Wizards, nerfed or not?

[Ed_Laprade]

First off, I've never played 4e, so I'm only asking.

In previous editions Wizards were nerfed at lower levels and mega powerful at higher ones. In 4e they're still the easiest to kill (when on their own) at first level, and their spells aren't that much better than anyone else's abilities. But it stays that way as they gain levels.

So, even though 4e Wizards are way better at 1st level than they used to be, are they still the red headed stepchild? And how does that effect them as they gain in levels?

Just curious.

 

[Cadfan]

The short review of wizards in 4e: they're more balanced now at all levels. But people don't like them because 1. their damage is lower than it used to be because the game assumes that you will hit multiple targets with your area effect spells and thereby do multiple damage, and 2. they're a "controller" class, which means they're supposed to inflict penalties, but they tend to do a little more damage and a little less control than other "controller" classes.

 

[phloog]

It's obvious from your post that you didn't intend this, but when I see terms like 'nerfed' I normally figure there's an edition war coming.

My opinion is that 'nerfed' is a relative term. Comparing 3.x to 4th, it seems like wizards were made MORE powerful in terms of damage output, survivability, status as a valid combatant, etc.

Where I see a great deal more weakness is the transfer of 'utility' spells into rituals usable by anyone...which for me is the biggest issue with wizards in 4e. Whether people consider this an improvement or not, I think it's fairly hard to argue that they haven't lost a great deal in terms of BREADTH of ability.

 

[llamatron2000]

If anything, 4e wizards are more survivable than their 3e predecessors. In 4e, a wizard can easily qualify for armor proficiency feats with no penalties to casting, and most people who play wizards, from what I've seen, tend to pile on the constitution, making them excellent staff mages(staves are the defensive implement option, giving extra AC).

In general, wizards lose most of their magical powers that allowed them to circumvent problems or skill checks. These require skills, or rituals in order to do that now.

In general, wizards make powerful artillery pieces who specialize in downing hordes of little guys or nailing single big guys with status effects(if properly specc'ed), and their daily powers are nothing short of DRAMATIC. Flaming sphere and sleep are among the most popular, and every combat in which I've seen FS used in was a losing fight that got turned into a win due to the sphere's influence.

The 4e wizard. He's not master of the arcane and all that title entails. He's a guy who fights with magic. Depending on the setting, it's assumed that crazy 3e wizards may exist, but mostly as NPC's. After all, adventuring wizards don't have time to understand theory behind complex spells as well as scholarly types. They're too busy figuring out ways to shunt magical energy into new ways of blowing stuff up(and maybe a few rituals, too)

 

[FourthBear]

It's actually quite a tricky proposition. Every 4e wizard has access to magic that has no limit to daily use, both at will and per encounter. The typical mid-to-high level 3e wizard can have access to spellbooks filled with many spells from all the sources that years core and sourcebooks have provided. Further, many of these 3e spells are quite a bit more powerful than their 4e counterparts, such as the various save-or-lose, shapechanging, mind-controlling, invisibility, scrying and teleportation spells.

Rituals are available to the 4e wizard, however these rituals can be learned by any PC with the appropriate feat and now cost time and money (often to prevent stepping on skills).

However, a mid-to-high level 3e wizard is likely to find that more of his opponents have high saves, spell resistance or resistance/immunities to his spells. Wizards in 4e don't need to worry about spell resistance and resistances/immunities are less prevalent, both with monsters and humanoids. Many useful buffing spells are available to the 3e wizard, but also to his opponents as he goes up in level. In many 3e modules, common tactics for higher level enemies involves casting spell resistance, spell turning, mind blank and similar magics to counteract the save-or-lose spells.

 

[Remathilis]

To answer, the OP question: somewhat.

Wizards gained some longevity (at-wills, encounter-powers) and versatility (cantrips, spellbooks, rituals) at the expense of raw power (game-breaking spells and massive damage effects.) This creates the illusion that the wizard is actually weaker than his 3.x self, but in the right hands he's much more viable.

