D&D, you have always been led to believe that one class is as good as any other.

Well, perhaps this is a minor point, but not always. In the 1e PHB, Gygax stated that magic-users might be weak at lower levels, but they were more powerful than any other class at higher levels. He said something similar about monks as far as combat goes. I don't have a 1e PHB handy, so I can't give you page numbers, but it's in there. Balance was a different kettle of fish back then. In some sense (not all senses), it wasn't a big concern, not like it is today.

 

[Fifth Element]

Well, perhaps this is a minor point, but not always. In the 1e PHB, Gygax stated that magic-users might be weak at lower levels, but they were more powerful than any other class at higher levels.

Yes, that's true. "Always" was a poor choice of words on my part.

Page 25 of the 1E PHB: "Thus, while magic-users are not strong in combat with weapons, they are possibly the most fearsome of all character classes when high levels of ability are finally attained. Survival to that point can be a problem, however, as low-level magic-users are quite weak."

 

[Betote]

What non-game-based fiction has a wizard who both controls people's minds and throws fireballs?

Mmmm... Lord of the Rings, Stormbringer, Song of Fire and Ice, Harry Potter... to name a few

 

[Irda Ranger]

I think that's exactly his beef with the system. If I play an archery, I take on the baggage of being a ranger and the wilderness flavor behind it.

Ignore the fluff. Just play the Combat Style for what it is (Archer). Pick different Skills to make your guy the kind of Archer you want him to be. There is nothing else that ties you to being Nature's Champion.

The one nice thing about the 3.5 fighter was that he was pretty flexible. From his core, you could create any kind of fighter guy you wanted, TWF, big sword, sword/shield, archer, polearm specialist, etc.

There are no "generic" classes in 4e. Everyone has a specific niche, which tends to force a certain kind of flavor on each class, and I can see how its problematic.

I know, but the choices are still there - they're just not at the Class stage. You can still choose to be an Archer, but you choose that by playing a Ranger. There really isn't any "Nature baggage" with that choice with appropriate Skill and Feat selection.

 

[dm4hire]

The reason you see things like this is because a character that inevitably wins simply because the author says he can is incredibly dull. Magic is untethered from any non-arbitrary causality, and arbitrary causality can take tension only so far.

So a literary wizard who fails to demonstrate competence with Magic Type X is actually capable of Type X, he just doesn't feel like using it. Or alternately, he's capable of Type X, but he's never in a situation where Type X would be more useful than what he can already do. I really can't buy this analysis. It requires either a wizard so pigheaded that he'll use a hammer to turn a screw rather than reach for a screwdriver, or else one who miraculously never faces conflict for which his established shtick is not perfectly suited.

4e doesn't let the wizard do a lot of things he used to be able to do. Even with refluffing, some abilities that were bread-and-butter in earlier editions are simply gone- mind control, instant long-range teleportation, cheap scrying, instakill spells, polymorphs, and long-duration buffs, for a few. Some of these may reappear with specialist classes, and some may be gone forever. If none of them come back, I really won't shed any tears. If I want to play a god among men with unstoppable sorcerous powers, I'll reach for Ars Magica, which does a vastly better job of handling a game where Wizards Are Better. The fact that these powers are gone from my D&D is not a bug to me, it's a feature.

I'm sure some people will earnestly insist that they could have been kept if only WotC had been smarter about implementing them. That's nice, but it's possible to insist that a circle could have four sides if only you're smart enough about squaring it. It's the sort of thing that I'll believe when I see it.

He either doesn't feel like it or though capable, didn't learn it for one reason or another maybe even choosing not too. Anyone is capable of anything, it comes down to personal drive and outside effects within our lives. Anyone can run for president if they have the desire and motivation and the outside effects of being born in the U.S.A., meet the age requirement, and find supporters to help fund and run their campaign.

My aspect of this debate points out that the potential is still there whether revealed or not. That potential doesn't exist in 4e, but possibly after the Arcane book. There was more customization in previous editions for mages or any other class with the limitations being set by the DM and the player the way it should be done, not by the rules themselves. The exception to the rule were the martial based classes who now get some of that aspect, but the problem as stated is that customization feels like you're using a cookie cutter. Fighter x is different than y only in how he fights and by the weapon he chooses. The same can be said for wizards in that damage is still pretty much the same between all forms. The only real difference as pointed out is fluff or how you describe your character's actions.

As for believability...using powers for several levels and suddenly your character completely forgets them...that's believable??? "You know I swore I had fireball in this spellbook, oh well, guess I'll cast something else. Let's see..." I remember a few games hearing a player suddenly say, "I never thought I'd have a reason to use this spell but now I can't wait to try this out."


Betote: Thanks for your list.