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

[Byronic]

Your friend is right, the Arcane classes are now one of the weakest in the game when before they were some of the strongest (I'm not counting any of the Power books since I haven't read them fully).

You wouldn't be able to convince him... unless of course you showed him the epic destiny that specialises in Rituals. And even then it's iffy. they just aren't magical anymore.

 

[avin]

3E casters were unbalanced. When my friends (usually the powergamers) QQ about how 4E Wizards became "weaklings" I remember them how many times people were reading comic books and talking about other stuff when they nuke every combat.

The solid complaining point, I think, it's their loss of that out of combat utility spells which long time casting Rituals don't replace properly.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Your friend is right, the Arcane classes are now one of the weakest in the game when before they were some of the strongest (I'm not counting any of the Power books since I haven't read them fully).

You wouldn't be able to convince him... unless of course you showed him the epic destiny that specialises in Rituals. And even then it's iffy. they just aren't magical anymore.

Arcane is one of the weakest? Orb of Imposition is one of the weakest? The sorcerer, with his striker bonus to AoE damage, is one of the weakest? Maybe it's just me, but I'm just not seeing the weakness of arcane...

I won't argue against the fact that casters were brought down from 3.x. They definitely were. IMO, they needed to be for the game to have any true sense of balance. I don't see arcane as being a weak power source at all though.

 

[billd91]

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.

But why does the dramatic final encounter have to be everyone effectively ganging up on the opponents and beating them down... like every other fight you've had to that point? That's part of the charm of powerful magic - sometimes it's really effective, sometimes it's not, and it sometimes saves you from round after round of combat.

 

[Fanaelialae]

But why does the dramatic final encounter have to be everyone effectively ganging up on the opponents and beating them down... like every other fight you've had to that point? That's part of the charm of powerful magic - sometimes it's really effective, sometimes it's not, and it sometimes saves you from round after round of combat.

Perhaps because if Aragorn, Frodo, Gimli, and Gandalf all sacrificed and struggled to reach Sauron's inner sanctum, it's really anti-climactic for Gandalf to strike the Dark Lord down with a single spell and a nat 1, before Sauron can even act.

Everyone (presumably) worked hard to get to the dramatic encounter and everyone ought to get a share of the fun and glory. It's a team game after all.

 

[billd91]

Perhaps because if Aragorn, Frodo, Gimli, and Gandalf all sacrificed and struggled to reach Sauron's inner sanctum, it's really anti-climactic for Gandalf to strike the Dark Lord down with a single spell and a nat 1, before Sauron can even act.

Everyone (presumably) worked hard to get to the dramatic encounter and everyone ought to get a share of the fun and glory. It's a team game after all.

I'm not sure I'd find that anti-climactic. I'd be willing to bet the gaming group would be talking about that fight years later because the results really stand out. Can people say the same about all their knock-down, drag out, attrition-based fights against BBEGs?

It is a team game, sure. But what kind of team game is it? It used to be more like baseball. PCs did their job to advance the team, but did so in fairly different ways. A good DM would make sure everyone got their time at the plate - some classes were better at knocking it out of the park, but others consistently got on base. Now, it's a lot more like football without a passing game - everyone's participating at the snap but all plays are designed for short to moderate yard gains.

 

[TerraDave]

A fast growing thread with a lot of posts, so I will summarize

Pre 3E play: Varried masively across groups, with magic items, party size and composition, play style, and DM adjudication making, well, massive differences.

Pre 3E Wizards: Were balanced by weak defenses and few spells (known and casting) at low levels, and monster immunities, magic resistance, and absolutist saving throws at higher levels. Basicly he evolved from the brittlest glass cannon to a much more robust charecter that frequantly ran into oponents that his big bad spells might not do much against. But also see my first point.

The 4E wizard at low levels: Is just so much better then all past wizards it is not even funny. He is more everything and then some. Ok, some spells miss. But then he just casts it again and again. And he can live!

4E wizard fire power and versatility: Has this declined in a relative sense? You would hope so. Do wizards need rituals and their cantrips to retain their versatility-yes. Are things in supplements (illusion magic, summoning, familiars) that should have been core-yes. Does the sorcerer or druid seem better in some ways-yes. But wizards still have some of the best dailies and with the right player can feel quite potent.

Magical: Wizards still got more then anyone else, and more then ever before. But my feeling this is more about perceptions and roleplaying then mechanics.

 

[Obryn]

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.

My recent 2e experience is minimal, but I have a lot of recent 1e experience. So I'll talk about that.

The 3e wizard and the 1e wizard have somewhat similar playstyles, but the 3e wizard has more power in just about every case. Bonus spells for the 3e wizard are one of the biggest differences. Larger spellbooks for 3e wizards are another, along with free choice of spells with no chance of failure to learn.

On a less mechanical note, the 3e wizard also has a much vaster library of spells available... The 1e wizard is fairly limited, on the other hand.

There's spell disruption, too - it's a gigantic factor in 1e. A 1e wizard casting a high-level spell needs to be very, very careful, because any hit will disrupt him. A 3e wizard just needs the Concentration skill to cast defensively and will never risk disruption in practice.

Spell saves are very different, too - in 1e, they're based only on the class and level of the target. In 3e, they're based on the (probably maxed + buffed) ability scores of the caster and the spell level. And spell resistance in 3e is, IME, much, much weaker with feats like Spell Penetration picking up the slack.

Also, the 1e wizard couldn't use a crossbow. Or wear any kind of armor, and risk spell failure chances. OTOH, they could throw three darts every round, which I suppose is a perk!

-O

 

[vagabundo]

Perhaps because if Aragorn, Frodo, Gimli, and Gandalf all sacrificed and struggled to reach Sauron's inner sanctum, it's really anti-climactic for Gandalf to strike the Dark Lord down with a single spell and a nat 1, before Sauron can even act.

Everyone (presumably) worked hard to get to the dramatic encounter and everyone ought to get a share of the fun and glory. It's a team game after all.

What version of Tolkien's work did you read????

 

[Melkor]

These two statements seem rather contradictory. Either your friend liked "olden days" wizards because of the high-level rewards for surviving the lower levels, or he's bitter because he never got to see those rewards. But not both, surely?

To clarify, he liked the fact that you had to struggle, and claw your way to higher levels, before you would get the 'payoff'. We never played a campaign past 11th or 12th level, so while he liked the concept, he never achieved that super 'payoff'.

So now, he's kind of bitter that he never obtained the payoff, and now we are considering switching to 4E, and with everything being 'balanced', and in his opinion, spellcasters being 'neutered', he thinks he won't ever see that payoff.

Like I said, I have never seen 4E past 3rd level, but I have a feeling that high-level spellcasters in the new edition are none too shabby when it comes to what they can do.