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

[Dannyalcatraz]

I thought 3e was pretty explicit about their assumption of a 4 person base party. CR is built around that assumption.

More than four sounds right for my memory of most earlier edition module suggested party number ranges. Usually something like for 5-7 characters of levels 5-7.

Modules in older editions usually did make suggestions on party size & level, but if you look over- I walked over to my shelf and did a random grab of 1Ed/2Ed modules: 4-6, 5-7, 6-8, and no suggestion as to party size (just level).

But if you're homebrewing, there isn't anything as structured as the CR system built into the game that tells you how to tailor adventures. Its mostly feel.

However, while the CR system does assume "four fresh characters (full hit points, full spells, and equipment appropriate to their levels) (MM, p7)" it does not tell you the class breakdown of those four PCs.

DMG p48
A monster's Challenge Rating (CR) tells you the level of the party for which that monster is a good challenge. A monster of CR5 is an appropriate challenge for a group of four 5th level characters. If the characters are of higher level than the monster, they get fewer XP because the monster should be easier to defeat. Likewise, if the characters are of lower level than a monster's Challenge Rating, the PCs get a greater award.

Parties with five or more members can often take on monsters with higher CRs, and parties of three or fewer are challenged by monsters with lower CRs. The game rules account for these facts by dividing the XP earned by the number of characters in the party.

IOW, while DMG's text on CR assumes 4 PCs- and the MM assumes that they may have spells (though linguistically, it may just be using that as a general stand-in for all non-gear resources of a normal party that level- spells, powers, special abilities)- it doesn't tell us the party is made up of a Warrior, Rogue, Divine Caster and Arcanist. We just assume that this is the case.

 

[pawsplay]

Why don't they have that limitless capacity?

Very few wizards of low or even mid-level can muster a credible spell of each saving throw, one damage dealing conjuration, and a credible spell of each energy type, and have slots let over to even double most of those areas. Hence, if you have one Fort spell, you get one shot... in which case a monster who can make that save 75% of the time is still a credible threat. Certainly, I've never felt the need to make main villains nigh-invulnerable, save in situatins where the PCs had the opportunity to plan in advance, such as the assault on the CR 25 dragon.

 

[Hussar]

1) /snip

2) As for the assumption of party structure, I agree that every edition has suggested/recommended that a typical party cover the 4 roles: Warrior, Rogue, Divine Caster, Arcane Caster.

However, I have never seen anywhere that the game's designers assumed that typical party size was 6 in earlier editions and 4 in the post-3Ed regime.

3) As for the actual size of our group, that was just our big group. Our other groups- really, satellite subgroups of the main one- typically had 3-6 gamers (including the DM) and the same playstyle. No difference.

I believe if you look inside those modules, you'll usually find a line that says something to the effect of "Recommended for 6-8 characters levels X to Y" Particularly in 1e modules.

For example, and I just checked, in page 3 of my Isle of Dread module, you find the following line:

The party of adventurers This module is designed for a party of 6-10 characters. Each character should be between the 3rd and 6th level of experience when the adventure begins.

I'll have to dig out my 3e DMG, but, I'm pretty sure the line is there somewhere that the assumption is 4 PC's, 1 fighter, cleric, wizard and rogue (or variations thereof).

Something I would point out here too. You're saying that you regularly had 6 encounters per day. The standard assumption is 4. That's not exactly breaking limits here. If you had 13 encounters per day, that might be different, but, you're only having 2 extra encounters per day and there could be a great many reasons for that.

 

[Votan]

Very few wizards of low or even mid-level can muster a credible spell of each saving throw, one damage dealing conjuration, and a credible spell of each energy type, and have slots let over to even double most of those areas. Hence, if you have one Fort spell, you get one shot... in which case a monster who can make that save 75% of the time is still a credible threat. Certainly, I've never felt the need to make main villains nigh-invulnerable, save in situatins where the PCs had the opportunity to plan in advance, such as the assault on the CR 25 dragon.

True. But 1E, 2E and 3E were all extremely vulnerable to a house rule that skipped memorization. While I know it is not fair to compare game baalnce in the prescence of house rules, in 4 major groups on both coasts and the mid-west over 20 years I encountered this house ruling and it really improved the power curve of wizards.

To be fair, I've run the game and played he game with memorized spells and it's possible but I see why it was annoying.

4E basically incoporates this highly popular house rule in as a balanced option with a shorter list of known spells plus a few rituals. Kind of the logical extension of the sorcerer.

