PDA

View Full Version : D&D Wizards from different editions compairisons... Your thoughts?



wolfstone
2013-11-20, 01:50 PM
Okay, I'm going to kick the hornet's nest on this one...

I've been playing 4th Ed. and am using a Wizard (mage-variation), but with 5th Ed. on the horizon and people online compairing 5th ed. to 2 thru 3.5 Ed.s, I've gotten some of the 3.0 and 3.5 Ed. books to learn how the Wizard class was played then (I already owned 2nd Ed. books, but played it rarely and never played 3.0 or 3.5).

Besides the use of powers in 4th, the wizard feels like a much different class in the 3s, what with what seems like a lower number of combat spells and the concentration mechanic (which I honestly don't like very much), but they seem to be able to use more spells per day than a 4th Ed. Wizard.Also, the 3s lack a grid layout for battlefields and some spell AoEs seem to have odd dimensions (cones primarily, to me at least), making ranges and AoEs sound much more complicated to figure out (math was always my worst subject :P )

So, if you wanted to play a wizard and were given a choice of edition to play him in, which edition would you choose, and why?

Also, how does the 5th Ed. Wizard play in compairison (for those who've had a chance to playtest)?

Urpriest
2013-11-20, 01:54 PM
3e and 3.5 did have grid layouts. Rather than spells being squares or whatnot, they were complicated templates that were often printed in the backs of DMGs and the like.

Edit: Also, remember, 3e wizards didn't get encounters or at-wills. Those spells are their full daily allotment of actions, not just of dailies.

Gavran
2013-11-20, 02:07 PM
My non-4E system knowledge is largely hearsay, but afaik I'd stick with 4E. I really dislike Vancian magic.

Khedrac
2013-11-20, 02:12 PM
I'd be tempted to go with Master set D&D. The actual list of spells known is very limited (12 of each level in the main rules + a few others in expansions) so the question becomes how cleverly you can use your spells, not can you find the spell that solves the problem.
All that said, it is over 25 years since I played a B/E/C/M wizard so my memory of how it actually plays is very rusty...

Ravens_cry
2013-11-20, 03:23 PM
1st edition AD&D wizards are very fragile. See, any damage taken makes you lose a spell. No 'Concentration check', you just lost it. You were also very squishy, even at high level.
Also, spells were pretty loosely written, so a lot of DM adjudication was needed.

Garimeth
2013-11-20, 03:41 PM
TBH, I like the 5e wiz.

1. At-will cantrips, to include some damaging spells. Lets the wiz feel arcane, keeps him from having to lug around the xbow.

2. Semi-vancian slots. I say semi, because they are there, but you have less spells prepared and per day than 3.5, that said....you can freely cast between what you have prepared (similar to the spontaneous CLW that clerics got in 3.5) and you have at-wills so the effect of a 5mwd is reduced.

3. Interesting specializations. No generalist, you must specialize, and it actually means something. At 20 a evoker can at will fireball - earlier on they can exempt targets in an aoe from the effects of their spells. A illusionist can make his illusions real.

Full disclosure though, I did not really like 4e. But, I liked PARTS of it.

13th Age is what I wish 4e had been.

Scow2
2013-11-20, 03:44 PM
TBH, I like the 5e wiz.

1. At-will cantrips, to include some damaging spells. Lets the wiz feel arcane, keeps him from having to lug around the xbow.

2. Semi-vancian slots. I say semi, because they are there, but you have less spells prepared and per day than 3.5, that said....you can freely cast between what you have prepared (similar to the spontaneous CLW that clerics got in 3.5) and you have at-wills so the effect of a 5mwd is reduced.

3. Interesting specializations. No generalist, you must specialize, and it actually means something. At 20 a evoker can at will fireball - earlier on they can exempt targets in an aoe from the effects of their spells. A illusionist can make his illusions real.

Full disclosure though, I did not really like 4e. But, I liked PARTS of it.

13th Age is what I wish 4e had been.
While they have fewer spell-slots per day, they also have ways to recover those spell slots as well. At least the low-level ones. It gives the wizards more staying power while limiting their ability to Nova.

Garimeth
2013-11-20, 04:18 PM
While they have fewer spell-slots per day, they also have ways to recover those spell slots as well. At least the low-level ones. It gives the wizards more staying power while limiting their ability to Nova.

