Scaling the Caster Classes Back

[Merlion]

Unnecessary complexity /= fun. The fun part of being a wizard lies elsewhere. I'm pretty sure it'll still be fun in 4e.

I mostly agree. However it does seem to be emerging that there is a small subset of people who consider those things the fun part of playing a wizard. And they think 4e is going to give them the shaft. And it may somewhat but not as much as they think...and, you cant always please everyone..

 

[Henry]

I've seen high-level Wizards and sorcerers played properly. They could definitely stand toning down a bit at the higher levels. They carry spells that make them nigh-invulnerable to other spells, spells that break the nigh-invulnerable spells, spells to make planes, spells to break planes, Spells to make fantasy-physics sit up, roll over, and play dead. They have spells that take 40 or 50 dice rolls to resolve, for one action. While I enjoy seeing such wizards in action, if they manage to tone them down a bit, I won't lose much sleep on that point.

 

[Merlion]

I've seen high-level Wizards and sorcerers played properly. They could definitely stand toning down a bit at the higher levels. They carry spells that make them nigh-invulnerable to other spells, spells that break the nigh-invulnerable spells, spells to make planes, spells to break planes, Spells to make fantasy-physics sit up, roll over, and play dead. They have spells that take 40 or 50 dice rolls to resolve, for one action. While I enjoy seeing such wizards in action, if they manage to tone them down a bit, I won't lose much sleep on that point.

On the other hand though, I feel like Wizards especially at mid levels are missing a few effects they should probably have access too.

 

[Henry]

On the other hand though, I feel like Wizards especially at mid levels are missing a few effects they should probably have access too.

I agree, and I think that's where the whole "sweet spot" thing comes from. I can see beefing them up through about level 7 or so, and then toning them down between levels 17 to 30.

 

[Merlion]

I agree, and I think that's where the whole "sweet spot" thing comes from. I can see beefing them up through about level 7 or so, and then toning them down between levels 17 to 30.

Mostly I just want them to get decent mid level non-melee focused defenses and obvious stuff. Spell Resistance, Freedom of Movement, Death Ward, Spell Immunity and its Greater version, a few others, need a place on the wizard spell list.

They should also really be able to heal a bit, but I know thats not going to happen.

 

[William Ronald]

I agree, and I think that's where the whole "sweet spot" thing comes from. I can see beefing them up through about level 7 or so, and then toning them down between levels 17 to 30.

If I recall Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, there seemed to be a fair balance among the classes at upper level. (The book goes up to 25th level.) Also, the magic system in AE has spells that may be somewhat less powerful individually, but a spell system that is much more flexible. (The classes also gain some abilities, and characters start out with an additional feat or talent.)

 

[ptolemy18]

I mostly agree. However it does seem to be emerging that there is a small subset of people who consider those things the fun part of playing a wizard. And they think 4e is going to give them the shaft. And it may somewhat but not as much as they think...and, you cant always please everyone..

I do like the complexity. I think that if you want to play a wizard but you don't want it to be so complicated, then you play a sorcerer. I always assumed that was the whole point of the sorcerer class (nice class, incidentally... got nothin' against them).

 

[ptolemy18]

Thanks for the kind words on Class Roles, Irda Ranger!

Wouldn't it be nice if the class was more accessible to new players?

I think the answer to that question is "sorcerer." Simplified wizard. To make it even simpler, the new PHB could just have brief lists of starting sorcerer spells based on various types of sorcerers you might want to play.

Uh, no. What we're saying is that "It's ok for the fighter to cleave through 200 hp worth on monsters in a round, and for wizards to be equally helpful in fighting baddies. What's not OK is the fighter getting his magic armor & sword sundered, and then standing around while the wizard wins the adventure for him." We're bringing the classes into parity. That means everyone else at the table gets to shine (not just you, the wizard guy). If you can't handle your buddies actually being good at something ... Unnecessary complexity /= fun. The fun part of being a wizard lies elsewhere. I'm pretty sure it'll still be fun in 4e.

