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

[Mouseferatu]

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.

Right, but the difference is, I chose to do that. Had I wanted to just make constant attacks every round, I could have. What I'm discussing is choice.

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

In a system where a wizard has only a tiny number of very powerful spells, he's effectively "forced" to do nothing--or at least nothing meaningful--part of the time. In your case, you talk about a player who prefers to dole out his spells carefully, only a couple per combat. While that's his choice in one respect, in the other it's something forced on him--because he wasn't that careful, he'd wind up without any spells at all in a later combat.

Like I keep saying, there's nothing wrong with that playstyle. But a version of class X that lets people choose whether to go with that style, or go with something more active, is by definition going to have wider appeal than a version of class X than only supports one.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

And my assertion is that Mouseferatu's definition of "effective" is a bit narrow.

My buddy's Wizard play is sound, not just from a gameplay standpoint, but also from a RW military standpoint. He has a certain amount of power that he brings to the conflict, commits a certain amount and holds a certain amount in reserve...just in case he's misread the situation and hasn't accounted for all of the opponents he's got to face.

Sometimes, "being effective" means being patient.

They aren't "waiting to be effective"- they are being effective by waiting.

Look at the history of RW conflict, and you'll find that many conflicts were lost because one side or the other over-committed to action and had nothing left in reserve when the tide of battle changed.

 

[Mouseferatu]

And my assertion is that Mouseferatu's definition of "effective" is a bit narrow.

Fair enough. Mine is that your definition isn't shared by the majority of players, and doesn't take into account that we're playing a game.

IME, the average player wants to have a tangible effect. He wants to be doing something. The fact that his mere presence may be a benefit to a military tactician doesn't change the fact that, during several rounds of combat--many minutes of real time and many die-rolls--he's not doing anything.

Again, yes, there will be those happy with playing that way, but I don't believe the majority would be.

(This leaving aside the question of whether the wizard is actually "being effective by waiting," which I think is pure semantics and not actually accurate, but honestly, I have no interest in delving into it.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Right, but the difference is, I chose to do that. Had I wanted to just make constant attacks every round, I could have. What I'm discussing is choice.

As am I.

In a system where a wizard has only a tiny number of very powerful spells, he's effectively "forced" to do nothing--or at least nothing meaningful--part of the time. In your case, you talk about a player who prefers to dole out his spells carefully, only a couple per combat. While that's his choice in one respect, in the other it's something forced on him--because he wasn't that careful, he'd wind up without any spells at all in a later combat.

Its called resource management, and its a part of any conflict. The archer with 20 arrows makes the same kind of decisions.

Its just magnified in D&D because the foe around the corner may just be a Pit Fiend.

Which, BTW, is why he also makes sure his PC upgrades his weapons from time to time, just like the warriors and rogues. No 6th level spells? No problem- eat bolts from his Brilliant Energy Crossbow!

Like I keep saying, there's nothing wrong with that playstyle. But a version of class X that lets people choose whether to go with that style, or go with something more active, is by definition going to have wider appeal than a version of class X than only supports one.

As I read 4Ed- indeed, as I believe you yourself posted earlier in this thread- this kind of resource management has not disappeared, its just shifted to a different mechanical part of the game. The difference is that instead of it being a caster's top couple of levels of spells (3.X), its whether the party has any of their Daily powers and Healing surges left.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

(This leaving aside the question of whether the wizard is actually "being effective by waiting," which I think is pure semantics and not actually accurate, but honestly, I have no interest in delving into it.)

Feel free not to delve- but I'll say this anyway: our parties tend to go 5+ combats between rests, and my buddy's Wizard will usually still have spells to burn at the end of that stretch.

Which means that even as the party is resting, he is not defenseless.

Which means that if we are attacked while resting, we have a decent chance of fending off the attack.

I'd call that effective.

(And just to be 100% clear- I'm not trying to harangue Mouseferatu or anyone else...I'm just...I guess I'm railing against an assertion that I've seen many times in the past few years that simply doesn't in any way resemble my decades in D&D. So don't take any of my posts personally, anyone. If my posts seem to have an edge, chalk it up to the evils of my being a lawyer. )

 

[Mouseferatu]

Its called resource management, and its a part of any conflict. The archer with 20 arrows makes the same kind of decisions.