I totally forgot to include that. I like that too. I like the 5e wizard. I think 5e in general strikes a nice balance between several of the old editions of D&D. Though in the current packet, fighter is just ridiculously powerful imo.

wolfstone
2013-11-20, 05:00 PM
I've been reading the 3.0 Ed. Player's Handbook and I have to say that spellcasting in it is both rediculously complicated and (to me) nearly unusable, esp. for player with a tendency to have horrible die rools most of the time (me again :-/ ). I have to say that the much simpler combat system for 4th Ed. works much better for spellcasters. Just roll vs. a specific stat on the targets and hit or miss, then done unless they can make a saving throw to end effects on them. If 5th Ed. plays like 3rd for spellcasters, then I won't bother investing in it.

Garimeth
2013-11-20, 05:10 PM
I've been reading the 3.0 Ed. Player's Handbook and I have to say that spellcasting in it is both rediculously complicated and (to me) nearly unusable, esp. for player with a tendency to have horrible die rools most of the time (me again :-/ ). I have to say that the much simpler combat system for 4th Ed. works much better for spellcasters. Just roll vs. a specific stat on the targets and hit or miss, then done unless they can make a saving throw to end effects on them. If 5th Ed. plays like 3rd for spellcasters, then I won't bother investing in it.

It is a combination of both systems. Roll a "charisma save" type thing, but the spells are less complicated than 3.5. You could always just have the caster roll an attack vs. charisma instead. My players make their saves most of the time. Also there are not really things like save or die spells.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-11-20, 05:35 PM
I've been reading the 3.0 Ed. Player's Handbook and I have to say that spellcasting in it is both rediculously complicated and (to me) nearly unusable, esp. for player with a tendency to have horrible die rools most of the time (me again :-/ ). I have to say that the much simpler combat system for 4th Ed. works much better for spellcasters. Just roll vs. a specific stat on the targets and hit or miss, then done unless they can make a saving throw to end effects on them. If 5th Ed. plays like 3rd for spellcasters, then I won't bother investing in it.

Pre-4e spells work exactly the same way as 4e powers as far as "just roll something and it works or not" is concerned, except that it's the target rolling a saving throw vs. a static DC rather than the wizard rolling an attack vs. a static defense. Saving for half or partial effect is just like having "Hit: Deal full damage; Miss: Deal half damage" or whatever in a 4e power. In fact, that system can be simpler in practice because durations are fixed instead of needing the target to roll a 4e-style saving throw every round at different points during a round, and if you have terrible luck with dice rolling it's great because you are hardly rolling any dice.

And spellcasting in general isn't very complicated at all in the majority of cases; just imagine a 4e wizard with only daily powers, and it works mostly like that. Determining when you can use a spell isn't too hard--casting provokes an attack of opportunity just like an Area or Ranged power in 4e, if you're hit while casting you need to roll a Concentration check or lose the spell, and you can't cast spells if you can't speak or move freely. Spell resistance is something that doesn't exist in 4e as such, but having both a save and an SR roll is no more complex or time-consuming than powers that require you to make a primary and then a secondary attack roll or the like.

What in particular do you find too complex about pre-4e spellcasting?

FabulousFizban
2013-11-20, 06:24 PM
I totally forgot to include that. I like that too. I like the 5e wizard. I think 5e in general strikes a nice balance between several of the old editions of D&D. Though in the current packet, fighter is just ridiculously powerful imo.

What makes the fighter OP? I stopped paying attention to the playtests early this year. I love what I've seen of 5th so far, but don't know what has been happening lately.

Garimeth
2013-11-20, 06:46 PM
What makes the fighter OP? I stopped paying attention to the playtests early this year. I love what I've seen of 5th so far, but don't know what has been happening lately.

In the latest packet he is the only class to get three attacks a round, the only class that can increase its crit range permanently, gets a free "heal" up to 1/2 health via second wind, and also can do one action surge for a second round of actions.

Now I think all of these are cool, but yeah the end result is a really powerful fighter, which I like, but... in my group the fighter out performs the other classes, except druid. Other playgroups may have a different experience though. TBH I kinda stopped really playtesting it when 13th Age came out.

windgate
2013-11-20, 07:18 PM
In the latest packet he is the only class to get three attacks a round, the only class that can increase its crit range permanently, gets a free "heal" up to 1/2 health via second wind, and also can do one action surge for a second round of actions.

