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

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sure, such players exist. But they're enough of an outlier that a core part of the system cannot afford to cater to them at the expense of other uses.

You're the pro- I'm not going to argue that you're not- but are there actual stats to back you up?

I'm not being snarky here.

Its just that my personal experience as a gamer since 1977 simply doesn't jibe with that assertion- besides me and my buddy, the majority of the guys & gals I've played D&D with in the past 32 years (in Colorado, Kansas, and Texas) have been perfectly capable of self-restraint in combat. As I've said to Hussar in several other threads- I have NEVER seen the "15 minute workday" in my years of D&D, and a lot of that is because of that patient playstyle.

I have to wonder if certain design decisions were made because of assumptions about the predominant playstyle within the game that may not be justified.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Its just that my personal experience as a gamer since 1977 simply doesn't jibe with that assertion- besides me and my buddy, the majority of the guys & gals I've played D&D with in the past 32 years have been perfectly capable of self-restraint in combat.

I have no doubt that lots of people are capable of it.

Where my questioning comes in is, how many people would have chosen it?

Obviously, there's no way for either of us to answer that, since we're getting into the realm of hypotheticals and guesses on other people's motivations. But my own experience--and my understanding of the average person--is that people prefer to be able to decide for themselves on this sort of thing.

So a class that lets you choose whether you want to play a conservative, "I only act every few rounds" type is going to have a wider appeal than a class that forces you to play that type.

And no, you can't just say "Well, they shouldn't play a wizard then." Wizards are too much of a fantasy archetype to restrict them to what is--IME, and apparently judging by WotC's research--a relative minority playstyle.

My first 4E character was a rogue. And there were times where I spent several rounds just moving, to position myself for the perfect sneak attack, even though it might've been more mathematically sound for me to spend those rounds attacking even without SA damage. And I enjoyed doing it.

But I enjoyed it because I chose to do it. If I'd been forced, if (for whatever reason) I was incapable of contributing meaningfully without first maneuvering for position, I'd never have played the class.

I played wizards, a lot, in 2E and 3E. And I enjoyed the experience. But I enjoyed it in spite of the fact that there were times I just couldn't meaningfully contribute (especially at low levels), not because of that fact.

I have to wonder if certain design decisions were made because of assumptions about the predominant playstyle within the game that may not be justified.

I have no access to WotC's research, and I certainly won't claim that their design decisions are infallible. But I do know that they have such research, and I trust that, for the most part, they have a strong sense of what the majority of their market is looking for.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

And you still wind up with the same problem, although not to the same level. If the wizard "save up" all his good stuff until the opportune moment, and then--due to the penalties he incurs--it fails utterly, I think even the most patient of players is going to be frustrated.

A wizard does not have to only save up the big stuff, why not save up the OK reliable stuff too (thus being effective but not a scene stealer so to speak against the big guy). Or possibly saving that one spell cracker as a last roll of the dice, all or nothing TPK or Victory spell that saves everyone's bacon... or not. I'm not seeing much frustration here unless a wizard psychotically tries overstretching themselves (in which case he is tempting fate and most likely losing and deservedly so).

Or you wind up with the wizard's companions handling all the "minor" fights, and the wizard hogging all the glory against the main villains.

Sometimes the wizard will "win" versus the big guy, or they will "lose" and the rest of the party will have to pick up the slack, or the wizard can be mister reliable contributing and letting the Barbarian/Rogue/Cleric win the gold instead. Each approach and result seems fair to me and not skewed too far in the wizard's favour.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Mouseferatu]

A wizard does not have to only save up the big stuff, why not save up the OK reliable stuff too (thus being effective but not a scene stealer so to speak against the big guy).

So what's he doing in the other fights? If he's saving all the big and all the "okay" stuff, he's losing the chance to shine--or even contribute meaningfully--before the big fight. And once again, you have a wizard who's spending lots of his time doing nothing of consequence.

Sometimes the wizard will "win" versus the big guy...

And you really don't see how that's a problem? Giving one class the chance to completely short-circuit the dramatic final encounter without the other players being able to contribute is not good design. It only works in a game where everyone agrees from the get-go to accept that as a possibility--which once again takes me back to the "optional rule" comment. It's fine for some groups, but it's not a good thing to build into the core system.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So a class that lets you choose whether you want to play a conservative, "I only act every few rounds" type is going to have a wider appeal than a class that forces you to play that type.

Again, this is counter to what I'm observing.

IME, its the warrior and other non-caster classes that force you act nearly every round of combat. If/when the warriors sheathe their swords or the rogues elect not to flank...well, things are going to go south very, very quickly.

