Wizards in 4E have been 'neutered' argument...

[the Jester]

I've seen the wizard in my campaign grow from 1st to 17th level- and the second wizard in the party, who joined at prolly around 6th level, grow to 16th level. So I have seen a lot of wizarding.

In my experience, wizards are bad ass. They don't do as much damage with a typical attack as a lot of other classes might, but they often do that damage to multiple enemies. Not to mention the conditions they impose.

I use a lot of varied encounters- some with minions, some without; some solos; a lot of custom creatures; mixes of creatures above and below the party's level; etc. The wizards usually not only hold their own, they often play a pivotal role in the combat.

The issue of rituals seems to have been discussed almost ad nauseum here, so I won't dwell on that except to say, once the party started using them, they never stopped. The cleric may have started the party's love of rituals, but both wizards have gotten in on it in spades.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm not sure I'd find that anti-climactic. I'd be willing to bet the gaming group would be talking about that fight years later because the results really stand out. Can people say the same about all their knock-down, drag out, attrition-based fights against BBEGs?

At least for my groups, the fights that we still talk about are the knock-down, drag out fights where we managed to snatch victory from the jaws of death. The insta-kill battles do get remembered, but only for their lameness.

It is a team game, sure. But what kind of team game is it? It used to be more like baseball. PCs did their job to advance the team, but did so in fairly different ways. A good DM would make sure everyone got their time at the plate - some classes were better at knocking it out of the park, but others consistently got on base. Now, it's a lot more like football without a passing game - everyone's participating at the snap but all plays are designed for short to moderate yard gains.

I have to disagree. It's more that a single spell can no longer relegate the other classes to "cleanup duty".

In 3.x, it was amazingly simple for the wizard to cast one "I win" spell that effectively ended any chance of the fight being a challenge, and then stand back and let everyone else mop up. It wasn't even a high-level thing: Sleep, Color Spray, and Web were all examples of low-level spells that could easily render encounters a non-issue. If it only takes one spell to win the fight, being limited to three casts a day isn't an issue until the fourth battle of the day (and that limit only applies to a level 1 specialist).

IMO, being automatically promoted to MVP based on having picked the "correct" class is not good design.

 

[pawsplay]

You might be surprised. I personally think the 3e wizard was WAY more effective than the 2e wizard anyday and your assumptions don't actually hold true.

Take for example the spell list.

An AD&D non-specialist wizard only gained 1 spell every SPELL level (thus, 1 every other character level). Every other spell had to be either found or researched by the spellcaster. The 1e/2e wizard is NOT going to have the same number of spells as the equivalent levelled 3e wizard IMO and almost as importantly, what the 1e/2e wizard actually does have would be totally random compared to the best spells of that level which the 3e wizard would have.

Would you say that a Basic D&D magic-user vastily overpowers an AD&D one? In the red box set, a M-U got one new spell each spell level, and never had to roll to learn a new spell. I will argue that it hardly matters. Although magic-users can learn spells this way, they will eventually uncover enough scrolls and the occasional spellbook that they will cover most of the bases. In 3e, a wizard is more likely to find a spellbook and already know most of the spells. In AD&D, even a wizard of meager intelligence has an even chance of learning a spell, which means in a few levels, barring bad luck, he can know any spell he encounters. If he does not encouter it, he can research it.

Similarly, with the shall we say draconian method of item creation, the 1e/2e wizard has to depend on mostly finding magic items so even at 10th level, a wizard would have an AC that even a kobold could still hit on a 15+

I'm pretty sure less than half of 3e wizards get into the item creation business themselves. Exception: scrolls and potions are relatively easy to make in AD&D, as in 3e.

There's anorher factor that made spells more effective in 3.x. The creation of the weak save. A 20th level wizard targetting the weak save of a 20th level creature/enemy has a much higher chance of success than when he tried it at 1st level in 3e. This is in direct contrast with the 1e/2e wizard where a 20th level enemy can laugh in the face of magic since their saves scale upwards but spell effectiveness remains constant.

That is a potential issue, sure. There are ways to mitigate this, but in any case it's not a game-changer. No wizard of any edition would be likely to throw a spell unlikely to work at all.

 

[Obryn]

I think you are both missing where the saving throws change the most between 1st edition and 3rd edition.

I tried to touch on this, but I might not have been explicit enough.

Yes, high-level foes save most of the time by design in 1e; the level of the wizard is irrelevant, barring spell resistance. It's a major factor to counteract save-or-die (or save-or-suck) effects; they're still scary, but it's not a sure thing.

By contrast, in 3e, it's the wizard's characteristics which matter most for saving throws. And because a creature's good and bad saving throws get so disparate at higher levels, it's a weak rock-paper-scissors game where you can basically tell what spells you should throw based on what you're facing.

1e wizards are awesome at taking out hordes of low-level creatures. Besides the saves, just look at spells like cloudkill, sleep, color spray, etc. Against higher-level foes, they need to get more creative.

