Wizards: Bard to no longer suck

[Merlion]

Well, I'd not make the claim that I can say what is, or is not, fun for others. It is certainly true that if combat continues to be the out-of-control time hog that it has become in third edition, then you need to make sure that everyone has something to do during combat.

In older editions, IME, more time was spent in things like exploration and investigation, and there was a large amount of time for social interactions as well. However, in those days we could run a huge fight in a matter of minutes, meaning that the "hang time" wasn't that important.

What I can say, is that the more the classes become equal in all situations, the less the idea of "classes" itself makes sense. In other words, I agree that each character will have something "useful" to do, but it seems to me that what they do will be far less "interesting".

IMHO, of course.

Time will tell. It always does.


RC

I now understand what you mean more, from our discussions in the other thread, but I disagree strongly on one point. Nobody is talking about every class being equal in every situation. Most of the discussions and the proposed changes are about the classes being able to contribute to an equal degree to *combat*. And about them not having to choose between contributing to combat or doing their other non-combat things. Edit: I just noticed that one poster was actually saying "equally useful in all situations." However my point stands...that isnt what I was talking about in the other thread, or what anyone is really getting at. Nobody wants to see Fighters be able to use magic to gather information or speed travel, or the like. Or have Wizards be better at social skills than Rogues.

Although that also brings up a point. What your saying reminds me a bit of how when 3e was coming out, some people were upset that everyone would be able to pick locks and the like if they choose...but that certainly turned out ok.

Also I think your jumping the gun a little. We really have very little information, and that information has even less context. I am reasonbly sure the classes will all remain as distinct as they've ever been.

Since, in the end, especially in combat, the classes are all basically doing the same things in different ways already, mechanically.

 

[MerricB]

What I can say, is that the more the classes become equal in all situations, the less the idea of "classes" itself makes sense. In other words, I agree that each character will have something "useful" to do, but it seems to me that what they do will be far less "interesting".

Hmm. I don't see it like that. There's a world of difference between "classes being equal" and "classes being equally effective".

IME, AD&D combat was a pretty big time hog as well - not because the combats took a long time, but because we fit a lot of them into a session. (Ditto Basic D&D, and especially The Keep on the Borderlands).

Yeah, we roleplayed as well, but a lot of it was about the combat.

Cheers!

 

[Raven Crowking]

I now understand what you mean more, from our discussions in the other thread, but I disagree strongly on one point. Nobody is talking about every class being equal in every situation. Most of the discussions and the proposed changes are about the classes being able to contribute to an equal degree to *combat*.

Which, basically, screws the fighter, no? After all, being better in combat is the totallity of his schtick.

Also, as I said before, in this thread or another, if everyone is equal in *one particular facet of the game* (no matter what that facet is), you can bet that facet will get emphasized more.

Again, time will tell. It always does.

 

[shilsen]

Which, basically, screws the fighter, no? After all, being better in combat is the totallity of his schtick.

Not in my estimation. Being the best at specializing with a particular weapon and/or general flexibility with weapon use is more how I see it. I don't think there's much of an argument to be made that the fighter has ever been better in combat than other classes once the PCs have a few levels under their belt, in any edition of D&D.

Also, as I said before, in this thread or another, if everyone is equal in *one particular facet of the game* (no matter what that facet is), you can bet that facet will get emphasized more.

I think that's a given because of the particular facet being discussed here, namely combat. D&D has always emphasized combat more than anything else.

Again, time will tell. It always does.

True.

 

[MerricB]

Which, basically, screws the fighter, no? After all, being better in combat is the totallity of his schtick.

No. Well, it sort of is, but that's partly a failure of the design of the fighter's non-combat role.

In actuality, the fighter is not "better in combat". The fighter is good at being a tank - having a high AC, great HP, and dealing a lot of damage whilst standing still.

The Wizard often manages to deal more total damage by casting fireballs... and occasionally more damage just by casting magic missile or scorching ray. However, if the Wizard isn't protected by a tank, the Wizard goes down. The game also throws in challenges the Wizard isn't quite as good against (and the same for the fighter).

Cheers!

 

[Brother MacLaren]

In actuality, the fighter is not "better in combat". The fighter is good at being a tank - having a high AC, great HP, and dealing a lot of damage whilst standing still.

The Wizard often manages to deal more total damage by casting fireballs... and occasionally more damage just by casting magic missile or scorching ray.

In earlier editions, the concept was that the wizard would often in a fight hang back and do nothing, saving his spells for when they were really needed. In that case, the fighter would do more damage over the course of an adventure.

