"Stuck" playing 4e (i.e. unwilling converts)

[avin]

Just for the sake of adding to topic: when 3E was launched do you know who were the players more resistant to it between my friends?

Wizards.

Most refused to play third edition at that time because it wasn't like it used to be.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Quite a few posts in the last page or so have veered way off topic. If you want to discuss the uberness (or otherwise) of various classes in 3e then please start another thread to do so.

I've not removed any of the really off-topic posts, but I might have to if it continues.

Thanks

 

[Plane Sailing]

So here are a couple of house rules you could implement that might bring your wizard player on board. Rules as written states the 4e wizard gets to pick two extra daily and two extra utility powers every time they get a new utility or daily when they level. And technically, the wizard character has to pick one of the two to memorize each day.

However, just say he doesn't have to choose in advance, he can choose on the fly as the situation demands. But once he picks one of the two powers for that level he is locked out of the other one until he takes an extended rest. This gives him much more flexibility without really giving him a big boost in power. He still only gets to use one 5th level daily in a day, he just doesn't have to pre-choose the one he memorizes. This also makes the Expanded Spellbook feat really good, but I think that's fine.

I really like this idea - you could call it "Schrodinger's Spellbook" on the basis that each day the various slots are potentially either of the available powers, but it is only when the power is used that it is fixed for that day (important for the issue when at a given level the utility spell might be either encounter or daily (e.g. shield vs expeditious retreat at utility 2)

I might run this past my group and see what they think of it.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The player in my group that always goes Wizard was put off by 4e as well when we didn't use Rituals a lot right away. I'd say that Rituals are THE KEY for 4E Wizards and making them versatile. They are there for a reason; use them.

I agree that Rituals are key to making the wizard versatile and useful. The problem is that there are not nearly enough of them in the PHB. Not nearly enough. Also the rate of getting them seems strange - why 2 every 5 levels? Why not 1 every other level, since ritual levels go across the whole range?

There is a desperate need for a wider range of rituals (plus the opportunity for a wizard to find or buy new rituals, and add them to his ritual spellbook, expanding his options).

I think there is also good grounds for introducing 'attack' rituals - if you want to assault a castle you want your 10d6 fireball, but it is a 10 minute ritual to cast such powerful spells. Carefully chosen, allowing a wizard to develop a big collection of rituals (far beyond the paltry few in the PHB) is key to making it a distinct and interesting class for people having concerns about migrating from 3e wizards to 4e wizards.

n.b. I think the 4e house rules forum had a long post with someone converting 3e spells to 4e rituals - might be worth looking for that.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've found two examples

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...236804-converting-old-spells-new-rituals.html

and

hastur.net

(I've not checked these out to verify whether I think they are well done enough to use in my games yet, but offer the links for consideration!)

Cheers

 

[Tuft]

Rituals (4E - Hastur)

Lost the last paranthesis there, Plane: Rituals (4E) - Hastur

 

[Rel]

Um, the 3.5 cantrip Prestidigitation allowed you to do the effects you describe above for an hour, which is a bit more than 24 seconds....

Good point. I'd forgotten about the 1 hour duration on that.

 

[Pbartender]

Right after 4e came out, we ran a single session of KotS, using only the rules found there-in....

...He was extremely frustrated with the way the 4e wizard played and felt. It felt extremely de-powered to him, and not having any rules for rituals (KotS rules, only) really killed the utility aspect of wizards.

Okay, there's your first problem. The rules presented in Keep on the Shadowfell, while giving a reasonable approximation of 4E play, leave out a few critical rules and aspects... especially in regards to Wizards.

The pre-generated Wizard character, for example, only has half the number of Cantrips that should be available to him. They left out Prestidigitation and Mage Hand, arguably the two most versatile and useful of the Cantrips, if you have an inventive Wizard.

Also, Wizards are allowed to choose two powers at each level (three, if they take a feat) and after each extended rest they get to choose which of the two powers they want to use for the day -- it's a pseudo-Vancian method.

Lastly, while the list of Rituals presented in the book is disappointingly short, they do provide quite a bit of variety and flexibility outside of combat not just to Wizards, but to anyone willing to take the Ritual Casting feat. In addition, it gives me, the DM, an opportunity for a little more variety in the treasure they find... Finding a new ritual or valuable components for rituals makes my Wizard's eye's light up.

You might encourage him to look for it in different places (character/team synergies, for instance) to get the same kind of rush, but it could be that 4e just won't provide the enjoyment that he's looking for.

This is very, very important, and a big distinction between 3E and 4E. 3E was mainly based around building a group powerful characters that make up a group of adventurers. Whereas 4E is more about building a group of characters that make up a powerful group.

Much of the fiddling in 4E comes from group tactics. Instead of finding powerful combos within the scope of a single character, you have to look for powerful combos that span the abilities of the entire adventuring party.

I've also found that my players have shifted their class preferences from 3E... Players that couldn't stand playing spellcasters previously are picking Clerics and Wizards, and those that up until now detested sword-bashing are choosing Fighters and Rogues. Your player may enjoy playing another class better. As someone who has similar sensibilities about arcane spellcasters as he does, I might suggest the Warlord and also to take another look at the Wizard, once you've got a copy of the PHB with the full rules.



Otherwise, you can always go back to playing 3E. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as none of the players mind.

 

[Pbartender]

Unfortunately, attacks that are indistinguishable from any other attacks (the same push-n-pull mash as everything else) just doesn't "feel very magical" (TM) to me. It's not about how much damage you deal, it's not about how frequently you do it, it's all about how "weird and wonderful" magic effects feel.

Of course, the wierd and wonderful feel is all in how you describe the effects...

I remember once when I was playing a 3E game, the players encountered an orc shaman casting wizard spells. Instead of flat out saying, "he casts Magic Missile", I described it as the orc standing 80 feet away and slashing his ceremonial dagger through the air... the party fighter could feel long cuts open up on his chest, beneath his armor which was left untouched, with each slash of the dagger. The players marveled at a spell with such long range that could deal damage without an attack roll and without a saving throw. The party Wizard drooled at the prospect of adding it to his spellbook.

Imagine his dissappointment when I revealed that he already had it in his spellbook.


Now, the main magicalness of spellcaster's powers in 4E is the fact the there IS NO EASY WAY TO PREVENT SPELLCASTERS FROM CASTING THEIR SPELLS. Taking away their implements or spellbooks doesn't not prevent any spellcaster from casting spells... They always have them available.

Whereas, a Ranger or Fighter is orders of magnitude less useful without their armor and weapons.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Lost the last paranthesis there, Plane: Rituals (4E) - Hastur

Thanks - it was a glitch in the automatic conversion of url to link in vBulletin.

Cheers