But our parties do just fine when the casters hold fire after just a couple of rounds of action.

And if what you say were true, those non-casting classes- forced to act every round- should be the minority of PCs observed in our campaigns...and they simply aren't.

I think what is really going on is that the controlling factor as to who must act when is their proportion within a given party. IOW, if a party is comprised of 3 warriors, a rogue a cleric and a mage, the party can win if one of the "soloists" elects (for whatever reason) to hold actions, but if the warriors take a holiday, its going to be a TPK.

OTOH, if a party is built along the lines that Hussar suggested upthread, with 3 full-caster arcanists, a rogue, a warrior, and a cleric, that party will be killed if those arcanists don't do something each time they have the opportunity. The inaction of the rogue, the warrior or the cleric for one combat won't matter much.

 

[pawsplay]

Variation does make characters interesting. I find the classes in 4E to be quite varied. Just because they use the same basic progression doesn't make them identical.

No, of course not. Conversely, even the most varied 3e characters are not as varied as, say, Batman and Superman.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Again, this is counter to what I'm observing.

IME, its the warrior and other non-caster classes that force you act nearly every round of combat. If/when the warriors sheathe their swords or the rogues elect not to flank...well, things are going to go south very, very quickly.

Well, as I said above, I've played rogues who were inclined to spend rounds in positioning themselves, and I've seen fighters do the same, so I wouldn't say the melee types are "forced" to do anything.

Of course, I'd also suggest that even if true, being forced to do something every round is still not nearly as limiting, or unattractive to most people, as being forced to do nothing in some rounds.

But mostly, I think we've reached the point of "dueling anecdotes." So I don't see this getting us much further.

 

[Inyssius]

And if what you say were true, those non-casting classes- forced to act every round- should be the minority of PCs observed in our campaigns...and they simply aren't.

I can't speak for that specific paragraph, but unless I've misread both him and Herremann, that is Mouseferatu's entire point in this thread. In the majority, people like to be effective all the time. People who often prefer waiting to be effective are a minority, and people who prefer needing to wait to actualize their full potential are in such small number that they aren't really worth marketing to.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, as I said above, I've played rogues who were inclined to spend rounds in positioning themselves, and I've seen fighters do the same, so I wouldn't say the melee types are "forced" to do anything.

But that IS doing something in combat- you're trying to gain a positional advantage that should contribute to success in combat. That's sound combat strategy.

And that's conceptually no different than holding an action: holding a reserve, be it large scale like an army or small scale in a party; be it a warrior guarding the rear or a wizard holding off on casting- is all sound strategy that contributes to the success of the party as a whole. No good commander commits his entire force to a fight until he has no option.

Of course, I'd also suggest that even if true, being forced to do something every round is still not nearly as limiting, or unattractive to most people, as being forced to do nothing in some rounds.

And now I'm confused- in what way has anyone suggested that someone is being forced to do nothing?

The nearest I can see is that I've suggested that choosing to do nothing is sometimes the superior option.

Its akin to Feat selection. Some feats are objectively better or worse than others, but AFAIK, nobody is forced to choose them. (I've often chosen "suboptimal" feats because it was appropriate to the PC in question.)

But IMHO, the inclusion of "suboptimal" feats in 3.X was part of the charm.

 

[pawsplay]

I never saw Wizards or other spellcasters stand around and do nothing in 3E to the degree they did so in 1E/2E and was described earlier in this thread. Even at 1st level, a 3E Wizard could have three level 1 spells without breaking a sweat. By level 3, a Wizard could have 7 spells to cast in 3E.

I really would not expect to see a 1st level wizard blow all three spells in one combat.

I don't see the previous editions Wizard as being an issue. Its specifically the 3E Wizard that was the problem. I played 2E for years, and have no beef with the 2E Wizard.

The 2e wizard was so similar to the 3e wizard as to be virtually indistinguishable, from their spell list to their gear. You could probably take an AD&D wizard, recalculate their AC, BAB, and saves, and drop them into a 3e game converting everything else on the fly. I just do not agree that changes in 3e completely changed their playstyle. Daily spells in 3e were still limited. Wizards in 2e were capable of keeping their distance and casting relatively fast spells without interruption. Wizards in AD&D could largely pick their main spells, and wizards in Basic D&D could learn every wizard spell in the game. You can argue all you like, but you have this: A guy, in robes, possibly wearing bracers, with a dagger or staff, who casts some spells throughout a combat but not every round.

While I can certainly imagine you feel the 3e is too much changed, I do not think a sizeable percentage of people who reviewed both classes in the book as well as in play would agree they were very different or the 3e version was completely over the top because all of its weaknesses had been removed.