Disappointed in 4e

Allister

First Post
I think you might be misreading the lesson of the dread necromancer, beguiler, and warmage. I don't assume that WotC felt that access to too many spells was too powerful. Rather, my assumption is that they found that players liked having spontaneous casters. They are quite a bit easier to run.

As far as the saving throws, the big advancement of 3e (yes, I consider it an advancement) is that you no longer end up with a class that dominates the others with respect to saves without really paying for it. Fighter saves in 1e/2e got ridiculously good, no sign of a weakness. Everyone has at least one strong save, and nearly all character classes have at least one weak one.

I believe you are partly wrong on the 1st point.

The lesson from the spontaneous caster wasn't JUST that spontaneous casters are popular (the sorceror could already mimic the spells of the those classes) but the fact that you can better balance a class by limiting its options.

I consider the spontaneous casters as what the 3E casters should've been to begin with. The game really works better if you get rid of the generalist mage and replace with one of the spontaneous casters.

re: Saves
All classes got better saves in 1e/2e. Nobody had such a weak and obvious gap between their good and bad saves that you could target IMO.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
re: Saves
All classes got better saves in 1e/2e. Nobody had such a weak and obvious gap between their good and bad saves that you could target IMO.

Which meant that strategy was something of a crap shoot. Me - I prefer some elements of strategy. You think he's X or Y? Try to target his weaker saves.
 

Vague Jayhawk

First Post
I feel the same as the OP on all of his points. He just articulated our position better than I could.

Good things came out of my disappointment. I diversified my gaming palate. Savage Worlds, Mongoose Traveler and GURPS are getting all of my gaming dollars now.
 

Psion

Adventurer
Btw, posting stuff like "we were told outright that several classic monsters wouldn't be in the MM simply so that they could be included in the MM2 to drive up sales" is a good way to invalidate your entire post as some sort of vengeful rant, try sticking to the facts, please!;)

Ironic.

They said it in a podcast. Check YOUR facts.
 

CardinalXimenes

First Post
Where in my statement do I imply that a wizard does both? I simply state that I have read books and seen movies where wizards/magic users use mind magic in addition to casting other magic. Fireball has been one of the rarest spells I have ever came across in other fantasy books and even though Gandalf casts one in the books it was left out of the Lord of the Rings movies.
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.

As for why you never see them combined in literary works I'd say it has more to do with the nature of the magic compared to personality than the lack of ability to do both or avoiding "magical omnicompetence" as you put it.
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.
 

Ironic.

They said it in a podcast. Check YOUR facts.
A charitable way to read Grimstaff's comment is "I don't recall that, please provide a link".

"We were told in a podcast" is the same as "we were told". You still haven't provided support for the claim. I don't recall it either.
 

Zustiur

Explorer
"That wizard just shot a fireball at us! Despite the fact that we're in the center of the 10 foot radius - I mean, 2 square cube (because physics apparently dictates that everything manifests as cubes) he somehow completely missed us, leaving us alive! But...Bob, I feel really bad about myself."
QFT
I don't think I'll ever reconcile that problem. You don't know if you've been hit until you determine which type of healing you receive. I don't find that cinematic at all.
 

"That wizard just shot a fireball at us! Despite the fact that we're in the center of the 10 foot radius - I mean, 2 square cube (because physics apparently dictates that everything manifests as cubes) he somehow completely missed us, leaving us alive! But...Bob, I feel really bad about myself."
Paint anything in the worst possible light and it does appear bad.

Just remember that hit points have represented more than physical wounds since the dawn on D&D. Mr. Gygax himself explained it several times. Although he then went and designed mechanics that didn't reflect it.

To my mind, 4E is the first edition to make the mechanics match the idea, at least to a degree.
 

Psion

Adventurer
A charitable way to read Grimstaff's comment is "I don't recall that, please provide a link".

"We were told in a podcast" is the same as "we were told". You still haven't provided support for the claim. I don't recall it either.

Extremely charitable. Had he merely said that, it would be one thing. To say he's "wrong and should check his facts" leaves little room for less cocksure interpretations.

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.

I'll see if I can dig it up.

EDIT:
This is the podcast in question:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pod/20071005e16

Here are two threads discussing it:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/208878-core-business-models.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/208918-monsters-monsters-monsters-podcast.html

The search engine doesn't seem to turn up the ENWorld news items. :(

EDIT 2:

Let me add these terms so next time this question comes up, a search will let me find it:
frost giant frost giants druid parse core marketing evil marketers.
There. :)
 
Last edited:

pawsplay

Hero
TAfter eight years, didn't you find core-rules-only Fighters and Clerics and Wizards had become rather repetitive and dull?

I never have. As a GM, I usually use monsters and NPCs right out of the core books, too, with some cherry picking here and there. As a player, I remain a fan of core bard or fighter/wizard.
 

Remove ads

Top