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

[Jack99]

I just want to point out that according to 4e players on ENworld who bother to participate in votes, the Wizard is the third most popular class (out of all 16 or however many there are in the PHB1 + PHB2 + FRPG + EPG), despite this nerf.

 

[The Ghost]

I'm just learning the 4E system, and have never seen a character over 3rd Level in play....How can I speak to this, and what arguments could I use to at least get him to give the system a look-see?

I would just say "We are going to give the new edition a try and you are welcome to join us." - and leave it at that.

 

[Inyssius]

He loves D&D, but is really skeptical about 4E, and says that his main sticking point (other than the fact that he feels it's too much like an MMORPG) is that Wizards and other spellcasters have been 'neutered' by the new system.

He's right. Full casters have been neutered. They are no longer multiple times better than any non-full-caster class; they no longer have entire books worth of spells that no one else can use, but which their character can learn all of; they can no longer end a wide array of fights almost immediately, or instantly solve a wide array of problems no one else can, with just the right spell; they can no longer approximate the abilities of almost anyone else in the party while simultaneously being good at their own thing;

...et cetera. Yes, the classes which once were "full casters" have been neutered, and drastically so.

They can and do still contribute to the party--still more so than the fighter or rogue, in fact. But they can no longer be the party if needed.


----


He is wrong about rituals, though. Rituals are utility magic meant to be performed "on the spot"; unless he plans on drawing a magic circle around him on a large carpet and then summoning unseen servants to carry him around on it, he will not be getting up early to buff himself with them.

(In fact, the preparation of daily spells in the morning is assumed to take no unusual amount of time;if the wizard needs time to hang his spells, the fighter needs time to clean his sword and exercise.)

 

[delericho]

I'm just learning the 4E system, and have never seen a character over 3rd Level in play....How can I speak to this, and what arguments could I use to at least get him to give the system a look-see?

I would try to avoid the argument entirely. Try to persuade him to just give the game a go, and judge it on its own merits.

You might even concede that no, it's not "classic D&D" - it's a new D&D for a new age. That doesn't necessarily mean better, and doesn't necessarily mean worse, but it does mean that it's different.

But, ultimately, if his mind is set against 4e, you won't change it. And, in fact, by pushing him hard to play the game, you may find he actually harms your group more than he helps it.

 

[Derren]

Your friend is right.
Casters in 4E lost a lot of power and versatility. And while the first was warranted, the second one is the real let down.

If your friend is concerned about the power, then maybe showing him the minion blasting ability of the wizard might help (and providing him with enough fodder in the game). If it is versatility it gets harder. You might try to describe skill checks made by the wizard as being magic, maybe even going so far to change the ability score for skills the wizard is trained in to Int in order to represent that he uses spellcasting here if you are willing to tinker with the system.
Or you could add little page 42 side effects to the spells of the wizard and allow him to use those spells outside of the combat.

 

[Ourph]

If it is versatility it gets harder. You might try to describe skill checks made by the wizard as being magic

Or you could point out that with at-will cantrips, a number of really handy utility powers and ready access to rituals, a Wizard still has a lot of non-combat options that make it one of the most versatile classes in the game.

 

[Mort]

4e fixes the spellcaster problem by giving them the same sort of abilities had by every other class. It's a fix, albeit not the sort many people expected (which might have been reduce the power of spells and increases the defenses non-spellcasters had against them, for example).

For many players, the old style was a feature, not a bug. If the goal was to play Merlin, Gandalf or whatever, then the player at some point wanted to wield phenomenal cosmic power. 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. While it creates a level playing field, it isn't paying much attention to simulating either fantasy source material or, as is probably more important in the case of your friend, the flavor of the play experience he's used to for the last 20 years or more.

I don't think this is a crossable gulf.

My problem with prior eddition wizards (especially 3x wizards) and to a lesser degree other casters, is not just that they become "weilders of cosmic power" it's that they became weilders of cosmic power in (for the most part) bursts of 6 seconds or less.

4e lets wizards do many of the same things a 3x wizard could do, but as as a ritual; which means there is both a cost and that it takes longer. There are already about 250 rituals and the number is growing. Wizards will have plenty of "cosmic power" but not in the 6 seconds of prior edditions.

 

[pawsplay]

One of the things that turned me off 4e is the new wizard. It's not because I play wizards (or often play at all) and it's not because of some belief the wizard must be insanely powerful. In previous editions, wizards have been wonder workers. The 4e wizard is both too weak, because he is on even footing to make someone fly or whatever compared to many other characters, but also too strong, because his at-will powers and such make magic seem too... easy. 4e wizards lack a certain flavor, there's just not much bibbedy in their bobbedy boo. I would like wizards who are able to shine in certain areas, just as fighters or rogues shine in their own, and hence 4e is a good game for somebody who is not me.

 

[Mistwell]

There are a number of options to increase the versatility of the wizard class in the game. Lots of powers and items and class choices that increase their versatility, often by letting them either swap spells around or choose from a wider variety of spells than other classes can usually choose from regarding their powers. It's not as many as in prior editions, but it is more than others.

Depending on what level you are starting at, I bet a few of us could stat up an example of a highly versatile wizard in 4e (though obviously more options come with higher levels).

 

[Filcher]

For these players, 4e is entirely unsuited to their gaming goals because a wizard can do nothing that isn't fundamentally mundane.

Another perspective is, yes, my 4E is wizard is equal to Merlin, as long as I can accept that the fighter is equal to Hercules, the paladin, to Arthur, the rogue, Gray Mouser. A wizard is only "mundane" because the player wants him to outshine his peers.