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

[Herremann the Wise]

See, there's the crux of the problem. For some, it wasn't the fact that the wizard could "help the party get the job done" it was that "creative" use of spell casting got the job done full stop. The wizard didn't need the party.

...well-argued stuff...

THAT's why wizards got beaten with the nerf bat.

But couldn't they have done it in a different way that restricted the wizard's power but still allowed magic to be interpreted in terms not restricted to hit points, position and momentarily bestowed standardized conditions?

I suppose illusion spells are the real case in point here being forced into dealing hit point damage. I can appreciate using hit points as a general currency to reflect battle condition, but when Celtavian talks about the creative use of spells, this is what I'm thinking of. The subtle quirks of other spells to beat an encounter through creative use got flushed down the toilet along with the save or dies... and to me, this is a shame. In return, we can play 4e literally without referring to the rulebooks in a session but is this streamlining gone too far? Yes rules-lawyers are a pain as are the various arguments relating to rules vague in certain applications. Their complete eradication in 4e is certainly a design goal success but has the baby been thrown out with the bath water? Has the colour been taken out of The Excellent Prismatic Spray?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Nifft]

The subtle quirks of other spells to beat an encounter through creative use got flushed down the toilet along with the save or dies...

Can a single Diplomacy roll from a Warlord change a hostile army into loyal vassals?

Can a single Intimidate roll from a Barbarian cause a dragon to run away before combat starts, leaving you his hoard?

If so, I'd say you can keep Illusion and whatever other encounter-beater spells you want. If not, well... in 4e, you don't get to be a spotlight-hog. All characters have an equal opportunity to be useful in combat, and out.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Hussar]

Oh certainly they could have done it a different way.

But, even if they did do it differently, I think they would still have to restrict the wizard considerably. There were two issues IMO:

1. The wording of spell descriptions. Illusion, charm, polymorph, various transmutations, etc. These are the "creative use" spells that could very easily get out of hand. One of my favorites was the 1e Item spell which allowed you to turn a fire into a small piece of cloth that would turn back if hit hard or the command word was spoken. Barrels of oil+fire+sheep= bunination fun!

2. Casters stepping on other people's toes. This has been argued to death and I won't do it here.

Really, I don't think they could tighten the descriptions of the spells without losing the flexiblity of those spells. So, they chose tighter over looser.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Can a single Diplomacy roll from a Warlord change a hostile army into loyal vassals?

In a skill challenge, I dare say a high level Warlord could take a dominant role in making this happen.

Can a single Intimidate roll from a Barbarian cause a dragon to run away before combat starts, leaving you his hoard?

What you are trying to compare here is a single check with the casting of a single spell. Fair enough, but your examples are extreme. Turn the volume down from 11 to an encounter with a single creature that is most probably easy for the group to deal with but might use up some resources. If a party member can come up with something that quickly/intelligently/admirably defeats such an encounter thus saving the party resources - is that not something that should be rewarded. Just because it is a wizard's spell rather than a warlord's or barbarian's presence should not matter. I'm not talking about a 1st level spell that is going to single-handedly convert a hostile army or scare away a dragon from it's hoard. I'm talking about those somewhat rare occasions where a handful of different circumstances converge in a way where the clever use of a simple spell can have an imaginatively boosted effect.

If so, I'd say you can keep Illusion and whatever other encounter-beater spells you want. If not, well... in 4e, you don't get to be a spotlight-hog.

Is that really how you see it. Johnny the wizard does something clever in a particular encounter and he gets brought up before the player's judicial council for being a spotlight-hog or wanting to be a "special snowflake"? I'm not talking about the big encounter here, just the hum drum but "heh... damn that was clever" one. Having imaginative effects that don't rely on hit points, position or momentary conditions shouldn't immediately cast you as a "spotlight hog".

All characters have an equal opportunity to be useful in combat, and out.

Cheers, -- N

I suppose you could argue that a good 3.x DM responsive to his or her players and their choice of characters could achieve this without too much difficulty. I do agree that 4e has made it automatically achievable (as long as you get over the "strikers deal most of the damage and all the other roles help them do it" mentality).

My first character for 4E was a Warlord and at the time, I shifted my mind to think in terms of the party being under my umbrella - almost like a puppet-master pulling his battle strings. I maximized the effect of what everybody else was trying to do. Under these terms, I really enjoyed the character in combat. However, take Dave in our group who played the wizard to begin with. For him, it was just complete frustration that the damage he was dealing was not that effective (along with some pretty poor rolls) compared to the optimized strikers in the party (the rogue and ranger). Handling the minons was just not that much fun for him.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Nifft]

What you are trying to compare here is a single check with the casting of a single spell. Fair enough, but your examples are extreme.

