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

[billd91]

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.

So it's not your first spell. After a magic missile spell, that 13th level fighter is looking pretty vulnerable.

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?

1e version doesn't have a save vs Death Magic. The death magic save from 2e?

 

[pawsplay]

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.

Well, since orc chiefs have 12 hp, a single fireball would take care of the main part of an orc lair. There might be an ogre or a troll with them, I suppose. That's not what I would consider grinding so much as shopping with extreme prejudice.

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.

That's probably a fair assessment. But only if the AD&D DM decides to be a pain in the ass is healing magic really difficult for mid-level characters to acquire. I certainly don't remember bowing down and thanking the gods every time we found a potion of healing.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

For making, not selling. And how would the PCs sell them when according to the DMG, the sale of magic items was not a common occurence?

Bottom line: with a few hundred gp and a side adventure, a PC or mid-level NPC can brew up a few potions of healing in a month's time.

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.

What, for a 10th level party?

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

Maybe Large, with reach. Since 3e modules are so relentlessly balanced and 1e modules are so generous, the treasure rewards turn out to be rather similar.

 

[Hussar]

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?

I think it's probably the most telling about the differences in the approaches of the game when the most powerful creature in the books, a pit fiend (and if a pit fiend isn't the biggest non-unique baddy, it's pretty darn close) isn't considered a sufficient challenge for a high level party. That it's a challenge for a name level party, true, but, by the time you get to the end of the spell list for wizards, pit fiends aren't a serious challenge.

It makes comparisons so difficult between editions.

As far as fireball goes. Well, in 3e, why would you bother? By 7th level, you magic missiles were doing 4d4+4 for an average of 14 points of damage. Your fireballs were doing 7d6, for an average of 24, but a save throw which meant that you were likely going to do about 12 points of damage.

Again, we run into play style issues. If you used large groups of small creatures, then fireball is king. If you, instead, played with small numbers of big creatures, fireball sucked. I would suggest that views of a given spell have far more to do with how the adventures you played through were designed than anything to do with the spells themselves.

 

[Hussar]

I would also point out, that in 2e at least, clerics could brew their own potions at 6th level. Availability of potions depends on a lot of factors.

 

[Celtavian]

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.

Depends really. Alot of creatures had far fewer hit points in 1e/2E. Thus damage spells were pretty effective.

Some of us were creative with our spell strategies. That didn't necessarily mean doing damage. It was more fun to have a spellbook that allowed you to figure out a spell strategy for helping the entire party do the job.

Effective use of spells like Wall of Force or Fire could control the battlefield allowing your melee and physical damage dealers to break up tough combatants. I know the majority of players are focused on damage dealing, but that wasn't me. I liked playing the wizard as a facilitator capable of changing the flow of a battle by applying a spell to a given situation.
That was always more fun.

Sad thing in 4E is that magic is very personal in effect. You can't do many group effects or effects on other people that last longer than a round or two. It's a very limiting game for players that like to use magic creatively. Same for DMs that like to use magic creatively. Even 1E/2E catered to wizard players that liked to come up with interesting ways to help the party get the job done.

 

[Celtavian]

re

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?

You had to make your own stuff up at that level. Which many of the guys I played with did. Alot of creativity in the adventures my gaming buddies came up with to challenge high level characters.

 

[pawsplay]

You had to make your own stuff up at that level. Which many of the guys I played with did. Alot of creativity in the adventures my gaming buddies came up with to challenge high level characters.

Most of the level 12+ games I remember revolved around either acquiring artifacts and the attending lifestyle difficulties that come with owning them, or raiding various levels of Hell.

 

[Hussar]

Sad thing in 4E is that magic is very personal in effect. You can't do many group effects or effects on other people that last longer than a round or two. It's a very limiting game for players that like to use magic creatively. Same for DMs that like to use magic creatively. Even 1E/2E catered to wizard players that liked to come up with interesting ways to help the party get the job done.
__________________

See, there's the crux of the problem. For some, it wasn't the fact that the wizard could "help the party get the job done" it was that "creative" use of spell casting got the job done full stop. The wizard didn't need the party.

Take invisiblity as a good example. Sure, wizards in 1e and 2e got less slots, but, you only needed one invisibility spell. It lasted 24 hours! So long as you didn't attack, you were invisible for a whole day. Or a whole day for the party with a 3rd level spell. Who needs a scout? You drop invisibility and you were pretty much good to go. Worried about someone coming up on you while you're sleeping? Invis is pretty much just as good as rope trick.

Let's not forget that there were no rules for scent in 1e or 2e. There was lip service given in the text, but, that was entirely up to the DM to interpret. If the DM was generous, then you could wander an entire dungeon invisible, and you were golden.

The "creative" use of spells is precisely the reason why 4e is written the way it is. There is a segment of D&D gamers that doesn't like the fact that the way some spells are written allow "creative" use of spells. In other words, they don't like the fact that caster players can play silly buggers word games with the DM and gain way more power that what is intended by the spell. 1st and 2nd level instant kill spells are a "creative" use of spells too.

No one has a problem with wizards being able to polymorph. That's a pretty standard trope. What people do have a problem with is being able to polymorph into a Behir and instantly becoming a far better fighter than the fighter, hitting the Autowin button on any combat with a corporeal creature of size M or smaller. And even the large creatures probably have a serious, serious problem.

THAT's why wizards got beaten with the nerf bat.

 

[pawsplay]

There's a difference between nerfing and making Tofurkey. Pathfinder nerfed polymorph, but I don't know of anyone who hates the new spells, because they are still functional and retain their original flavor. Tofurkey is Thansksgiving turkey made out of tofu. While you may like Tofurkey, it's useless to claim other people should also prefer it. Calling it Tofurkey doesn't make it other than a form of tofu, and not turkey. It may be better in every way tofu is preferable to turkey, but it's worse in every way turkey is preferable to tofu.

EDIT: To summarize my point, in case this was not clear, I consider the 4e wizard to be a tofurkey wizard.