A 5th-level wizard in B/E/C/M D&D could have all of 3 damaging spells, 2 Magic Missiles and 1 Fireball (there were no 2nd-level spells that did damage).

Now, with an emphasis on the wizard acting every round, he really has cranked up his damage output (between more spells per level, cantrips to free up 1st-level slots that previously held Detect Magic, Scribe Scroll, bonus spells for high Int, and so on).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Exactly, Brother!

The argument that "Look, we've screwed with the fighter's schtick already, therefore we ought to screw with it more!" isn't compelling IMHO.

RC

 

[MerricB]

The argument that "the Wizard gets to have fun twice a session" isn't particularly compelling, either. It's a lot less compelling, actually.

In 3e, the fighter can deal damage equivalent to the Wizard when fighting smaller number of foes - the Wizard really works against a lot of small-hp mooks. (I've seen the 20th level fighter of the party deal upwards of 200 hp a round, which is pretty good). Remember, the Wizard got severely nerfed as to the upper limit of his damage spells compared to 1e... and the monsters got more hp as well.

In 1e, a 1st level party has the Wizard who has one big spell (sleep). By 5th level, the Wizard is wandering around with one big "I can't use this" fireball, a couple of Webs, and a combination of Sleep and Magic-Missile.

Meanwhile, the fighter is wandering around with his sword and armour.

In fact, the fighter and magic-user will probably take out an equivalent number of monsters before the fighter's hp and the magic-user's spells give out. It's just that the magic-user is effective in combat 5 times/day by killing many monsters at once, and the fighter is effective in combat 25 times/day, but only 1 monster at a time.

Of course, in AD&D, it was suggested in very strong terms that the wizard gain a wand and so is more useful. I know that in our play of the ToEE, I gained a wand of fire, and suddenly my usefulness as the magic-user went up dramatically.

Cheers!

 

[Brother MacLaren]

The argument that "the Wizard gets to have fun twice a session" isn't particularly compelling, either. It's a lot less compelling, actually.

I recall players with a certain mindset enjoying being the wizard. Strategic, offering advice, playing their character's Int, and being very content to sit back and watch when not needed.
"Help us out here!" "It looks to me like you have things well in hand." "Grr...."
[some time later]
"Zzzz..." "See? Aren't you glad I saved that Sleep spell for the orcs rather than the goblins?"

[a few levels later]
"BOOM! That's it for the trolls."
"Wow, I'm glad we carried your sorry self through Keep on the Borderlands."

Wizards were run by players who knew and appreciated their role. They could enjoy being super-effective during some combats and observers in others, and knew that they would ultimately be rewarded with amazing power if they should survive long enough. Why be unhappy about it, when they chose to play this character in this game knowing how it was set up? A forward in soccer doesn't complain that he can't use his hands, and a goalie doesn't complain that he never gets to score goals.

Monte Cook makes the point that they deliberately chose to alter this paradigm in 3E (more spells, but toning down spell power), but didn't go far enough.

As to the general point of being an observer not being "fun"... if you have a game with a good group of people and you like the characters, it can be a LOT of fun to watch your allies succeed. We had a situation in MarauderX's game where the Arcane Trickster was body-hopping into orcs with Magic Jar and using their bodies to Sneak Attack one another as she tried to gain some information. The other PCs weren't involved and this scene took a while -- but none of us complained. We enjoyed watching. It was a lot of fun, the player was brilliant, and we cared about the information she was obtaining. It's not like other games I've been in where everybody is just painting minis waiting for their turn to come around. My druid is sometimes the only one acting (Control Winds to destroy an army leaves relatively little for the rest to do), and other times he'll just pass if the fight is well in hand. So I'm not on board with the idea that you have to be doing something to have fun -- at least not if the story and the party are compelling.

 

[hong]

I recall players with a certain mindset enjoying being the wizard. Strategic, offering advice, playing their character's Int, and being very content to sit back and watch when not needed.

Said players should probably take on the Leader role in 4E, looks like. That way, they can do the whole strategic-force-multiplier thing without having to sit back and watch. I don't know anybody who actually _wants_ to sit back and watch, as opposed to accepting it as a side-effect of how the class is designed.

"Help us out here!" "It looks to me like you have things well in hand." "Grr...."
[some time later]
"Zzzz..." "See? Aren't you glad I saved that Sleep spell for the orcs rather than the goblins?"

[a few levels later]
"BOOM! That's it for the trolls."
"Wow, I'm glad we carried your sorry self through Keep on the Borderlands."

Wizards were run by players who knew and appreciated their role.

As well as players who didn't know and didn't appreciate this "role", obviously, or the zeitgeist wouldn't be where it is now.