So continued existence of the magic wielder and continuous Magic Missle adds to 4E to not feel like 1E?
I would agree with that as being a small factor.
I would agree with that as being a small factor.
(Rambling) Why 4e doesn't "feel" 1e...
- Thread starter Remathilis
- Start date
No. I was merely discussing why I disagreed with the OP's posit that magic was unreliable in 1e.
For me, the root source for the difference in feel between 4e and 1e has nothing to do with randomness (perceived or real), and is the same as for the difference in feel between 3e and 1e - unified mechanic. 3e and 4e are not "quirky" systems.
OK, but it does seem true that wizards tend to stick around longer now and have better chances at survival than before.
Agreed. I just don't find that to have much impact on the overall "feel" of the games. While they no longer keel over when you sneeze on them, it isn't like 4e wizards are really sturdy either.
4e is designed, and all parts match the overall design. 1e was organically grown, or sewn together like a grand Frankensteinian monstrosity, and there are inconsistencies of style and form throughout.
I disagree. I think the new wizard is more sturdy because of the powers and how people don't run in the way of them, or try to avoid them and leave the wizard as open as well as the closer relationship to all HP and AC scores.
Now it doesn't make the new wizard a tank, but more structurally sound in a fight.
For those wanting strong mind and weak back wizards, 4E has lost that feel.
It would be interesting to see them go toe-to-toe. I would wager the 4E wizard to win every time, until the highest levels.
So the 4E wizard has more staying power at lower levels, but then less punch at the higher ones. For whatever that is worth to each towards the feel.
Now it doesn't make the new wizard a tank, but more structurally sound in a fight.
For those wanting strong mind and weak back wizards, 4E has lost that feel.
It would be interesting to see them go toe-to-toe. I would wager the 4E wizard to win every time, until the highest levels.
So the 4E wizard has more staying power at lower levels, but then less punch at the higher ones. For whatever that is worth to each towards the feel.
Fifth Element
Legend
You are misunderstanding. "3d6, in order" is not in 1E. It's not the same thing as "3d6, in order, 12 times and pick the best set."Method III also used a strange 3d6 method, but not the linear 3d6 and write them down as you get them method. but rolling 3d6 is in 1E unless I am not understanding what you are saying...
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Reliable can be two different things.
Does the spell succeed or fail?
Or does the wizard even have a spell available?
I think with Vancian magic, success and failure is not very often a big probem (so saving throws can change that).
Availability of spells can be a problem. The Wizard is out of any useful magic quickly, and can he even cast the spell you might want?
I think 3E made the latter a lot more reliable, since spell acquisition was pretty easy (2 automatic per level, and you can just buy scrolls to learn from), and you had a lot of spell slots, too (and, again, scrolls).
I am not sure about the former. I personally disliked using Save or Die effects when playing a Wizard, simply because they had a pretty negliglbe effect on a save success, and preferred "save for half" or "unerring magic missiles" to that. But on the other hand, the most reliable PC killer spells were always save or die. (Though "reliable" mostly meant "I probably won't kill the PCs by simple hit point attrition")
Does the spell succeed or fail?
Or does the wizard even have a spell available?
I think with Vancian magic, success and failure is not very often a big probem (so saving throws can change that).
Availability of spells can be a problem. The Wizard is out of any useful magic quickly, and can he even cast the spell you might want?
I think 3E made the latter a lot more reliable, since spell acquisition was pretty easy (2 automatic per level, and you can just buy scrolls to learn from), and you had a lot of spell slots, too (and, again, scrolls).
I am not sure about the former. I personally disliked using Save or Die effects when playing a Wizard, simply because they had a pretty negliglbe effect on a save success, and preferred "save for half" or "unerring magic missiles" to that. But on the other hand, the most reliable PC killer spells were always save or die. (Though "reliable" mostly meant "I probably won't kill the PCs by simple hit point attrition")
FireLance
Legend
Actually, I think the key trade-off is not power for reliability, but power for limited availability.
Magic is powerful, but a magic-user could only call on it a limited number of times per day (or, in the case of a charged item, ever). Martial power can be used an effectively unlimited number of times, but is not terribly powerful.
This trade-off can break down when:
1. The adventuring day is so short that magic-users are not effectively limited by their number of spells per day.
2. The magic-user has ready access to a relatively cheap (whether in terms of xp, gp, or some other in-game resource) supply of magic items.
This is not a 3e-specific problem. Either of the above could happen regardless of edition, although the magic item crafting feats and the default assumption that magic items could be purchased quite easily makes (2) more likely in 3e than in previous editions.
4e's approach to this is to make magical and martial power roughly on par, both in terms of power and availability, and yes, this does break an "old school" paradigm.
Um, dude, in 1e, a 1st level magic user (without a Con bonus, which you'd only get with a 15+ con) typically had less than even odds of remaining standing after getting hit by a single arrow (which did a d6 damage). He had an average of 2.5 hit points at first level. By 10th level, he'd have, on average, 25 hit points.
Compare to a 4e wizard, who at first level already has something like 20 hit points. And by 10th level, he's got 56 (more if some of the stat raises go into Con. And the nastiest arrow is doing a d10.
So, in terms of how many hits he can take before falling, the modern wizard is clearly ahead of the old-style MU.
Irda Ranger
First Post
This is absolutely correct. And there's no way to fix it without (a) making assumptions about the number of opponents a Magic-User will fight during a given adventuring day (either in a single encounter or greater number of encounters or (b) making Wizards pure at-will (0% Vancian). 4E went half-way to option (b) but mostly just decided to hide the problem by making Magic-Users and Fighters almost indistinguishable mechanically. This way the "number of opponents/day" assumption is built into all classes equally.
One of the fundamental differences between 4E and O/1E/2E/3E is on the Martial side of the equation. This effects how Magic-Users feel relative to Fighters. Pre-4E Fighters could not go full Boo-Yah! on their opponents at a time of their choice. Each round of combat had the same damage potential as the previous round, slow but steady. Every Fighter option (call it Feats, Maneuvers, Stunts, what you will) was "at will" in the 4E parlance. Now both Wizards and Fighters are part at-will, part per encounter and part Vancian in the form of their Daily Powers. The Magic-User no longer has anything that sets him apart. I think this is a big part of the change in "feel."
But keep in mind the first restriction above. A Vancian system (even only partial Vancian, like 4E) can only be balanced against a pure at-will character build if you hold the number of opponents/day constant. There's no way around that.