Now I think all of these are cool, but yeah the end result is a really powerful fighter, which I like, but... in my group the fighter out performs the other classes, except druid. Other playgroups may have a different experience though. TBH I kinda stopped really playtesting it when 13th Age came out.

Curiosity Question..

"fighters scale linearly, wizards scale quadratically"

I heard that phrase a lot about pre-4e. Is that the same for 5e?

At what stage does the fighter get all the traits you mentioned. Is he front loaded too much, or does he progressively get more stuff as he levels (while the casters get more spell slots)

wolfstone
2013-11-20, 08:23 PM
Pre-4e spells work exactly the same way as 4e powers as far as "just roll something and it works or not" is concerned, except that it's the target rolling a saving throw vs. a static DC rather than the wizard rolling an attack vs. a static defense. Saving for half or partial effect is just like having "Hit: Deal full damage; Miss: Deal half damage" or whatever in a 4e power. In fact, that system can be simpler in practice because durations are fixed instead of needing the target to roll a 4e-style saving throw every round at different points during a round, and if you have terrible luck with dice rolling it's great because you are hardly rolling any dice.

And spellcasting in general isn't very complicated at all in the majority of cases; just imagine a 4e wizard with only daily powers, and it works mostly like that. Determining when you can use a spell isn't too hard--casting provokes an attack of opportunity just like an Area or Ranged power in 4e, if you're hit while casting you need to roll a Concentration check or lose the spell, and you can't cast spells if you can't speak or move freely. Spell resistance is something that doesn't exist in 4e as such, but having both a save and an SR roll is no more complex or time-consuming than powers that require you to make a primary and then a secondary attack roll or the like.

What in particular do you find too complex about pre-4e spellcasting?

The need for 'components' and the 'concentration' mechanics. Also, if I understand correctly, the higher the spell's level, the harder it is to roll against for concentration, making for a higher chance of the spell failing. Then there's the poor stat upgrade system (only 1 point to a single score every 5 levels? come on...) It seems like they did everything they could to make spells as hard to pull off as possible. 4th edition sounds much better to me, but as I've never played either of the 3s, all I can go off of is what's in the book, and it all sounds like the odds are intentionally against spellcasting as much as possible, making melee characters sound like the only really workable classes of the 3s.

Urpriest
2013-11-20, 08:28 PM
In fact, that system can be simpler in practice because durations are fixed

Actually, this is a bit false. Durations in 3.5 lack tend to lack explicit language about when they go off. Figuring out whether a duration of n rounds ends during your turn, or your opponent's, is something you really have to dig around for. By contrast, in 4e durations are always fixed: it either specifies till the beginning of turn or end of turn, and it specifies whose turn it means.

That or, yeah, save-ends. But a minority of 4e powers (except, again, dailies) are save-ends.


The need for 'components' and the 'concentration' mechanics. Also, if I understand correctly, the higher the spell's level, the harder it is to roll against for concentration, making for a higher chance of the spell failing. Then there's the poor stat upgrade system (only 1 point to a single score every 5 levels? come on...) It seems like they did everything they could to make spells as hard to pull off as possible. 4th edition sounds much better to me, but as I've never played either of the 3s, all I can go off of is what's in the book, and it all sounds like the odds are intentionally against spellcasting as much as possible, making melee characters sound like the only really workable classes of the 3s.

Actually, 3.5 stats got much higher than 4e ones. You're neglecting that in 3.5, magic items existed to increase stats, and these were the most common magic items (especially for casters). So think about stats with an extra +2/+4/+6 for key stats spread out over the 20 levels.

It's more complicated, yeah, but it's not hard to make the DCs. Also, remember, Concentration is a skill, and just like in 4e skills scale with level.

wolfstone
2013-11-20, 08:54 PM
Actually, this is a bit false. Durations in 3.5 lack tend to lack explicit language about when they go off. Figuring out whether a duration of n rounds ends during your turn, or your opponent's, is something you really have to dig around for. By contrast, in 4e durations are always fixed: it either specifies till the beginning of turn or end of turn, and it specifies whose turn it means.

That or, yeah, save-ends. But a minority of 4e powers (except, again, dailies) are save-ends.



