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

[Obryn]

Ok, so look at the page 177 of the 2e DMG. Suggested cost of potion of healing is 200 gp, plus whatever special ingredients desired by the DM. Same as 1e, same as the High Level book.

The gp value was for PCs selling them, not for PCs purchasing them. You're overlooking everything in the 1e DMG regarding purchasing magic items.

Does the temple have a high-level cleric? If so, then the potion can be manufactured. All that remains is gathering the ingredients and convincing the cleric to create the potion. Finding and killing an ogre mage is a pretty straightforward endeavor for a high level party.

I really think this is theorycraft in the extreme. I don't know of any 1e group which has ever treated going out and killing an ogre mage or whatever for a healing potion a "routine" process.

The assumptions of availability between 1e and 3e are pretty gargantuan.

-O

 

[Celtavian]

re

The 4E Wizard is a pale shadow of its former self. No way getting around it. 4E makes you feel like a perpetual wizard's apprentice. Almost everything you do is more focused on temporary effects or damage rather than being able to come up with interesting spell strategies for solving hard encounters designed by smart DMs. Everyhing is so simplistic and short term that there is no real strategy to your spell attacks other than shoot off your encounters, mix in a daily if you need to, and mindlessly cast your at wills over and over again. Just like every other class.

We've been trying Pathfinder. It does a much better job of balancing the classes without the destroying the wizard. I hope to see more people move to Pathfinder because I hope superior game design wins out over the simplification that occurred during the creation of 4E.

I'm not sure how your gaming group will go. But we tried 4E. Some of us tried it kicking and screaming. Enjoyed it for a while. Then the entire group save for one person ended up being completely underwhelmed by the game to the point we quit playing it and D&D period for a while. Then picked up Pathfinder. That reenergized our group and we're looking forward to the growth of Pathfinder.

If you find you don't like 4E, but still want to play a more balanced version 0f D&D that sticks more to the traditional tropes of the game, I'd suggest giving Pathfinder a try. It was more what I was looking for in a new edition of D&D. It may be a reasonable compromise between your friend and yourself.

Seriously, any game like 4E that turns Fireball into a spell no one takes is not my kind of D&D game. Everyone started taking only spells with persistent durations and moveable spells so they weren't stuck with at wills every round. Classic AoE spells like Meteor Swarm and Fireball were turned into spells vastly inferior to spells such as Flaming Sphere and Mordenkainen's Sword. It used to be both spells were fun. But in 4E you only need your AoE at will to kill minions which are really the only creatures that can be killed by an AoE spell. I imagine you'll see once you play the game. But 4E wizards are pathetically weak and can no longer decimate groups of creatures of appropriate level.

 

[nightwyrm]

Seriously, any game like 4E that turns Fireball into a spell no one takes is not my kind of D&D game.

You mean 3e. Who takes fireball with haste and stinking cloud around.

But 4E wizards are pathetically weak and can no longer decimate groups of creatures of appropriate level.

That's a feature, not a bug, so the rest of the party can play too.

 

[billd91]

You mean 3e. Who takes fireball with haste and stinking cloud around.

Every wizard or sorcerer I've seen played in 3e with the sole exception of the scout/diviner character.

 

[AllisterH]

Every wizard or sorcerer I've seen played in 3e with the sole exception of the scout/diviner character.

Including *SORCERORS*? The same sorceror that only knows at MOST 4 level 3 spells? Weird.

Fireball is a prime example of why the 3e caster is so much stronger than the pre 3e caster.

Fireball pre 3e D&D, especially in the 1e uncapped era, was _KING_. Fireball in 3e is a decidely less optimal.

(hell, the fact that damage is subpar in 3e is why the Warmage is seen as a lesser light than the equivalent Dread Necromancer and Beguiler)

As an aside, it should be noted that in 1e/2e, as mentioned earlier, high level spells were not that effective against equal levelled opponents. A 10th level fighter had at a minimum a 50% chance of succeeding on any spell saving throw. Tack on cloaks and rings, and a 10th level fighter would most likely fail only on a 5 or lower.

Where does this idea come from that in DnD high level magic was super effective versus high level opponents? It certainly wasn't based on the 1e/2e ruleset IMO.

 

[billd91]

Where does this idea come from that in DnD high level magic was super effective versus high level opponents? It certainly wasn't based on the 1e/2e ruleset IMO.

Power word spells - no save
Maze - no save
Bigby's hand spells - no save
Wall of iron's crushing effect - no save
Transmute rock to mud - no save
Uncapped level-based damage dice for most spells in 1e + generally lower hit points for the target plus rebounding lightning bolts and huge areas for fireballs indoors
Harm - no save

And, like Harm, there are other touch spells that have no save and some nasty consequences. And AC generally tops out at -10 while that cleric or wizard gets better at hitting you has he levels up.

