Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 4976418" data-attributes="member: 15538">The last time I played AD&D, I was a 4th level abjurer. I remember that my character was able to use flaming sphere to help the party's javelin specialist annihilate a troll in, I think, three rounds, without any party member sustaining damage. I am telling this story for two reasons. First, to point out that pre-3e wizards were not a bunch of sad little beggars grubbing for magic wands; if all you had to rely on was your spells, it was rough, but a well placed spell could really save the party's bacon. Second, I'd like to point out that the javelin specialist did the bulk of the damage. My wizard's contribution was to supply a source of fire damage the troll could not regenerate and to hamper the troll's movement options. A 3e wizard knows probably twice as many spells as an AD&D wizard, but I don't think it makes that much of a difference, because he can't cast twice as many in a day, much less in a combat or two. 3e did several things that did increase the power of the wizard. First, spells had fewer drawbacks, fewer weird requirements, chances for disasterous failure, and so forth. Second, a few more spells a day does make a difference. Third, not having to check for chance to know spell did increase AD&D wizard customizability (but not Basic D&D wizards). However, the wizard got stuck with the same hit die, while damage and hp overall went up. Uncapping Con bonus to hp and allowing unlimited hit dice (instead of 10 HD) evened the playing field somewhat, but the 3e wizard is still pretty fragile.Despite some upgrades, some of which I would consider bland and unwelcome, the 3e wizard remains very similar to the AD&D wizard. In fact, the rogue and fighter have changed more, with the fighter increasing not simply proficiencies and combat options but gaining access to multiple numeric bonuses and easier acess to damaging magic items. The rogue gained more rapidly scaling damage and a generally improved reliability with skills. Anyone who has played vampire or Hero or any of a number of games that are not D&D understands that "class balance" is a dream of a dream, not something you can put in a sack and weigh. Obviously, the classes need somewhat balanced capabilities, but a fighter does not need the abiliy to warp reality any more than a wizard needs the capability to pepper a giant to death with thrown weapons or wrestle a bugbear. In 3e, the fighter remains a noble ally to the wizard. In Pathfinder, both classes remain much the same. At the end of the day, the measure of a class is its ability to meaningfully contribute. A wizard is quite powerful, but two wizards are not necessarily more powerful than a wizard and a fighter, and is likely less in many contexts. 4e's solution to the identified of problem of wizards holding all the good utility spells was to spread them around. The thing about rituals is... if you have a wizard in the party, who would be a ritualist besides the wizard? The supposed innovation comes right back to the same mechanic, the wizard doing the scrying and teleporting and whatnot. I don't think 4e hit the mark on rescaling the wizard without affecting the wizard's style. I think 4e's core design probably contributed. Bottom line: wizards used to conserve their spells, keep a dagger handy, and occasionally go kaboom. If you preferred the original playstyle, the wizard is gone.</blockquote>

Verification