Yes, they are extreme. They are exactly as extreme as any other single-action I win button. I think the only distinction is: we're used to spellcasters being the only guys who have those single-action I win buttons.

If a party member can come up with something that quickly/intelligently/admirably defeats such an encounter thus saving the party resources - is that not something that should be rewarded. Just because it is a wizard's spell rather than a warlord's or barbarian's presence should not matter.

Well, like I said above, if you allow every class to have low-resource, single-action I win buttons, triggered by the same level of cleverness, then it's fair.

Thing is, Barbarians and Warlords (... er, Marshals? White-Raven Warblades?) didn't have those single-action I win buttons. Only spellcasters got those.

So yeah. Wanting to keep spellcasters different is a sin against game balance, when this kind of different is identical to better.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Oh certainly they could have done it a different way.

But, even if they did do it differently, I think they would still have to restrict the wizard considerably. There were two issues IMO:

1. The wording of spell descriptions. Illusion, charm, polymorph, various transmutations, etc. These are the "creative use" spells that could very easily get out of hand. One of my favorites was the 1e Item spell which allowed you to turn a fire into a small piece of cloth that would turn back if hit hard or the command word was spoken. Barrels of oil+fire+sheep= bunination fun!

2. Casters stepping on other people's toes. This has been argued to death and I won't do it here.

I completely agree with you . The other factor is that 3.x wizard's get their spells off too easily with minimal chance of disruption.

Really, I don't think they could tighten the descriptions of the spells without losing the flexiblity of those spells. So, they chose tighter over looser.

Yes. Anything that might need DM interpretation was removed. It was a solution and I suppose a successful one. I would have liked a different solution but how to do it? Oh well.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[FireLance]

Can a single Diplomacy roll from a Warlord change a hostile army into loyal vassals?

Can a single Intimidate roll from a Barbarian cause a dragon to run away before combat starts, leaving you his hoard?

If so, I'd say you can keep Illusion and whatever other encounter-beater spells you want. If not, well... in 4e, you don't get to be a spotlight-hog. All characters have an equal opportunity to be useful in combat, and out.

Now that you mention it, I wonder how feasible it would be to allow three separate feats or at-will utility powers to allow a wizard (or any other character with training in Arcana and the Ritual Caster feat) to use an Arcana check in place of a Diplomacy check (Charm), a Bluff check (Illusion), or an Intimidate check (Fear) to simulate the use of mind-affecting magic without entirely stepping on the toes of other characters.

 

[Nifft]

Now that you mention it, I wonder how feasible it would be to allow three separate feats or at-will utility powers to allow a wizard (or any other character with training in Arcana and the Ritual Caster feat) to use an Arcana check in place of a Diplomacy check (Charm), a Bluff check (Illusion), or an Intimidate check (Fear) to simulate the use of mind-affecting magic without entirely stepping on the toes of other characters.

Arcane Mumbling (Arcana utility power from that Dragon article on skill powers). Does something with Intimidate, IIRC.

There were also some cool, versatile utilities in Arcane Power for Wizards, at least some of which had both a combat application and a social skill challenge application.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Yes, they are extreme. They are exactly as extreme as any other single-action I win button.

I disagree with what you're saying. A button refers to the action (in this case being an ingeniously used spell) being automatic, easy to use and simple. I'm talking about a small encounter defeating action, ingeniously used under a very particular set of circumstances - not some easily repeated recipe and very far from an "I-win" button. Can you see why players who enjoyed the imaginitive (and not necessarily super powerful I beat everyone at their own game) style wizard get a little unenthusiastic about popping off minions, shifting combatants around and imposing some easily removed condition on enemies? There's not much magical about it in comparison is there?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[FireLance]

Arcane Mumbling (Arcana utility power from that Dragon article on skill powers). Does something with Intimidate, IIRC.

Just checked it out: it's a 2nd-level encounter utility power that allows you to use an Arcana check in place of a Bluff, Diplomacy or Intimidate check. I wouldn't have a problem with the player flavoring it as casting a Charm, Illusion or Fear spell, though. I guess 4e encourages a different kind of creativity: creativity in description or flavoring, rather than creativity in effect (and arguably, the former is easier to balance ).