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

[Dannyalcatraz]

1) We may have had a gazillion spells, but remember, 1 guy was a diviner with Disrupt Undead and Lesser Orb of Electricity as his sole damage dealing spells, the Rog/Sorc had spells that let him be a better rogue (IOW, no offensive spells), and no healer cast better than Cure Moderate Wounds...and not many at that. In the eyes of a powergamer, that's not a lot of spellpower for a 10th level party.

What we had was a lot of fighter levels, meaning HP. However, you'll note that since only one PC was a pure warrior, BABs were not tops, so sometimes, hitting was an issue.

(And for the record, I guarantee you that the Monk and my PC weren't dealing out huge piles of damage. The Monk was a Gnome, and my PC was a 2WF build...with Whip and a Heavy Pick.)

2) As for the assumption of party structure, I agree that every edition has suggested/recommended that a typical party cover the 4 roles: Warrior, Rogue, Divine Caster, Arcane Caster.

However, I have never seen anywhere that the game's designers assumed that typical party size was 6 in earlier editions and 4 in the post-3Ed regime.

3) As for the actual size of our group, that was just our big group. Our other groups- really, satellite subgroups of the main one- typically had 3-6 gamers (including the DM) and the same playstyle. No difference.

 

[Gort]

For these players, 4e is entirely unsuited to their gaming goals because a wizard can do nothing that isn't fundamentally mundane. Sure, they can do damage, attack something other than AC, apply conditions, move the target, and move themselves and some of this impressive and perhaps can't be explained easily in mundane terms, but every other class can do all the same things and sometimes these things can't easily be explained in mundane terms either.

Rituals, the things that any self-respecting wizard should have tons of, can do a lot of the cosmic power. Teleportation, raising of the dead (something wizards couldn't do before), and so on.

Wizards already get a leg-up as far as rituals are concerned by getting the feat for free. Do rituals not count or something because other classes can get them by spending feats? Or is it that they have a casting time greater than 6 seconds?

To be honest, this argument seems like a bunch of sour grapes that wizards can't just make any problem in the game vanish with three clicks of his fingers.

 

[Gort]

I have rarely had a main villain type who was extremely vulnerable to saving throws of any stripe.

Well, of course not. Then the fight would last a single round because he would be an instant pile of dust. In order to make the encounter interesting, you basically have to remove a large amount of the wizard's arsenal of spells from the equation, either by nigh-unbeatable SR or by nigh-unbeatable saves.

I remember a lot of our 3e fights at high level were the fighters keeping the unstoppable beastie in place by engaging it in hand-to-hand while the casters lowered its saves with various spells (like enervate) until it would fail a save-or-die.

That kinda sucked. I much prefer the situation as it is now, where the wizard isn't a total liability at first level and then becomes a useful party member by about level 5, and from that point onwards disappears into the clouds as far as game balance is concerned. Clerics and druids were worse though, going from quite overpowered at level 1 to ridiculously overpowered later on. Animal companions, endless summoning, lots of blasting, the ability to HEAL 150 POINTS OF DAMAGE IN A SINGLE ROUND which made every villain without the ability to deal 150 points of damage in a single round completely powerless. Man, that spell was ridiculous. I'm not even going to talk about mass heal.

 

[Obryn]

A wizard does not, however, have a limitless capacity to cover all saving throw bases. Further, SR is likely to be a limiting factor, especially at high levels. I have rarely had a main villain type who was extremely vulnerable to saving throws of any stripe.

Why don't they have that limitless capacity?

At worst, a Wizard knows 4 spells of every level below their highest. In most cases, they'll know a lot more. So unless a DM is really strangling spell access for Wizards (and thereby removing their sole advantage over sorcerers), any competently-made Wizard will have plenty of options.

SR is a kludge, and has been since 1e. It's a gamist invention (which I'm fine with, for the record!) to counteract the fact that most spells automatically work. Basically, it does what 4e did and gives spells an attack roll against the target. Even then, a good Wizard will have at least one of a few options... (1) Assay Spell Resistance. (2-???) Conjurations and the like which don't allow SR.

-O

 

[Voadam]

Why don't they have that limitless capacity?

At worst, a Wizard knows 4 spells of every level below their highest. In most cases, they'll know a lot more. So unless a DM is really strangling spell access for Wizards (and thereby removing their sole advantage over sorcerers), any competently-made Wizard will have plenty of options.

1 knowing every spell does not equate to preparing every spell. Three defenses also equates to splitting your attack spell slots into three categories to cover the possibilities. Having the right high powered spell for the situation is powerful, but not guaranteed with a prep caster. For instance, in one game we knew we were going against a powerful undead killer and I prepared fort and reflex defense spells. Surprise! He turned out to be a templated fighter rogue assassin with great fort and ref saves.

