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

[Mort]

As am I.



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.

Speaking of resource management - One of the biggest changes to the Wizard between 1e/2e and 3x (and imo probably the biggest contributor to 3x wizards power) hasn't been mentioned. In a "standard" game 3x wizards have extraordinarily easy access to scrolls and wands compared to prior edditions(yes they cost money and xp but a very minor amount compared to the benefit gained).

This means a 3x wizard rarely has to memorize knock, invisibility, protection from evil, tongues, teleport and a meriad of other useful spells. IME this is what took the wizard from a merely strong class to one that towered above non-casters (and to a lesser degree above spontaneous casters).

A 4e wizard has access to scrolls too - in the form of rituals, but the cost and casting time is a significant balancing facter (If the rogue can pick the lock in under a minute whereas the wizard takes 10 minutes has to spend money, and looks ridiculously conspicuous for those 10 minutes, there is actually a benefit to letting the rogue do it).

 

[nightwyrm]

This isn't directly on the D&D topic, but an offshoot of Danny's post, having played M:TG prior to playing D&D and then reading this.

It hadn't occurred to me until now, but that would have been an excellent concept, in my opinion. As much as I hate negative effects, adding some of the countering elements from Magic would be interesting. Heck, add spells to the game which simply dangled a sword above the Wizard's head. Such as a spell that places a curse on the target, causing them to suffer damage equal to the level of every spell cast for a certain length of time, causing the wizard to think about whether he WANTS to cast a spell.

Wow, one night of sleep and this thread grew by 2 pages.

Before 3e, a lot of spells had negative effects. Haste ages everyone by a year. Polymorph et al all requires system shock rolls. Heck, old school fireball and lightning bolt were dangerous to use in confined spaces.

I think if WotC had learned anything from MtG is that a large number of players (expecially more casual players) hates disruption. They hate not being able to play out their game and hate "not doing anything". You bring a heavy disruption deck (permission, land destruction, discard etc.) into in the casual room on MTGO and people will hate you. Those disruption decks were often beatable but they were not fun to play against. They take 20 turns to kill you but you aren't allowed to do anything in those 20 turns.

You can call those casual players scrubs or whatever. But WotC knows that those scrubs are the ones who pays their salary.

 

[billd91]

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

Some of these issues are, actually, pretty minor. Bonus spells, for example, are a fairly small speed-bump in the differences between 1e and 3e. Spell resistance isn't all that different from 1e (though it's pretty different from 2e with SR not affected by caster level at all). And I rarely saw a wizard player unable to obtain most of the spells he wanted in 1e or 2e.

Disruptability is one of the biggest differences in the game as the rules are written, but then I've rarely seen a game in which the 1e spellcasting initiative rules were ever strictly used. I've seen bigger differences between 2e and 3e games over spellcasting interruption, largely because those initiative rules were a lot clearer and easier to use. The big issue I see is that of pre-emptive disruption. Injure the caster before his turn and he couldn't cast. Catching him mid-cast was unnecessary before - but made necessary in 3e. That makes catching him in the act much harder.

The difference in saving throws is an interesting one, and a positive one for the most part in the base design. Any problems I've seen with them are more associated with point-buy build mentalities rather than rolling and with magic item creation making it too easy (and too dominant a strategy) to bump wizard offenses over non-wizard defenses.

 

[nightwyrm]

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.

Blah, Gandalf should've just mass teleported everyone into Mount Doom.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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

It's a reimagining of what the end of LoTR might have been like if it had been based on 3.x (though I suppose I did forget to include a cleric- Elrond?). After that Gandalf teleports over to Mt Doom and they drop the Ring in, (Frodo kills Gollum with an sneak attack of opportunity when Gollum lunges for the Ring). Many parties ignore the Razing of the Shire because the CR is too low to offer the heroes xp.

 

[nightwyrm]

It's a reimagining of what the end of LoTR might have been like if it had been based on 3.x (though I suppose I did forget to include a cleric- Elrond?). After that Gandalf teleports over to Mt Doom and they drop the Ring in, (Frodo kills Gollum with an sneak attack of opportunity when Gollum lunges for the Ring). Many parties ignore the Razing of the Shire because the CR is too low to offer the heroes xp.

That sounds pretty awesome.

 

[rjdafoe]

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.

Then pick a Sorcerer. Wizards have changed. Wizards are generalists, the other arcane spellcasters are specialists and do other things better.

Wizards are not the do anything you want class anymore. They are more focused in 4E. They can do a bunch of stuff still, but if you want better damage, you need a arcane striker.

 

[Obryn]

Some of these issues are, actually, pretty minor. Bonus spells, for example, are a fairly small speed-bump in the differences between 1e and 3e.

Really? I kinda think it's defining. In 3e, you can cast battle-defining spells much more often, and still have room left for a good, solid end-of-day nova. In 1e, you were a lot more limited.

Spell resistance isn't all that different from 1e (though it's pretty different from 2e with SR not affected by caster level at all). And I rarely saw a wizard player unable to obtain most of the spells he wanted in 1e or 2e.

My experience disagrees, as far as 1e goes. Even with a rare 18 Intelligence, you'd miss 3 out of 20 spells. With a more-realistic 16 or 17, you'd miss more. Lots of folks didn't use these rules, mind you - but they're part of the system, so I think they have to be included in any discussion of it.