 

[pawsplay]

True. But 1E, 2E and 3E were all extremely vulnerable to a house rule that skipped memorization. While I know it is not fair to compare game baalnce in the prescence of house rules, in 4 major groups on both coasts and the mid-west over 20 years I encountered this house ruling and it really improved the power curve of wizards.

Anything is extremely vulnerable to a houserule. What you are talking about is insane. I played in such a 2e game and it was insane, and I never played in another such game before or since. You might as well complain fighters are overpowered because they are easily houseruled to d20s for hit dice and all good saves.

 

[Votan]

Anything is extremely vulnerable to a houserule. What you are talking about is insane. I played in such a 2e game and it was insane, and I never played in another such game before or since. You might as well complain fighters are overpowered because they are easily houseruled to d20s for hit dice and all good saves.

It wasn't the ease of the house rule (anything can be house ruled) but rather the ubiquity. If I had not seen it in truly independent pools of players 1000's of miles apart then I wouldn't have commented.

But I wonder how much of the perceived loss of wizard power comes from this type of baseline?

I agree that a 15th level wizard, in all 3 editions, was extremely scary. But the power shift didn't seem to begin to happen until after 12 level if you adhered to memorization.

 

[pawsplay]

It wasn't the ease of the house rule (anything can be house ruled) but rather the ubiquity.

Ubiquity means present everywhere. It was not a ubiquitous house rule, just an obvious one, like "maximum hit points" or "any race can multiclass and there are no level limits" or "barbarians can use greatswords in one hand because they are so strong and mighty."

While I can't speak for anyone else, I was comparing the 3e wizard, as written, to wizards of other editions, because I have never seen a 3e wizard in play that was allowed to cast all wizard spells, or even all the spells in his book freely. It's also worth noting that prior to 3e, there was no sorcerer, so this version of "spontaneous casting" might have served some people's purposes. But seriously, such a house rule has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[Obryn]

Very few wizards of low or even mid-level can muster a credible spell of each saving throw, one damage dealing conjuration, and a credible spell of each energy type, and have slots let over to even double most of those areas. Hence, if you have one Fort spell, you get one shot... in which case a monster who can make that save 75% of the time is still a credible threat. Certainly, I've never felt the need to make main villains nigh-invulnerable, save in situatins where the PCs had the opportunity to plan in advance, such as the assault on the CR 25 dragon.

Sure, the worst-case scenario may never happen. But the simple fact is that a 3e wizard has a larger toolbox of spells available to them which target various saving throws than magic-users did in 1e/2e; a creature's saves are far more variable between "good" and "bad"; and higher-level 3e casters have an advantage over their 1e/2e counterparts in that the difficulty for higher-level foes to save versus their spells is vastly higher.

Also, I'm not really talking about low-level wizards here - though they, too, were boosted a bit in 3e, it's not as dramatic. It's mostly mid- to high-level wizardry in question here.

-O

 

[pawsplay]

In high level games, many opponents have enough HD that all their saves are boosted above the wizard's spell DCs. In both AD&D and 3e, many high level combats devolve to where only a 1 fails a save, or maybe 1 to 5 in some cases. It's very rare for a monster or NPC to have a completely soft save except through a combination of bad luck and poor planning.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

In high level games, many opponents have enough HD that all their saves are boosted above the wizard's spell DCs. In both AD&D and 3e, many high level combats devolve to where only a 1 fails a save, or maybe 1 to 5 in some cases. It's very rare for a monster or NPC to have a completely soft save except through a combination of bad luck and poor planning.

I'm not so sure about this. I'm running the Age of Worms where the PCs are all 16th level or above. I don't see the problem so much as the PCs affecting the bad guys, but more the bad guys affecting the PCs. The PCs will usually have a bad save that can be easily targeted, and some creatures have DCs so high that even a specialist saver will have trouble. This is where I see the disparity more so than the other way around with the PCs affecting the bad guys.

And in some ways, I don't think this is a bad thing. Some monsters are huge, or just incredibly dangerous and the DCs they enforce on the PCs are dire. Softening creatures up just so they are a "fair" combat challenge is not an ethos of play I like. A dragon's a dragon - and should be dangerous (to the point of if you don't want to die, don't go after the Dragon's hoard through force; use cunning instead if you dare). The idea that every creature should be able to be defeated through physical combat alone lessens the game for me.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise