Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Riastlin" data-source="post: 5520893" data-attributes="member: 94022">I can definitely vouch for this.  I don't know about EnWorld, but certainly on the WotC boards there was a definite sentiment among many that wizards were weak.  Some of this was perhaps a "sticker shock" effect from fans of wizards wishing the wizard were a striker instead, but there was also a feeling that it was just plain weak. Many thought not only Warlocks, but also clerics were better controllers.  The wizard at-wills really were fairly substandard back then with the only real exception being Thunderwave (and even that was dicey much of the time).  Wizards almost invariably would target everything in the area of effect too which made them that much more difficult to play.  Nobody likes being critted by their teammate for instance.  Finally, I think it also just took some time for a lot of people to realize just how effective a controller could be in terms of deciding the battle.   I know that when 4e came out in particular, it was widely viewed that if you had to sacrifice one role in the party, then controller was the way to go (and oh by the way, wizards were the only controller).  Now, all this being said, I actually do think wizards were fine when they were first released.  The problem came in PHB 2 when controllers started to be a bit better defined.  Wizard dailies were still top notch -- and people had started to realize just how effective they could be with things other than just sleep.  The at-wills though were still substandard (particularly compared to other controllers).  Keep in mind that the vast majority of play is in heroic tier (where at-wills are even more important) and you start to see where the complaints came from. I recall when Winged Horde was first released all the outcry.  The complaints were not so much that WH was overpowered, but rather that it made a completely stupid decision to pick scorching burst unless you just really wanted a fire-themed wizard.  Consider:  WH dealt a better damage type, dealt the same amount of damage (at first release), targetted enemies only AND had a really nice effect attached to it.   Now as I said, all in all I think wizards were fine at release, but much of their balance as it turns out came from their dailies. Anyhoo, back on topic.  I think Mr. Myth has the right idea.  Its fine if in certain encounters one character shines above another.  Clerics are great against undead for instance.  But there in general should be a feeling of equal importance among the group.  Looking at the Bard/Barbarian example, sure the barbarian does far more damage than the bard.  The thing is though the bard a) keeps the barbarian alive and b) makes it easier for the barbarian to deal his crazy damage.  In many respects, a lot of the time much of the damage dealt by the barbarian can really be attributed to the bard.  This is where I think the balance in 4ed really came out good. Now as I said, I've had plenty of fun throughout every edition of D&D that I've played even though it was often far from balanced.  I will say though that when you have an unbalanced game, it certainly requires a more careful (for lack of a better word) approach to the game from both a design and a player/GM point of view.  Now if that care is not taken, then you have problems in my opinion.  This is why I chose option 3 in the poll because I think you can certainly create a system that is fun and entertaining despite a lack of balance, and the GM can certainly run a system that is not balanced and still provide an entertaining game.  But, things are a lot easier if the game is balanced.</blockquote>

Verification