Actually, 3.5 stats got much higher than 4e ones. You're neglecting that in 3.5, magic items existed to increase stats, and these were the most common magic items (especially for casters). So think about stats with an extra +2/+4/+6 for key stats spread out over the 20 levels.

It's more complicated, yeah, but it's not hard to make the DCs. Also, remember, Concentration is a skill, and just like in 4e skills scale with level.

I'm basing this off of what I'm reading in the 3.0 Ed. PHB, not the 3.5 one. I'm still on the last 2 chapters of the 3.0 PHB (the ones about using magic).

Scow2
2013-11-20, 09:05 PM
First off - Concentration checks tend to be laughably easy to pull off. A level 1 Wizard starts with a +6 to concentration checks, and it only goes up from there.

Also, concentration checks aren't often called for - only if you're in an unusual circumstance are they ever an issue.

Components are largely flavor, and are only relevant in specific, obvious circumstances.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-11-20, 09:58 PM
The need for 'components'

As mentioned, the verbal and somatic components only ever matter if someone is trying to shut down the wizard; they provide a mechanical and flavor method to disable, arrest, etc. a wizard without killing them, by silencing them, cuffing them, or the like. Inexpensive material components only matter if your spell component pouch is removed, which is again a "disable casting without killing the wizard" mechanic. Expensive material and focus components exist in 4e in the form of ritual costs, so that's no different.

So essentially, if you play things like 4e (which assumes you always have your necessary gear and only uses rituals out of combat), you can ignore the component system entirely.


and the 'concentration' mechanics. Also, if I understand correctly, the higher the spell's level, the harder it is to roll against for concentration, making for a higher chance of the spell failing.

Not exactly. To expand on what Scow2 said, a wizard gains access to a new spell level every 2 levels; in those 2 levels, he can gain 2 ranks of Concentration, so for each +1 to the DC of his current highest-level spell he gets +2 to the check. This means that while it's harder to keep a higher-level spell than a lower-level spell in absolute terms, it actually becomes easier to avoid losing any spells as you gain levels.


Then there's the poor stat upgrade system (only 1 point to a single score every 5 levels? come on...)

First off, it's every 4 levels, though that doesn't make too much of a difference. Secondly, as Urpriest mentioned, 3e has stat-boosting items, so most characters end up with a +6 item for their main stats and a +2 or +4 to their secondary stats depending on how many stats they needed, and on top of that there are consumable items that grant a +1 to +5 to a score as well; by 20th level this can result in a total of +7 to 2-3 stats or up to +16 to one stat if you focus everything on it, and that's if you don't take advantage of the many ways to boost multiple stats (templates with +12 in miscellaneous stat boosts, monstrous races, belts of magnificence for +2/4/6 to all stats, etc.).

4e's total of +24 points to your stats was actually an attempt to rein in stat growth from pre-4e levels; by 4th level when you get +1 to two different scores, a pre-4e character can expect +1 to one score at 4th level and a +2 item (which can stack with that +1 from levels), more if you have an item crafter in the party.


it all sounds like the odds are intentionally against spellcasting as much as possible, making melee characters sound like the only really workable classes of the 3s.

Completely the other way around, actually. Spellcasters are incredibly powerful pre-4e, and the impediments to spellcasting are there to balance them as opposed to punish them. Whether those balancing mechanics work very well is up to debate (generally speaking, they do in AD&D, and they do in 3e but they can be worked around to the point where they don't), but spellcasters end up more effective than martial types in the long run.

This isn't very obvious if you're just reading the books, because at early levels martial characters can be on par with if not slightly better than casters overall, and if you tend towards the 4e-style "arcane casters blast, divine characters heal" playstyle (which is the stereotype for AD&D but was far from mandatory, given the illusionist, 2e specialty priests, etc.) then the casters are probably going to turn out on the weaker side. That's because playing a caster well requires more creativity and lateral thinking to be effective (or, these days, just reading optimization guides...kids these days don't know how easy they have it :smallwink:), so there's a fairly large gap between a basic blaster and an illusionist/summoner/necromancer/etc. Whether you like that dynamic is up to taste; I prefer the lateral thinking to the blasting, myself.