 

[AllisterH]

Power word spells - no save
Maze - no save
Bigby's hand spells - no save
Wall of iron's crushing effect - no save
Transmute rock to mud - no save
Uncapped level-based damage dice for most spells in 1e + generally lower hit points for the target plus rebounding lightning bolts and huge areas for fireballs indoors
Harm - no save

And, like Harm, there are other touch spells that have no save and some nasty consequences. And AC generally tops out at -10 while that cleric or wizard gets better at hitting you has he levels up.

Well, let's look at this shall we.

Power Word - PW had a big drawback namely it didn't work on full HP critters of that level. PW Stun for example only did 1d4 rounds to critters that had HP between 60-90 HP. At 13th level when it first appeared, even a fighter that didn't have a CON bonus should have 60+ HP.

Similarly, PW Blind and PW Kill were ineffective spells versus fresh opponents at high levels.

Bigby spells had to deal with a) their sucktastic casting time especially compared to the magic weapon speed and b) specifically for crushing hand, the fact that it was CONCENTRATION-only spell and that it took 4 rounds of constant concentration to be able to do 9d10 pts of damage (when fireball in 1e at that level is doing 20d6 a round) and c) the hand was easily destroyed (only had the HP of a caster at full health and AC0? - 4 rounds is not even a certainty especially given the multiple attacks of a specialized fighter of that level).

Wall of Iron - You couldn't cast that spell in midair and that had a 50% chance of tipping either way if you had it freestanding AND those who were subject to a falling wall of Iron got a saving throw versus DEATH MAGIC. Even the wizard who had the worst saving throw at that level for death magic had a 50% chance to escape. How is this an example of a non-saving throw spell?

Maze is a good spell, no two ways about it...that said, it isn't a game-ender since the creature affected doesn't lose anything..

Damage spells - um,, that's kind fo why 2e capped FIREBALL. It was too effective that a 3rd level spell is one of the BEST spells even when compared to 9th level magic. Not sure how this is an example of high level spells being powerful when fireball is ONLY a 3rd level spell. Hell, the most unbalancing houserule I remember playing with was the 3e rule where you can use higher level slots for lower level spells. Can we say FIREBALL for slots at the spell levels 4, 5 and 6?

Spells were AWESOMESAUCE versus much lower levelled opponents and high level spells gave the wizard lots of non-combat options at high levels (and even here, many of the spells had serious drawbacks) but compared to how effective they were against his fellow adventurers , who I might add, were probably high level than him, the wizard got weaker than he was at 1st level.

 

[Henry]

Power Word kill could kill a by-the-book Pit Fiend in AD&D - they had 13 hit dice, with average just under 60 hit points. Even the Magic resistance was largely useless, coming out to 30% vs. a level 18 caster. Even an ancient red dragon only had 88 hit points! What's more important, though, is that P.W.K. taking a major opponent out of a fight once they're in the 60 hit point range - which wasn't that hard to knock various creatures into. I tend to discount the power words being useless vs. "fresh" monsters because monsters nor PCs didn't have very many hit points to begin with, so knocking off about 20 or 30 wasn't that hard of a deal - a magic missile and a sword strike, and most monsters in the books were in that 60 to 90 hit point range.

In 2E, though, they changed the way Magic resistance worked, which had problems of its own - anything with magic resistance was often much harder than its hit dice would have suggested, since most of those also had magic weapon damage resistances.

Harm did at least have a balancing feature in that it took a regular to-hit roll to touch an opponent - something that 3E turned into a touch attack and scared DMs worldwide.

Well, let's look at this shall we.

Power Word - PW had a big drawback namely it didn't work on full HP critters of that level. PW Stun for example only did 1d4 rounds to critters that had HP between 60-90 HP. At 13th level when it first appeared, even a fighter that didn't have a CON bonus should have 60+ HP.

Similarly, PW Blind and PW Kill were ineffective spells versus fresh opponents at high levels.

 

[Nifft]

Actually clearing out monster lairs in order to get the potions would be quite grindy, though, even though it was theoretically possible and fairly low-risk for a high-level character. Ditto for fighting monsters to get special components to brew the potions.

I think the key difference between 3e and earlier editions is not so much how feasible it was for the character but how time-consuming it is for the player to get the potions. To use a videogame example, it is the difference between grinding monsters to get a random loot drop and buying what you want with gold at a magic shop.

Now this is an interesting observation. It always seemed to me that RPGs have inspired video-game evolution, but if D&D is responsible for inventing "grinding", the debt becomes that much more blatant.

Thanks, -- N

 

[AllisterH]

Pit Fiends though were not expected to be a match for 18th level wizards or fighters for that matter.

Pit fiends were a match for name level characters but by 17th level?