-O

 

[Obryn]

That is a potential issue, sure. There are ways to mitigate this, but in any case it's not a game-changer. No wizard of any edition would be likely to throw a spell unlikely to work at all.

How isn't that a game-changer? While wizards in any edition may not throw spells which will work, a 3e wizard has a lot more spells which will probably work. It's the rock-paper-scissors game I alluded to above.

In 1e, a Wizard may not throw any spells which require saves against any high-level opponent. Rather, he might wait for them to get softened up by the fighters, and then throw a Power Word at them.

In 3e, a Wizard just picks their "Zap against Reflex" spell against a cleric, or a "Zap your Fortitude" spell against a wizard, or a "Zap your Will" spell against a brute. It's the weak save that's the issue - and a 3e wizard has both a limitless capacity to learn spells which target all defenses, and more spells prepared per day because of bonus spells.

-O

 

[Ariosto]

If I wanted to give wizards something to do every round, I'd let them use swords or inspire their allies or something. Not sit around zotting like a Gauntlet character.

Brought a smile -- nice, rare reference to a video game I've actually played! It also neatly summarizes a key change.

It started, at least as I saw it, in 3e. Mages using crossbows?? Just a sign of the times, of how the game was putting more emphasis on combat. Come 4e, and the focus is so tightly on fighting it's a close-up.

See how it dominates the conversation here?

So, the new wizard -- indeed every character -- is made as able a combatant as the fighter. What necessarily follows? End of story! The spell-caster is already doing what the fighter does, so letting it do other (more "magical") things as well would throw the balance off.

 

[AllisterH]

. Although magic-users can learn spells this way, they will eventually uncover enough scrolls and the occasional spellbook that they will cover most of the bases. In 3e, a wizard is more likely to find a spellbook and already know most of the spells. In AD&D, even a wizard of meager intelligence has an even chance of learning a spell, which means in a few levels, barring bad luck, he can know any spell he encounters. If he does not encouter it, he can research it.

There was an upper limit to how many spells a wizard could know of any level so if you rolled poorly, (a 14 for example only netted you 9 spells per level) and that bad luck seemed to happen with regularity for wizards ("fireball spell, roll for scroll and spellbook saving throws)

I think you're underselling just how many spells a 3e wizard at any equivalent level would have. Not only would they have the bases covered, but a 3e wizard has the ENTIRE field covered. A pre 3e wizard didn't really select their spells, the DM decided what spells they got and if lady luck frowned on them, they could even lose all of that thanks to spellbook destruction.

Which is a huge game changer. Take the existence of the scry-buff-teleport schtick that came in 3.x.Not only is it common, but WOTC actually designed spells to counter such tactics. In previous editions, there's absolutely no certainity you would even know all the spells in that chain.

I'm pretty sure less than half of 3e wizards get into the item creation business themselves. Exception: scrolls and potions are relatively easy to make in AD&D, as in 3e.

I don't consider the following easy.
Wizards needed to be name level to create scrolls, priests needed to be level 7

Seriously, contrast the effort and time to create a scroll of protection from poison in 2e with the scroll of neutralize poison in 3e.

It literally takes over 2 weeks to create the scroll in 2e...I'm not seeing how item creation in 2e is easy AT ALL Especially compared to 3e.

 

[nightwyrm]

Item creation before 3e was hard. The example of making a wand in the 2e DMG was an adventure in itself.

 

[Celebrim]

Take the existence of the scry-buff-teleport schtick that came in 3.x. Not only is it common, but WOTC actually designed spells to counter such tactics. In previous editions, there's absolutely no certainity you would even know all the spells in that chain.

And even if you did, you wouldn't have done it, because buff spells were both relatively ineffective compared to dropping a fireball or lightning bolt and relatively unnecessary because your comrades were already nasty combatants in and of themselves capable of ginsuing any monster in the manual.

Alot of 3rd edition's spell problems can be summed up as, "We knew what was broken in 1e (fireball, for example) so we carefully nerfed it, but we never understood why Gygax had nerfed spells like haste, polymorph other, etc so we took the limitations off the spells." In fact, alot of 3rd editions balance problems come from trying to fix 1e's balance problems and overcompensating. And yes cleric my old friend, I'm looking straight at you.

Sometimes it worked ok (evocation spells, lower level wizards, rogues, etc.) and sometimes it didn't (CoDzilla, essential buffs at high level, etc.).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I want to add to the very good analysis of Celebrim and Allister H that pre 3rd edition there were two other balancing factors:

1. Very low hp which are not as easily increased as in 3.x A solid blow from a fighter could outright kill him. Magical defenses like stoneskin needed expensive components to cast and didn´t last for a long time.

2. Spell preperation time: 10 min per level of spell. (So preparing 2 3rd level spells are one hour to prepare.) So a cast out high level spellcaster needs days of rest to replenish his spells and thus has an even harder time preserving his power in the course of an andventure.