Actually, this is a bit false. Durations in 3.5 lack tend to lack explicit language about when they go off. Figuring out whether a duration of n rounds ends during your turn, or your opponent's, is something you really have to dig around for. By contrast, in 4e durations are always fixed: it either specifies till the beginning of turn or end of turn, and it specifies whose turn it means.

That or, yeah, save-ends. But a minority of 4e powers (except, again, dailies) are save-ends.

I was referring to the fact that 4e powers can have a duration of save ends, beginning of your turn, end of your turn, beginning of target's turn, end of target's turn, and possibly other durations I'm not thinking of. If a party has a bunch of powers with different durations, then resolving them in multiple "end of duration" phases can get fiddly and annoying.

Meanwhile, 3e durations always end right before your turn starts (which isn't that hard to find, I don't think; everything from multi-round casting times and Power Attack in the PHB to boost durations in ToB specify that they end right before your next turn, though I guess "full-round action" and "one round" could be confused), so you only ever have to check that at one point.

Sure, it's a small difference, but when you have 10 characters on the field with one or two buffs/debuffs on each, it can be a noticeably time sink.


I'm basing this off of what I'm reading in the 3.0 Ed. PHB, not the 3.5 one. I'm still on the last 2 chapters of the 3.0 PHB (the ones about using magic).

Before 4e, magic items are in the Dungeon Master's Guide, along with things like disease and poison rules, followers, and other things that are either complex or aren't always known to or under the control of the PCs, so if you want to get a good sense of the game you should read the DMG and MM1 once you're finished with the PHB. Just reading the PHB, as opposed to reading the core 3 books and actually playing the game, can give you a quite skewed view of things, just as it does with 4e.

Nizaris
2013-11-20, 10:37 PM
Curiosity Question..

"fighters scale linearly, wizards scale quadratically"

I heard that phrase a lot about pre-4e. Is that the same for 5e?

At what stage does the fighter get all the traits you mentioned. Is he front loaded too much, or does he progressively get more stuff as he levels (while the casters get more spell slots)

From my experience with 5e, all the classes seem to be more linear. The Fighter just happens to have a larger slope and may start a few points above on the graph that pretty much every other class. People also seem to always forget the 3rd extra attack Fighters gain as a cap-stone. That makes 4 without dual-wielding, bonus attack feats, or spell buffs from a caster. Add in Defy death which can pretty much make you borderline immortal except to HP threshold as a DC 15 Con save (level 9) (you have a +1-6 and advantage to Con saves {after 13} as a Fighter) and the most stat increases (7) and you'll see that the Fighter has a very steep slope. I get that they want to make Fighters not suck but the joke of an all cleric/wizard/druid party in 3.0 and 3.5 is starting to skew towards an all Fighter party.

Since my background is only 3.0 and on, I have to say the 4e Wizard (Mage) was the best iteration in 4th but the 5e Mage (Wizard) is my preferred. I do laugh that the names and sub-names swapped. Limited potion and scroll creation baked in and specialization actually making a difference really sells me on the 5e Wizard. It make Illusionists awesome. Unlimited Major Illusion (which needs a buff as it's pretty much just a longer lasting Minor Illusion that takes concentration) that you can make semi-real opens up a lot of interesting combat options. Need a cage or barrier? No problem. Bridge to cross a gap? Go for it. Evokers can take Arcane Archer and literally rain fire down fire onto their enemies.

Add in cantrips that can deal damage (though I would like the damage to scale to only 3 die and Magic Missile to converted into one as well) and Ritual casting of utility spells and it makes for a good Wizard that's balanced, useful, and less likely to completely be Batman. Sure some spells *cough*Wish*cough* still need some tweaking but I just like the class's progression and actual class features other than "I get more spells"

wolfstone
2013-11-20, 10:40 PM
As mentioned, the verbal and somatic components only ever matter if someone is trying to shut down the wizard; they provide a mechanical and flavor method to disable, arrest, etc. a wizard without killing them, by silencing them, cuffing them, or the like. Inexpensive material components only matter if your spell component pouch is removed, which is again a "disable casting without killing the wizard" mechanic. Expensive material and focus components exist in 4e in the form of ritual costs, so that's no different.

So essentially, if you play things like 4e (which assumes you always have your necessary gear and only uses rituals out of combat), you can ignore the component system entirely.



