Feeling short changed by 4th Ed.

[EdPovi]

Now I agree that 3.5E wizards were ridiculous, but now they have been bashed down too much; not in combat, but they just don't have many magical options anymore. They should have included MANY more harmless powers, like presdigitidation, that have roleplaying potential to add flavour. The same is probably true for the other classes actually.

I think you haven't really compared the 4e Wizard to all the other 4e classes yet. The new Wizard has a LOT more options and flexibility compared to the other new classes, but certainly less options than a high level 3.5 wizard.

The spellbook class feature allows you access to twice the number of daily and utility powers as other classes. Sure you have to prepare them each day, but that's the same as it has always been for wizards. If you take the Expanded Spellbook feat, you have three times the daily powers of other classes pick from. That's pretty flexible compared to the other classes.

The wizard is hands down the best at casting rituals, particulary arcane rituals. Sure other classes can cast arcane rituals, but if you have a wizard, why would you?

Did you read the new "class act" article on the D&D website? They added a bunch of Illusion powers for the wizard, this gives the wizard the biggest selection of powers compared to other classes by far.

The 4e wizard can't do everything under the sun like old 3.5 wizard, but I think if you give him a good look, you'll find he still wields great power and flexibility.

 

[Particle_Man]

Rituals technically can be used by anyone for anyone. True, only cleric and wizard start with them and wizards get them automcally as they level.

In fact, a human could take Skill Training: Arcana (or Religion) and Ritual Caster as feats, blow 10 gp of the starting 100 gp, and begin at 1st level with a ritual, regardless of their class.

 

[jdrakeh]

In fact, a human could take Skill Training: Arcana (or Religion) and Ritual Caster as feats, blow 10 gp of the starting 100 gp, and begin at 1st level with a ritual, regardless of their class.

True. . . but why not just make a Wizard if you're going to burn a significant number of your character gen options to mimic this single aspect of one? While doing as you suggest is possible, it isn't very practical.

 

[Mercule]

Of course I did not conduct an extensive poll. But I have been playing D&D since the "blue box" edition and have gamed with many groups. Gamers like the Barbarian class... a lot. I wager that years from now when WotC does come out with the 4th ed Barbarian, it will be much more popular the mechanically wonky and conceptually muddled Warlord.

The 1e UA barbarian or the 3e barbarian? I ask because, other than a d12 HD, the two classes have little in common. Really, they are as different as the 4e and 3e wizards.

Personally, I disliked the 3e barbarian and am glad to see it gone. I understand that the 1e barbarian was a bit unbalanced (mainly because most people measure level against level instead of xp totals), so I'm not really clamoring for its return, either.

I'll hold on that wager because I suspect that the 4e barbarian will be yet another version that shares little heritage with its namesakes. If it ends up looking like the 3e barbarian, then I'd take the wager. The warlord is awesome -- I just think it probably takes the most system mastery to really experience the awesome. Which means it'll get progressively more popular as people become used to 4e.

 

[edbonny]

I understand precisely what the OP is saying... and I am drawing a different conclusion based on my personal experience. To summarize what the OP said: there is a strong feeling while reading the PH (and DMG) that it appears somewhat obvious that there will be more coming in the way of left out classes, races, powers that were core to 3.x.

And here is where I differ. I am looking forward to the rules in very much the same way I look forward to new expansions for City of Heroes and WoW.

Instead of getting that overabundance of alternative/variant magic systems, fighting systems, etc. that we experienced with 3.x and that I never used, I feel as if 4e is going to deliver true expansions the same as players get with online games. I

I love my multiplayer online gaming. I enjoy the expansions to them tremendously... and I think I am going to love 4e expansions in much the same way so long as they "behave" like an online game expansion.

 

[Ydars]

EdPovi; I agree that wizards have lots of choice of COMBAT options, but this is not what I mean. I believe that the essence of the wizard does not lie as arcane artillery and that this cheapens the concept.

I would greatly favour more utility powers for wizards that are not usable in combat. Wizards need to be able to do magic and magic, in my book, does not just mean more and more ways to fry things with spells.

Oh and thanks for pointing out that feat; I had missed that and it does make things alot better.

 

[jdrakeh]

Gamers like the Barbarian class... a lot.

In your experience, of course (for the record, my experience has been the exact opposite). If it's as popular as you claim, why was it never introduced as a core class until D&D 3x? I mean, 24 years seems like an awfully long time for a wildly popular class to see absolutely no core rules representation.

 

[Mercule]

True. . . but why not just make a Wizard if you're going to burn a significant number of your character gen options to mimic this single aspect of one? While doing as you suggest is possible, it isn't very practical.

Not from a min-max perspective, no.

I like the idea of a rogue (tomb robber) who has a Tenser's Floating Disk on standby for the "big haul" he keeps looking for. Or Knock because, even though he prefers to do it by hand, sometimes you just need in (or out), regardless of the cost.

 

[JeffB]

Can relate to the feeling of being "incomplete" compared to 3.X, but glad they did NOT try to cram everything in like they did before. 4E is much easier on the eyes and brain

I will agree that the 4E MM lacks- especially re: 1st level monsters. And the art is pretty lackluster, and there are alot of "non-classic" creatures I'd never use. The MM strikes me as the weakest of the 3 books by far.

I won't miss the Monk, Sorceror or Half Orcs in the least , but would gladly trade the Warlord, silly dragon people and silly demonpeople for some Bards, Druids, and Barbarians

 

[Gentlegamer]

I don't have 4D&D yet, but perhaps those who miss certain race/classes that were excluded can take this opportunity to go "back to the basics," so to speak with the new edition. That's how I'd likely look at it.