Disruptability is one of the biggest differences in the game as the rules are written, but then I've rarely seen a game in which the 1e spellcasting initiative rules were ever strictly used.

OK. I use them, and the folks I was talking with while planning my 1e game use them. They actually work pretty well. Yes, there are a few different ways to interpret them, but a core element is that spellcasting is slow and you need to cover yourself before doing it.

The difference in saving throws is an interesting one, and a positive one for the most part in the base design. Any problems I've seen with them are more associated with point-buy build mentalities rather than rolling and with magic item creation making it too easy (and too dominant a strategy) to bump wizard offenses over non-wizard defenses.

I don't like the differences in saving throws for basically the same reason I don't like the differences in bonus spells. For both clerics and wizards, it makes single-stat stacking absolutely insane.

Also, importantly, high-level 1e wizards facing high-level opponents could still easily have their spells saved against - opponent saves are usually fairly stable, and don't vary more than a few points from one another.

Not so in 3e, where a high-level presumably-buffed wizard only needs to target the appropriate defense to win. Target the big brutes with Will or Reflex, and you seldom (if ever) miss. It's like rock-paper-scissors where you already know what the other guy is throwing.

-O

 

[Celebrim]

The difference in saving throws is an interesting one, and a positive one for the most part in the base design. Any problems I've seen with them are more associated with point-buy build mentalities rather than rolling and with magic item creation making it too easy (and too dominant a strategy) to bump wizard offenses over non-wizard defenses.

I think you are both missing where the saving throws change the most between 1st edition and 3rd edition.

In 1st edition, a 1st level character was not expected to make his saving throws. A 1st level character asked to make a saving throw would probably die. The odds of success were generally minimal, and often 16's or 17's were required. But, by the time the character obtained 12th level (or 17th level), the situation had changed radically. With a combination of magical defences and vastly improved saves, the high level character was expected to make most every saving throw, with characters often needing only 3's or 4's in every category to successfully save.

By way of contrast, in 3e, a 1st level character will probably make most or at least many of his saves versus level appropriate challenges. Generally, with a DC of around 12 or 13 and a bonus on the save of +2 to +6, the character can expect to make his save most of the time. Moreover, because of changes in the rules, most of the saves he faces at this level won't be the 'save or die' sort that a 1st level 1e character would face against a venomous spider or yellow mold. But, by the time the character obtains 12th level or 20th level, this situation has changed radically. Despite magical defences and somewhat impoved saves, the increased DC of 'level appropriate challenges' vastly outstrips the ability of the character to keep up. It's not at all unusual to see DC's of saves in the high 20's or even low 30's versus high level challenges, which means that the high level character - at least in the case of his 'poor saves' must be utterly optimized in his defenses and even then may face needing to roll a 16 or 17 to save. And, not only that, but he finds himself now facing true 'save or die' threats.

The result is that just as high level wizards are getting the ability to produce save or die threats, the targets of these threats are losing the ability to defend against them. Between increasing ability scores and increasing spell level and other bonuses (and rapidly inflating HD in the case of monsters), the ability to increase DC outstrips the ability to increase your saving throw bonuses. What this results in is something rarely seen in 1e. In 1e, faced with having to blow through spell resistance and a strong saving throw, wizards rarely relied on 'save or die' as their primary attack. Instead, they relied on damage dealing evocations that weren't capped by level and still did half damage on a save. But in 3rd edition, with capped damage dealing evocations, much higher hit point totals in monsters, and much easier 'save or die' attacks, high level 3e very quickly became a matter not merely of 'who loses their saving throw first', but of having in place before hand the right absolute defences (mindblack, freedom of action, death ward, hero's feast etc.) Since non-mages didn't have access to these absolute defences, they were generally helpless without mage support.

This was absolutely degenerate, especially if you allowed access to the full range of degeneracy available in the form of unbalancing PrCs and ill-thought out feats.

 

[Garthanos]

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.

His character in 4e would be able to be much more of a wizard starting out.. there is advancement and versatility yeah rituals are cool ... but no cataclismic advancement or realizing you now outshine everyone when you where outshined before (so no boom payload)... your abilities in combat are kind of distinct to you and mowing down minions is the specialty of Wizards... (if you only use phb you are the only one who specializes in this) there is no longer a need to make up for sucking for a long time... some of the games ummm broken builds are indeed wizard and the sorceror is a real damage dishing and movement machine(easier to play and feels powerful right away)... heck warlocks have some really cool style and have that "I am harder to play feel" but if I do it right I can be effective going down. Arcane power has some really nice stuff for arcanists (like a feat to make their spells areas of effect bigger and this makes them feel more wizardly for me). As a DM I love minions they are designed to make everyone feel cool but especially the Wizard!!! so using plenty of them can make the Wizard feel like a real go to dude. (there are certain tweaks that I find make minions more interesting... but even out of the box they are very nice for just this purpose).

You probably wont be able to convince him of anything... but I played AD&D wizards (a lot at low levels) and for me.. being able to play even low level wizards (but especially when you hit paragon level) in 4e is a real payoff in itself... though I DM most of the time... grr.