Not exactly. To expand on what Scow2 said, a wizard gains access to a new spell level every 2 levels; in those 2 levels, he can gain 2 ranks of Concentration, so for each +1 to the DC of his current highest-level spell he gets +2 to the check. This means that while it's harder to keep a higher-level spell than a lower-level spell in absolute terms, it actually becomes easier to avoid losing any spells as you gain levels.



First off, it's every 4 levels, though that doesn't make too much of a difference. Secondly, as Urpriest mentioned, 3e has stat-boosting items, so most characters end up with a +6 item for their main stats and a +2 or +4 to their secondary stats depending on how many stats they needed, and on top of that there are consumable items that grant a +1 to +5 to a score as well; by 20th level this can result in a total of +7 to 2-3 stats or up to +16 to one stat if you focus everything on it, and that's if you don't take advantage of the many ways to boost multiple stats (templates with +12 in miscellaneous stat boosts, monstrous races, belts of magnificence for +2/4/6 to all stats, etc.).

4e's total of +24 points to your stats was actually an attempt to rein in stat growth from pre-4e levels; by 4th level when you get +1 to two different scores, a pre-4e character can expect +1 to one score at 4th level and a +2 item (which can stack with that +1 from levels), more if you have an item crafter in the party.



Completely the other way around, actually. Spellcasters are incredibly powerful pre-4e, and the impediments to spellcasting are there to balance them as opposed to punish them. Whether those balancing mechanics work very well is up to debate (generally speaking, they do in AD&D, and they do in 3e but they can be worked around to the point where they don't), but spellcasters end up more effective than martial types in the long run.

This isn't very obvious if you're just reading the books, because at early levels martial characters can be on par with if not slightly better than casters overall, and if you tend towards the 4e-style "arcane casters blast, divine characters heal" playstyle (which is the stereotype for AD&D but was far from mandatory, given the illusionist, 2e specialty priests, etc.) then the casters are probably going to turn out on the weaker side. That's because playing a caster well requires more creativity and lateral thinking to be effective (or, these days, just reading optimization guides...kids these days don't know how easy they have it :smallwink:), so there's a fairly large gap between a basic blaster and an illusionist/summoner/necromancer/etc. Whether you like that dynamic is up to taste; I prefer the lateral thinking to the blasting, myself.



I was referring to the fact that 4e powers can have a duration of save ends, beginning of your turn, end of your turn, beginning of target's turn, end of target's turn, and possibly other durations I'm not thinking of. If a party has a bunch of powers with different durations, then resolving them in multiple "end of duration" phases can get fiddly and annoying.

Meanwhile, 3e durations always end right before your turn starts (which isn't that hard to find, I don't think; everything from multi-round casting times and Power Attack in the PHB to boost durations in ToB specify that they end right before your next turn, though I guess "full-round action" and "one round" could be confused), so you only ever have to check that at one point.

Sure, it's a small difference, but when you have 10 characters on the field with one or two buffs/debuffs on each, it can be a noticeably time sink.



Before 4e, magic items are in the Dungeon Master's Guide, along with things like disease and poison rules, followers, and other things that are either complex or aren't always known to or under the control of the PCs, so if you want to get a good sense of the game you should read the DMG and MM1 once you're finished with the PHB. Just reading the PHB, as opposed to reading the core 3 books and actually playing the game, can give you a quite skewed view of things, just as it does with 4e.

I have the DM guides 1 for 3.0 and 3.5 and the 3.5(?) DM guide 2 coming in the mail, so I'll look through them next.

I'm kind of pessimistic, what with my abysmal luck when it comes to die rolls. I'm running a Lv. 7 Mage in 4th Ed. and have his accuracy as high as I can possibly get it for his level (21 INT, Teifling with the Hellfire Blood feat, Staff Expertise, Accurate Staff, the Infernal Prince theme and a +2 Staff for +12 or +14 if it's a Fire power, plus the Tome Expertise feat for CA using the Mage Hand cantrip).

Madwand99
2013-11-21, 02:56 AM
If you have bad luck with die rolls, a 3.x wizard is actually one of the best classes out there. Most spells require the caster to make no roll at all, only a saving throw from the enemy. Some spells (like Web) screw the enemy over even if they make the save.

