Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="thecasualoblivion" data-source="post: 4976429" data-attributes="member: 59096">One thing people always forget about when talking about 1E/2E and 3E is the difference in pacing. 3E is a much slower running game, both overall and in terms of combat than 1E/2E. In addition to having a few extra spells thanks to bonus spells for high stats, the 3E Wizard usually had to face fewer challenges between rest periods thanks to the slower pace of the game. The Wizard was theoretically balanced by assuming it would have to face X amount of combats between rests, but the slow pace of the game made a shorter day much more common. This powered up the Wizard as much as anything else.What you speak of is a matter of perception. Its not what was added to Wizards, or that what they could do was changed. What changed about Wizards was the removal of the majority of their weaknesses and drawbacks. Its not as obvious to the eye as the additions to Fighters and Rogues, but it had a much greater impact on actual play.I hear this excuse a lot, and it never really addresses the fact that 3E was unbalanced in practice to a greater degree than pretty much any commonly played system. The solution is that there are other classes who can Ritual in the absence of the Wizard. The Wizard's presence is far from mandatory. As much as Rituals are necessary, the Bard, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Invoker, Psion, or anyone with the feat can perform them. 4E frees you up to skip having a Wizard altogether.Indeed. Its a shame that playstyle caused as much problems as it did and had to be set aside. At least people who prefer it that way still have the old edition.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="thecasualoblivion, post: 4976429, member: 59096"] One thing people always forget about when talking about 1E/2E and 3E is the difference in pacing. 3E is a much slower running game, both overall and in terms of combat than 1E/2E. In addition to having a few extra spells thanks to bonus spells for high stats, the 3E Wizard usually had to face fewer challenges between rest periods thanks to the slower pace of the game. The Wizard was theoretically balanced by assuming it would have to face X amount of combats between rests, but the slow pace of the game made a shorter day much more common. This powered up the Wizard as much as anything else. What you speak of is a matter of perception. Its not what was added to Wizards, or that what they could do was changed. What changed about Wizards was the removal of the majority of their weaknesses and drawbacks. Its not as obvious to the eye as the additions to Fighters and Rogues, but it had a much greater impact on actual play. I hear this excuse a lot, and it never really addresses the fact that 3E was unbalanced in practice to a greater degree than pretty much any commonly played system. The solution is that there are other classes who can Ritual in the [b]absence[/b] of the Wizard. The Wizard's presence is far from mandatory. As much as Rituals are necessary, the Bard, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Invoker, Psion, or anyone with the feat can perform them. 4E frees you up to skip having a Wizard altogether. Indeed. Its a shame that playstyle caused as much problems as it did and had to be set aside. At least people who prefer it that way still have the old edition. [/QUOTE]

Verification