All classes have their weak spot. Fighters can lose their weapons and armor. Wizards can lose their spellbooks. Or run out of spells and be forced to fight on due to plot/environmental reasons. (Has nobody else been in a game where the PCs were ambushed in the middle of the night?) They are the tactics of very no-holds-barred DMs and they are only fun in moderation -- I'm sure some people would say they're never fun -- but these things do happen in some games. And they can be exciting. Grueling, "aggh, why haven't we been able to sleep yet!" encounters are some of the most tense & fun in the existing game. I agree that the "go to sleep immediately after you wake up" thing is pretty ridiculous and the new 4e encounter model may be more fun but we'll see.

Basically, the whole point of D&D is to be challenged. This means that sometimes you face disadvantages. You get paralyzed. You get killed. You get your stuff stolen (maybe). The DM finds out weaselly ways to exploit your characters' vulnerabilities. (Of course, the DM had better give the characters some opportunities to kick ass, too, or the players will eventually get ticked off, but this is a balance that's different for every gaming group.) And that's what makes the game fun. I have played rogues fighting against un-sneak-attackable opponents, I have played wizards who were out of spells for entire encounters -- and I've never felt "useless" like so many people on this forum describe. What do people want? Eliminating death and unconsciousness? Sometimes your character has to step out of the spotlight and the other characters get their chance. That's the way it is.

As a player you start every day in the campaign world all rested & healed & spells-memorized & excited about your character, going, "Yeah, I can handle anything! I am the awesomest! Our party is the awesomest!" And as a DM you sit there quietly smiling and thinking, "I am gonna wring this party to within an inch of their lives."

Back on topic... I really don't think there's anything bad about the complexity of playing a spellcaster. After playing GURPs and Rolemaster I have to say that D&D3e is *not* a complicated RPG. In a RPG like Mage or (let's get super-simple) Big Eyes Small Mouth, you can express "magic" simply by just giving very general guidelines of power levels at which you can produce such-and-such effects ("oh, around this level you can create a table out of thin air... around this level you can create a car or a living room out of thin air..") But D&D is so heavily a tactical game that any spellcasting effect needs to be translatable into tactical game terms for it to be meaningful to the vast number of campaigns and players, and that's why there are zillions of spells with individually described tactical effects. (i.e. Just what does it mean that the "Entangle" spell may vary its effects based on the surrounding plantlife? Hmm... well, *I* think this kind of gray area is perfectly acceptable, but I doubt there'll be built-in mechanics for it on the D&D Online Tabletop.) In order to replicate even a fraction of the cool powers which any fantasy fan thinks of when they think of "wizards".... and if replicating the coolness of fantasy novels and movies is not an element of D&D, then why don't you just play HeroClix or golf?... there must be HUNDREDS of spells and spellcasting effects. Now, of course, this is the material that extra sourcebooks are made of... but if this kind of stuff is drastically cut from the PHB, that's a serious disappointment.

Given the choice between simplifying wizards and complexifying everybody else... well frankly, I'd rather see the latter, with a fighters' Maneuver List which is 30 pages long. Some people want to play complicated characters; some people want to play simple characters. I want to play complicated characters (actually, if fighters got more complicated, I might want to play them more. But I do like the whole feel of wizards, as anyone can tell who's actually read this thread ). So I say -- keep both simple and complicated characters, please!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I play an illusionist -- a GNOME illusionist, of all things -- and intend to convert him to 4E. I have no problem with normalizing power levels between classes at all levels, so long as their power is expressed differently. (And I trust that it will be.)

 

[ptolemy18]

I play an illusionist -- a GNOME illusionist, of all things -- and intend to convert him to 4E. I have no problem with normalizing power levels between classes at all levels, so long as their power is expressed differently. (And I trust that it will be.)

I hope so. It's not power levels that concern me so much as losing the 'flavor' of wizards by making them 'controllers' whose only function is to create temporary walls and push monsters off bridges with ranged attacks. Obviously I oversimplify dramatically.