2 The lower level the spell the less relevant. Having dozens of first and second level attack spells on scrolls does not mean much at high levels, it is the highest level spells that are most relevant. Lightning bolt and magic missile wands in our 17th level game were minor effects at best against high CR foes.

 

[Voadam]

However, I have never seen anywhere that the game's designers assumed that typical party size was 6 in earlier editions and 4 in the post-3Ed regime.

I thought 3e was pretty explicit about their assumption of a 4 person base party. CR is built around that assumption.

More than four sounds right for my memory of most earlier edition module suggested party number ranges. Usually something like for 5-7 characters of levels 5-7.

 

[Votan]

The lower level the spell the less relevant. Having dozens of first and second level attack spells on scrolls does not mean much at high levels, it is the highest level spells that are most relevant. Lightning bolt and magic missile wands in our 17th level game were minor effects at best against high CR foes.

Yes and no; many lower level spells can still have useful effects and provide a basis for a high level caster to use in parallel with their pinnacle spells.

For example, Dimension Door, Ennervation, Polymorph, Greater Invisibility, and Disintegrate are all still highly viable spell options for a 17th level caster (despite having higher level spell options). This means that a wizard is no longer hoarding spells for encounters just picking what cool effect to use this turn.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

OK buster, before we go anywhere with this, any wizard who has competence in the crossbow should be struck off the Wizardly register! What do you think wands were for huh? Just waving around in the air like they do now days? And no; a low level 3e wizard is an apprentice, generally in awe of his betters - not a real wizard; not yet anyway. Real wizards kill you dead then take your stuff.

A 'No True Scotsman' fallacy? Really? I thought ENWorld was better than that...

Ouch!
Within the context of playful banter back and forth with Thasmodius and thecasualoblivion, you missed the tongue in cheek hyperbole of this (cutting off the context bolded above when you quoted). Sorry this was lost in translation but seriously, sometimes we all need to lighten up a little and laugh at ourselves. If I was feeling snippy I'd throw your statement about EN World back at you but instead I'll let the reference and quote stand as they are.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yes and no; many lower level spells can still have useful effects and provide a basis for a high level caster to use in parallel with their pinnacle spells.

For example, Dimension Door, Ennervation, Polymorph, Greater Invisibility, and Disintegrate are all still highly viable spell options for a 17th level caster (despite having higher level spell options). This means that a wizard is no longer hoarding spells for encounters just picking what cool effect to use this turn.

In addition, Web (a 2nd level spell) can ruin a great deal of melee based enemies (without access to teleportation), regardless of whether they make their save or not. It may grant cover, but even with an extremely good strength check it will still consume at least a full round of actions from anyone attempting to escape. Enemies also often escape at a staggered rate, which makes picking a group off one by one child's play.

All that regardless of the enemy's level, spell resistance, or saves.

 

[Dr. NRG]

4E decreased variability between classes in several regards, presumably in the name of balance. Of relevance here, it decreased the variability between the frequency with which different classes can use their abilities. For example, a character of a given level in 4E can use the same number of dailies, encounters and at-wills as any other character, regardless of class. Whether you're a fighter, a wizard, or (name a class), you have the same resource-management decisions to make. Contrast this with any previous edition, where a fighter can make his most effective attack a limitless number or times, while a wizard can make his most effective attack a limited number of times. The trade-off is that the fighter's best attack is (generally) less effective and/or flexible than a wizard's.

4E has removed that variation. It has homogenized the classes in that regard. This change has several effects. First, it limits the options available to players in regards to the kind of character they want to play. A player can no longer choose to play a class that has very limited (but fairly effective) options -- there is no such class. A player cannot choose to play a class that has a multitude of options that are less effective, but maintain flexibility -- there is no such class (see bard 3/3.5 as an example).

Specifically to the OP, a wizard is no different than any other class in this regard. It has been homogenized in the name of balance. IMHO, this particular homogenization is part of what the OP's player is addressing. Unless this player was somehow abusing the wizard class's abilities in previous editions, he undoubtedly sees 4E's treatment as an attempt to solve a problem that never existed for your group. To expand, given the OP's facts, this player never played a high-level wizard, and thus never ran into the problems that are commonly cited. Further, from what I understand, those problems occurred primarily among power-gamers or players who were just attention hogs. I can honestly say that never once during extensive 2E and 3E play did I run into the problem(s) that 4E attempts to solve by radically altering wizards.

Essentially, the authors of 4E have told the OP's player that he must change the kind of character he plays because other people may have abused it the way it was. I can fully understand why that kind of mandated change might stick in his craw.

My suggestion is that the OP's player play another class in 4E. In essence, the problem is that he is going to be playing a different class with the same name as the old class (wizard). Since he is going to be playing a new class, he might as well play one with a new name, thus helping to ease the cognitive dissonance.