Note that a concentration roll is required only under unusual circumstances, like if you are being directly threatened by a melee enemy (i.e., casters are encouraged to stand back from the front lines of combat). It's not something you should be expecting to make (or fail) often at all. There are many ways to ensure almost always succeeding on your spellcasting. Taking a 5' step to take you out of range is the simplest among many other strategies.

Casters like wizard, druid, and cleric are well-known to be the most powerful classes in the game, far more so than classes like fighter and paladin. This is entirely because of the sheer power of their spells (and wild shape/animal companion, in the case of the druid).

Eldan
2013-11-21, 05:10 AM
Yeah. One of the optimization basics in 3E is actually that the very best spells are those that do not just deal damage or allow a save, but either don't allow a save of any kind at all or screw the target over even on a failed save.

That's one of the reasons why wizards are so good in third edition. On first level, you get a handful of spells that can disable entire groups of monsters to the point that anyone in the group can just walk up to them and stab them with a dagger. Color spray or grease.

At higher levels, it only gets worse. You get spells that disable entire groups of monsters with no saves allowed around the midlevels. The most effective combat wizard is the one who drops two or three spells and then watches as the fighter goes to kill the helpless enemies.

Well. The even more effective wizard is actually the one who makes the enemy his friend. Without the enemy ever seeing him.

jedipotter
2013-11-21, 05:52 AM
Besides the use of powers in 4th, the wizard feels like a much different class in the 3s, what with what seems like a lower number of combat spells and the concentration mechanic (which I honestly don't like very much), but they seem to be able to use more spells per day than a 4th Ed. Wizard.Also, the 3s lack a grid layout for battlefields and some spell AoEs seem to have odd dimensions (cones primarily, to me at least), making ranges and AoEs sound much more complicated to figure out (math was always my worst subject :P )


Ok......the 4E wizard is a pure blaster/controller(you can control an area with magical effects to block and hinder people) with a small handful of ''utility'' things to do and a couple of hour plus long rituals to do sometimes.

A 3E wizard.....can be anything you would like to make him. You can be a blaster, a controller or anything else. You can be a detective wizard with divination spells. You can be a con man with illusions. You can mess around with undead. You can be a charming free spirit. You can be a fire mage or a undersea mage. Or just about anything else.

The 3E wizard has thousands of spells to pick from, and you can switch them any time. And not just combat spells like 4E. There are over a thousand ''utility'' spells to pick from.

wolfstone
2013-11-21, 10:14 AM
Ok......the 4E wizard is a pure blaster/controller(you can control an area with magical effects to block and hinder people) with a small handful of ''utility'' things to do and a couple of hour plus long rituals to do sometimes.

A 3E wizard.....can be anything you would like to make him. You can be a blaster, a controller or anything else. You can be a detective wizard with divination spells. You can be a con man with illusions. You can mess around with undead. You can be a charming free spirit. You can be a fire mage or a undersea mage. Or just about anything else.

The 3E wizard has thousands of spells to pick from, and you can switch them any time. And not just combat spells like 4E. There are over a thousand ''utility'' spells to pick from.

Well, if I'm the one rolling as little as possible and the modifiers work better than the books make them sound, then I'm willing to give 3s wizards a try. (now all I need is a group to play it with, lol)

Is there any online resource of spells I can use to select spells?

I only have the Player's Handbook 1 (3.0 + 3.5), The character creator demo disk that came with the 3.0 PHB (but the update links don't work anymore
:-[ ), the DM guide 1 (3.0 + 3.5), Unearthed Arcana, and have Complete Arcane and Complete Mage, as well as the Spell Compendium I'm bidding on online. Are there any other books I should look for that contain Wizard spells?

Joe the Rat
2013-11-21, 10:50 AM
In the latest packet he is the only class to get three attacks a round, the only class that can increase its crit range permanently, gets a free "heal" up to 1/2 health via second wind, and also can do one action surge for a second round of actions.

Now I think all of these are cool, but yeah the end result is a really powerful fighter, which I like, but... in my group the fighter out performs the other classes, except druid. Other playgroups may have a different experience though. TBH I kinda stopped really playtesting it when 13th Age came out. The thing with the high iteratives is that this is how they get more effective hits compared to non-fighters. A 17th level Fighter and Cleric, with equal Strength, have the exact same to-hit bonuses. It's the extra attacks that let the Fighter do more damage in a round, and more importantly have better chances of hitting a high-AC target. Action Surge is pretty ridiculous, but as an expendable (as opposed to the ever-ready Cunning Action to move-move-move), it strikes a balance. Honestly, if the Fighter is the most consistent and effective in battle, I'd say something has gone right.

