Why is it so important?

[SteveC]

If the rules do not support the most obvious use that people want to put them to, then it doesn't matter how many non-obvious uses they do support.

Hong, you beat me to this! If the only way you can play a class in a particular range of levels is to play against the stereotype you see of that class in books, comics and movies, there is something wrong with it. Even in a series of books like the Black Company, where the wizard characters physically mix it up as much as I have ever seen, they're still doing magical things for the most part.

The bottom line is that D&D magic emulates a very small subset of fantasy novels and as someone who has read the original Vance novels/short stories, it doesn't even do that very well. Where are all the books with wizards who have to pull out a crossbow because they can't do any more magic, exactly?

As far as why these rules are seen as very important, it's because people don't want a situation where wizards can just cast all of their spells all day long, they want one where a wizard can use magic all day long, still be a balanced member of the group, and not overshadow other characters at any level. That's why these changes are so important: it's not about making wizards better, it's about making them able to be wizards across all the levels and also not be out of line with the rest of the group.

--Steve

 

[Sun Knight]

You realize people screamed "marketing ploy" about 3rd edition and its changes as well. As near as I can tell, the designers are responding to the desires of a majority of their fan base.

I wouldnt say the majority of thier fan base, just the majority of the fan base who bothers to go to these and the wizard forums.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The old paradigm of the wizard holding back until he was needed and the fighter-types dealing with most encounters only worked with large dungeons, where most encounters were fairly easy - 4 orcs, 7 giant rats, etc. For the past 30 years or so people have been running more than just dungeon bashes so it would be a good idea if the game finally supported this style of play while remaining balanced *and* still supporting dungeon bashes. Hence balancing the game on a per-encounter basis.

Now you can have one encounter in a day without the casters dominating. You can have 20 encounters and the wizard still gets to do his thing.

 

[Merlion]

I wouldnt say the majority of thier fan base, just the majority of the fan base who bothers to go to these and the wizard forums.

We really have no way of knowing that. And neither do the designers.

But, they can see the inherent mechanical flaws in the current system.


You dont see them as flaws, but from the point of view of their overall design philosophy, the wizard not be able to keep up with the other classes stamina wise, while staying in role, is a flaw.

 

[Sun Knight]

Hong, you beat me to this! If the only way you can play a class in a particular range of levels is to play against the stereotype you see of that class in books, comics and movies, there is something wrong with it. Even in a series of books like the Black Company, where the wizard characters physically mix it up as much as I have ever seen, they're still doing magical things for the most part.

So is my wizard.

The bottom line is that D&D magic emulates a very small subset of fantasy novels and as someone who has read the original Vance novels/short stories, it doesn't even do that very well. Where are all the books with wizards who have to pull out a crossbow because they can't do any more magic, exactly?

To be honest I don't read much fantasy. I much rather game fantasy than read fantasy. I am pretty much the opposite when it comes to science fiction.

As far as why these rules are seen as very important, it's because people don't want a situation where wizards can just cast all of their spells all day long, they want one where a wizard can use magic all day long, still be a balanced member of the group, and not overshadow other characters at any level. That's why these changes are so important: it's not about making wizards better, it's about making them able to be wizards across all the levels and also not be out of line with the rest of the group.

--Steve

I don't really get this obsession about balance. Every class has its strengths and weaknesses, but trying to balance them all to have the same strengths and the same weaknesses at all levels seems a bit... bland to me. :\

 

[WhatGravitas]

Yet the wizard can do so much more than just magic. I don't see why we, as players, be forced to limit ourselves to the stereotype. It just seems silly to me.

But with the current system, we are limited to a Vancian stereotype. With 4E (if you buy it), what's hindering you from playing a wizard in the same way as before? Just because you can use your "Wizard Strike" all the time, you don't have to, right? Don't limit yourself to the stereotype, just don't do it.

And those people who want to "Wizard Strike" all the day, do it - how is that affecting you?

And everybody is happy.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Merlion]

So is my wizard.



To be honest I don't read much fantasy. I much rather game fantasy than read fantasy. I am pretty much the opposite when it comes to science fiction.



I don't really get this obsession about balance. Every class has its strengths and weaknesses, but trying to balance them all to have the same strengths and the same weaknesses at all levels seems a bit... bland to me. :\

Who said anything about having the SAME strengths and weaknesses?


The problem is with classes like the Cleric, that have no real weaknesses...or instances where a class has a weakness that is far greater than the weaknesses of other classes.

The point is for a rough equality of effectiveness to occur.

 

[Aus_Snow]

So, if you havent seen the complaints, you may not have been paying attention. Or you may simply like to try and invalidate peoples excitement over/liking of new content, for some odd reason..

That would be me, I assume. Please at least indicate by name/username (by using the quote function, say) the stranger you are going to casually attribute undesirable motives to, next time.

In this instance, you are also dead wrong. But that is hardly the point.


Anyway, regarding these masses of long-suffering arcane-class players, would you be so kind as to provide some sort of evidence (e.g., links) to back those claims of yours up with?

I'm even open to some anecdotal. . . "evidence". Anything, really.

 

[Sun Knight]

I do agree the cleric needs some work. I found dropping their hit die to 1d6, and removing medium and heavy armor proficiencies does the trick quite well.

 

[Merlion]

That would be me, I assume. Please at least indicate by name/username (by using the quote function, say) the stranger you are going to casually attribute undesirable motives to, next time.

In this instance, you are also dead wrong. But that is hardly the point.


Anyway, regarding these masses of long-suffering arcane-class players, would you be so kind as to provide some sort of evidence (e.g., links) to back those claims of yours up with?

I'm even open to some anecdotal. . . "evidence". Anything, really.

Read through these and the wizard forums. Complaints about Vancian magic etc are pretty commonplace and widespread. But I dont think anything I say or that you see will affect your view. And thats fine, but just as several people have said to Sun Knight, the change wont prevent you from playing Vancian wizards, but will allow those of us who have issues with it to have even more options, so whats the problem?