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

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

Ok lets see some examples...

Here I will start...I remember a wizard useing Invisability on a door to then cast spells through it un harmed...

I remember a wizard useing the shrink item spell to shrink bolders, then drop them onto people as cloth then say the command word

I remember contingent spell heal casters becomeing little more then suciside bombers...

in 2e I remember banking lightning bolts, and crative area fireballs, and I remember there was some trick with feather fall being used as a weapon but I can't for the life of me remeber how....

 

[Nifft]

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.

Spells are easy to use in 3.x
Spells are fire-and-forget.
Spells do work reliably.

What exactly is your quibble with the word "button"?

I'm talking about a small encounter defeating action

Right. A single action that defeats a whole encounter, which was intended to challenge the whole party.

Granted, 3.x was not great in that regard, since traps could also be counted as "encounters", and those were designed such that only specific niche PCs had anything to do (... except spellcasters, of course: Clerics can find traps, Druids can stone shape them inoperative).

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?

You can do the imaginative stuff as any class, and you can do it at any time, and you can do it in any game. (In Exalted, there's even a codified mechanic for it, because everyone is expected to be relentlessly imaginative, every action, no exceptions, no stopping for tea.)

4e didn't take away your ability to be imaginative.
It did take away your ability to win whole encounters with a single action.
You'll just have to slog through the mud with the rest of us mortals.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

4e didn't take away your ability to be imaginative.
It did take away your ability to win whole encounters with a single action.
You'll just have to slog through the mud with the rest of us mortals.

Cheers, -- N

(emphasis mine)

4Ed did put some constraints on what you can do, which, as anyone who is a truly creative person knows, may force you to be more creative to reach a certain goal.

However, the problem lies with that bolded sentence, because its true. And because its true, it means that- for some of us- the Wizard has literally and figuratively lost some of his magic. Thus, some of the class' appeal has been lost.

There were other ways to balance the Mages without tearing away their magesty.

 

[AllisterH]

A 4e wizard can be wickedly powerful, but it requires the player to be able to best utilize the ritual system. By the time you hit high heroic, low paragon, you should be using rituals left right and center to affect the world.

 

[Hussar]

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.

I can totally see that. To me, the reason that the decision was made that way was to standardize play across tables in order to make RPGA play much more accessable. I know, it's my tin foil hat conspiracy theory, but, its the only one I can come up with that explains why they made the decisions they did. They don't want that degree of flexibility in the game because that degree of flex doesn't work for RPGA style play.

Heck, most of the spell nerfs that saw their way into 3e (polymorph being a very obvious one) came by way of the RPGA.

I think those who like the way things were changed in 4e probably played close to the way the RPGA played anyway, even if they never participated.

 

[MrGrenadine]

A 4e wizard can be wickedly powerful, but it requires the player to be able to best utilize the ritual system. By the time you hit high heroic, low paragon, you should be using rituals left right and center to affect the world.

Sure, if you have a spare 10 minutes to cast...per ritual.

 

[Garthanos]

Even 1E/2E catered to wizard players that liked to come up with interesting ways to help the party get the job done.

I recall them coming up with uninteresting ways to make the rest of the party ... unnecessary... hmmm different game play.

 

[Garthanos]

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.

Oh I see you said it with more detail etc... I might as well just read

 

[Garthanos]

There were other ways to balance the Mages without tearing away their magesty.

Majesty you should have used the real spelling... kingship ... better than everyone else godhood.

 

[MrGrenadine]

I recall them coming up with uninteresting ways to make the rest of the party ... unnecessary... hmmm different game play.

Thats unfortunate, but could be more the fault of selfish gameplay, poor RP, and absentee DMing than a problem thats intrinsic in the system.

In other words, just because a system can be gamed, doesn't mean it has to be--thats up to the group and the DM to decide together.

And like I said before, I guess I got lucky, because the spell users I've played and played with never took the place of other party members. Everyone had their moment(s) in the spotlight, as it should be.