Worst 4th Ed Class

[Jack99]

Interesting to see that concern about wizards have not only sustained their lead but increased it.

Yeah, it's interesting to see how many people are wrong on this subject

Seriously. I voted all are awesome, mostly because I thought it was an odd poll, with more than half of the choices not released yet.

However, I would say that the warlock and to a certain degree the rogue are the weakest classes. Wizard is nowhere near the bottom of my list. More like in the top 3, next to the cleric and fighter. Just goes to show how different experiences people have.

 

[Lizard]

Yeah, it's interesting to see how many people are wrong on this subject

I suspect if you think wizards suxx0rs or r0xx0rz depends on the kind of encounters you have. I'm going to bet that if you use WOTC pre-made encounters and settings, and generally play the game the developers play, you will think wizards are great. If you use different mixes or blends of monsters, or have different campaign styles than the presumed default, you will be in the wizards are inferior camp.

 

[Jack99]

I suspect if you think wizards suxx0rs or r0xx0rz depends on the kind of encounters you have. I'm going to bet that if you use WOTC pre-made encounters and settings, and generally play the game the developers play, you will think wizards are great. If you use different mixes or blends of monsters, or have different campaign styles than the presumed default, you will be in the wizards are inferior camp.

Great theory, but it doesn't apply to me. Please do note the smiley after my comment and read the rest of the post. I don't think people who think wizards suck are wrong.

For what it is worth, my campaign uses perhaps 10-30% of encounters stolen from WotC and then tweaked, and the other campaign uses 0%. In both campaigns we experience the wizard at the top of the foodchain.

 

[Cadfan]

I suspect if you think wizards suxx0rs or r0xx0rz depends on the kind of encounters you have. I'm going to bet that if you use WOTC pre-made encounters and settings, and generally play the game the developers play, you will think wizards are great. If you use different mixes or blends of monsters, or have different campaign styles than the presumed default, you will be in the wizards are inferior camp.

That's possible. I started playing 4e with WOTC modules, and I've used the general principles I learned there in my homebrew game. My battles tend to take place in large areas, with useful terrain, and tend to almost never involve just one enemy. Minions are used rarely, in the Pyramid of Shadows style, rather than heavily in the Keep on the Shadowfell. This means that no one at my table has ever typecast wizards as "minion clearers," because they're more accustomed to the wizard as the character who attacks 2+ monsters per turn while operating some sort of large, sustainable effect.

 

[Sanzuo]

I voted Wizard.

I actually haven't had a chance to play one myself. In the two games I'm involved in I'm DMing one and playing a Fighter in the other. I had one player play a Wizard in a short previous game and opted for a Warlock in the next. We have a wizard in the game I'm playing but she seems to have a difficult time optimizing in battle. (Though her own difficulties understanding the game may be a factor.)

So from an outsiders perspective the Wizards seems to be overall the least desirable class for the 15 or so players I've had experience with.

Aside from that it seems to me that while wizards have a nice mix of single and multiple target effects, they pose almost as much of a threat with their AoEs to their own party members as they do to their opponents. As a result they can't really optimally use their abilities. Some of their status effects are nice, but nothing to write home about - especially compared to some of the Warlock, Rogue and Fighter's abilities.

As an example the fighter I play in one game seems to do a suitable job as an AoE/Minion clearer when the situation calls for it, and he can even do it without risking harm to his fellow party members. With Come and Get It and it's high-tier equivilents I can potentially effect 8 opponents at once and I've got the AC, hit points and powers to withstand most retaliation. (IMO Fighters kick serious ass.)

Next time I play in a game I will play a Wizard to get the full personal experience, but I will make sure the party has a decent defender! My worry is that, until I get to paragon and have a little more flexibility with my powers, it will be difficult to use my abilities effectively. If a game consists of a lot of elite/solo encounters then I predict the wizards will be even less helpful and a warlock would be much more preferred.
--
Summary: Wizards are hindered by their own party members and lack the precision and control to use their abilities optimally.

 

[evilbob]

I suspect if you think wizards suxx0rs or r0xx0rz depends on the kind of encounters you have.

And I still think it's all dependent on whether or not you took Flaming Sphere as your level 1 daily (and Stinking Cloud as your level 5, if you made it that far).


One other thought that just occurred to me: I keep wondering why things like "hitting your own party members" keeps coming up, as I've never found this to be a problem. So I'm thinking, maybe another thing that can negatively impact someone's impression of a wizard is the old "gotta save 'em" mentality in regard to powers (perhaps brought on from playing a 3.5 wizard where you DID have to save 'em?). More specifically: if you blow your encounter and daily powers in the first round or two, you have a very high chance of a) not hitting your allies, and b) feeling extremely powerful as you turn the tide of battle before it even begins. If you save up your stuff, then you're more likely to have a harder time not hitting your buddies who are engaging the enemies, and your powers aren't going to do as much.

For those who dislike wizards: do your wizard experiences typically involve people blowing all their big shots in the first round, or do they hold back most of the time?

 

[evilbob]

Another thought: is it me, or does the "summonable monster" wizard expansion idea (that they have hinted at coming in Arcane Power) seem to follow my idea that sustained powers are the real power behind a wizard? Maybe the devs think Acid Arrow is too weak, too...

At the very least, that's another whole flavor of wizard that they'll be bringing, which should hopefully make the class more varied.

 

[Cadfan]

evilbob-

I'm a fan of wizards, but, yes. Your assumption accords with my experience. Hitting allies never seems to be a major problem for our wizard (presently level 9) because she fires off her biggest effects on the first round of battle while targeting is still relatively easy.

As for sustainable powers, we've actually learned not to overdo it. Once you have a couple of daily powers under your belt, you may want to use more than one per encounter, and that's easier if you have at least one non sustainable power. At level 1, though, a sustainable power seems awfully important.

 

[Jack99]

evilbob-

I'm a fan of wizards, but, yes. Your assumption accords with my experience. Hitting allies never seems to be a major problem for our wizard (presently level 9) because she fires off her biggest effects on the first round of battle while targeting is still relatively easy.

Having some wisdom and thunderwave and thus being able to move the opposition around a bit does help the whole "not hitting your allies" issue. Also, the FRPG feat called war wizardry is godsent. For example, our wizard only hits our fighter on a 18, when using his thunderwave. So if needed, it's a risk worth taking (at least that's what the wizard thinks - the fighter might disagree).

 

[Lizard]

Great theory, but it doesn't apply to me. Please do note the smiley after my comment and read the rest of the post. I don't think people who think wizards suck are wrong.

For what it is worth, my campaign uses perhaps 10-30% of encounters stolen from WotC and then tweaked, and the other campaign uses 0%. In both campaigns we experience the wizard at the top of the foodchain.

Well, that's why we collect data points to test a hypothesis. I based my claim on the fact that there's two areas of game design where 4e developers have said, in essence, "People are playing somewhat differently than we do/expected them to", specifically, the way skill challenges were being handled and the "whiff factor" ("to hit" bonuses are seen as less valuable than other choices in Actual Play vs. how developers played), so, I figured, why not a third? All I can say is that as of 4th (nearly 5th) level in our game (Paladin, Artificer, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard), the Wizard is consistently the least useful EXCEPT if there's minions -- and then, he's useful just until the minions go. His "battlefield control" spells are rarely a meaningful hindrance, and his direct damage is low and made worse by constantly missing. He's actually more useful OUT of combat due to a lot of knowledge skills and a high Charisma coupled with social skills -- he's our party spokesman and negotiator.