The trick to it is NOT to compare what an X level wizard in 3.0 and 4e can do, since 4e is designed to stretch over more levels and effects have been rebalanced to account for the new power structure. So while a 6th level 4e wizard can't fly (16th level power), he can teleport short distances (something only a 7th level 3e wizard could do).

The other thing is that spellcasters (like wizards and druids and clerics) are no longer swiss-army knives of various effects. Wizards are much more focused in their powers. Wizards still can blow away foes with balls of flame, but they are also adept at slowing, crippling, and incapacitating foes. To supplement their power is non-combat rituals. A wizard is no longer equal parts necromancer/illusionist/evoker/summoner, new classes will eventually fill those spots.

Having played one (abit briefly) I found them a lot of fun, if for no other reason than using my at-wills creatively (such as mage hand or ghost sound) and not having to cast my one-big spell, then resort to a crossbow.

So I generally like them, but like most of 4e its a radical change from the d4-HD fire-n-forget casters of yore.

 

[Ahglock]

They are probably the weakest class in the game now, so yeah I'd say they are nerfed. They are more balanced than they were at 3e, if you were using the spellcasters in 3e to there fullest. So, they probably needed a nerf, or at least they needed some serious loop hole, unintended consequences nerfing, but they probably got nerfed too far.

 

[Mistwell]

They are probably the weakest class in the game now, so yeah I'd say they are nerfed. They are more balanced than they were at 3e, if you were using the spellcasters in 3e to there fullest. So, they probably needed a nerf, or at least they needed some serious loop hole, unintended consequences nerfing, but they probably got nerfed too far.

It always amazes me when I see someone claim that Wizards are weak, much less "the weakest". So I am tempted to ask why you think that. Have you played one? Because they sure seem mighty powerful in my experience.

 

[yesnomu]

They are probably the weakest class in the game now, so yeah I'd say they are nerfed. They are more balanced than they were at 3e, if you were using the spellcasters in 3e to there fullest. So, they probably needed a nerf, or at least they needed some serious loop hole, unintended consequences nerfing, but they probably got nerfed too far.

They got rabbit-punched with the nerf glove from 3.5, that's certain, but I'm not sure they qualify as weakest. They appear to do more damage than the Druid or Invoker early on at least, going by role-comparison. They also definitely throw around the nastiest status effects of the PHB classes, from 1-30.

Totally anecdotal, but I've played wizards in two different games, and both times I was a pretty decisive force. So, my point is that they don't have to feel weak, regardless of how they actually are.

 

[fba827]

I have seen two wizards in our groups (one was a wizard I DMed for in my campaign and one was a wizard I played along side of in another campaign).

In both cases, the wizards have been as effective as anyone else in our "typical" battles.

They also have several skills that also key off their primary stats so they can usually excel exceptional at whatever skills they take (such as for monster knowledge or other skill checks). It's hard for me to remember a time that one of our wizards wanted to know something about the monsters and actually failed a monster knowledge check.

And if we're fighting minions they wipe the floor before anyone else can even get in to position.

Sure, they can not take out any non-minion in a single attack - in fact, when it comes to single target damage they are on the low end comparatively... but that's because that's not their forte. They can damage multiple targets at once making it that much easier for several targets to go down the next round. If you're looking for single-target damage them you're probably looking for something to fit the striker role (maybe a warlock, just change the flavor).

They have their weaknesses, they have their strengths. If your group's encounters always focus on their weaknesses (like single enemy big elite solo battles) then the wizard will appear weak. If the group's encounters always have swarms of minions then the wizard will seem like a god. Just have to realize what roles you have the party and mix it up so that everyone has a chance to shine.

Other roles have their own strength and weakness factors for encounters (like strikers are weaker against lurkers but great against brutes, and so on).

Anyway, that's just my take based on how I've seen them played in our group. Your mileage may vary.