We're back to dueling anecdotes, then, because in all my years of gaming, through every edition, I think I only ever met one DM who actually made the PCs count ammunition.

Which, BTW, is why he also makes sure his PC upgrades his weapons from time to time, just like the warriors and rogues. No 6th level spells? No problem- eat bolts from his Brilliant Energy Crossbow!

Of course, he wasn't going to hit that often with it...

As I read 4Ed- indeed, as I believe you yourself posted earlier in this thread- this kind of resource management has not disappeared, its just shifted to a different mechanical part of the game.

Well, yeah. I'm not arguing for the elimination of resource management.

Feel free not to delve- but I'll say this anyway: our parties tend to go 5+ combats between rests, and my buddy's Wizard will usually still have spells to burn at the end of that stretch.

Fair enough. Now consider two aspects of the reverse.

How many other resources did the party burn--ammunition (if you're counting that), healing spells, hit points, disposable magic items or charges, or other types of damage like ability drain--because your buddy didn't hurl some of those spells earlier?

And in how many rounds of combat did he accomplish nothing of note, other to save those spells for later--when they arguably didn't do him any good?

I think that's a definition of "effective" that could be argued. On the one hand, it's always nice to have a reserve. On the other, any spell wizards in prior editions had left at the end of the day was something they could have accomplished in combat, and didn't.

This is a game that needs to appeal to a wide base of players. Some people enjoy the resource management more than other stuff, sure. But I'm willing to all but guarantee you that your average player, standing around for several rounds and not casting spells just so he might have something to fall back on later, is going to feel like he's not getting to play his wizard to full effectiveness.

So again, I say a class build that lets you choose is better than one than forces a level of caution or hoarding of resources so intense that you wind up doing nothing--or resorting to your crossbow --for a significant portion of combat.

As far as resource management... The difference is that, using healing surges and daily powers, you're still at high effectiveness until you're completely out. Dailies are cool, but you can forge ahead without them. Healing surges are vital, but you don't fight more poorly without them.

In prior editions, a wizard's resource management also mandated his ability to do anything. If he's out of expendable resources, he's out of spells. He's reduced to an archer with a crappy BAB.

As I said, I'm not arguing for the removal of resource management. I'm just suggesting that a system where running low isn't the same as being almost helpless might be reasonably said to have a broader appeal, and contribute to people feeling more effective/productive more of the time.

 

[Mouseferatu]

And just in case I haven't said it enough already...

I'd be tickled pink if WotC began publishing optional systems that added some of this back in, for those who want it. I'd love to see rules for spell-casters built differently, where they have more powerful spells but limited access to them. I think it's difficult--borderline impossible--to balance with the existing system, and there's no way around some of the "swing" problems I mentioned. But for groups who know that going in, sure, give them the toys they want to play with.

But to do that, you need the firmly balanced baseline from which to work. And for that, you need classes that have roughly the same resources, and roughly the same economy of actions, and roughly the same opportunities to go "nova."

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'll also admit that, even understanding all the arguments, part of me still misses old-edition wizards. I got a kick out of trying to figure out if I could use the spells I'd prepared that day in a given situation, and trying to figure out how best to do so. And yes, I enjoyed occasionally going nova and shoving magic down the villain's throat.

None of that changes the fact that I absolutely understand why the changes that were made, were made. I said when I first came into the thread that I don't know if might've been a better option. Maybe, maybe not. But I understand why something was necessary. And most of the time, I'm quite content playing the new version of the wizard.

Just, for the occasional times I'm not--and assuming the rest of my group agreed--I'd love those aforementioned optional rules for my own use, not just to pacify you guys.

 

[Marshall]

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.

No. Its the third least unpopular class. IIRC, the results were markedly different when asked "Whats your favorite class?" and dropping the lowest vote getter in each round.

 

[Jack99]

No. Its the third least unpopular class. IIRC, the results were markedly different when asked "Whats your favorite class?" and dropping the lowest vote getter in each round.

Yeah, I realized the first time someone mentioned it that you just didn't understand that it effectively amounts to the same. Which is that despite the wizard having undergone a massive nerf, a lot of people do not hate it more than everything else.