Pre-4, the power growth curve was pretty steep. Your character is laughable at best through early levels (read: liability), which was in theory balanced by being utterly world-shaking at higher levels. 3rd makes them a little less useless at 1-3, but keeps the approach-to-Singularity at higher levels. I'm okay with the Crossbow Wizard as a concept, but not as the default.

B, 1, &2 were the squishiest of wizards, though crap for armor, low hit die, and the HD cap (around 9/10, classes no longer get full hit die, but a flat +1 to +3 hp/level depending on class).

How to stop a wizard's casting: Basic: attack him on his initiative count while he's casting. You are allowed to use "if the wizard starts casting, I'll shoot him" as intended action, otherwise you've got a 1 in 6 of doing it by chance. 1e/2e: attack/hit (someone verify which please?) during his casting time: between when his action starts, and when the spell completes (after x many segments/speed counts). Both of these are auto-fail. Cover your wizards, lads! 3e: Concentration and AoO, and Defensive Casting. And Counterspell (Rare, UU). Hit them while they're working, and if they're dumb enough to start right next to you, they deserve to take a mace to the face. 4th: IIRC keeps the potentially easy Conc. checks. 5th: As of the Lich Queen's Beloved Playtest, casters cannot be disrupted. No rules were in place (or rather nobody could find them), so taking multiple blows to the face while casting isn't a problem.

Deadline
2013-11-21, 10:57 AM
Well, if I'm the one rolling as little as possible and the modifiers work better than the books make them sound, then I'm willing to give 3s wizards a try. (now all I need is a group to play it with, lol)

Depending on the spell, there aren't really more rolls than in 4E (which I prefer for balance - 3.5e Spellcasters are hilariously overpowered from around level 10 or so on up).

Let's take the Fireball spell for example:


In 4E, you drop your fireball and roll to hit the Reflex defense of every foe in the area. Then you roll damage.
In 3.5E you drop your fireball and every foe in the area has to roll a Reflex save or eat the full effect. Then you roll damage.


So basically, 4E replaced the save mechanic of 3.5E with attack rolls against those specific "defenses". And 4E removed the save or die spells, which are scattered all over 3.5E (Take Baleful Polymorph, you cast it, the target fails their Fort save, and the target is now a small helpless bunny rabbit that you can kill at your leisure).

As far as the Concentration mechanic is concerned, it seems like it would be a big deal, but it's really not. As long as a wizard can reliably hit a DC of 15+spell level to cast defensively (which is easy to do), he can cast in melee all day long. Of course, he could also just 5' step away, or not be adjacent to enemies in the first place.

Madwand99
2013-11-21, 12:27 PM
Is there any online resource of spells I can use to select spells?

I only have the Player's Handbook 1 (3.0 + 3.5), The character creator demo disk that came with the 3.0 PHB (but the update links don't work anymore
:-[ ), the DM guide 1 (3.0 + 3.5), Unearthed Arcana, and have Complete Arcane and Complete Mage, as well as the Spell Compendium I'm bidding on online. Are there any other books I should look for that contain Wizard spells?

You are already looking into some of the best resources for spells. As for online resources, there are many. You are already at one of them, these forums are a great place to ask questions. You can also Google "wizards handbook" to find many more. This link is an excellent place to start:

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=394

Psyren
2013-11-21, 08:22 PM
3.5/PF of course. The at-will problem is easily solved with School Powers or Reserve Spells. As for the power issue, I'll just point to the Giant's "bumming around a bad neighborhood" speech from 3e Vaarsuvius vs. 4e Vaarsuvius.

fluke1993
2013-11-22, 02:56 AM
If your playing 3.5, I am not sure why you picked up the 3.0 handbook unless you got it from a friend? :smallconfused:

Regardless, just about every book that isn't related mundane classes have wizard spells in them. You would be better off compiling a list of books that don't. That being said you can have a great time as a wizard with just core, and if you have to have one other book make it the spell compendium. Aside from those two, complete mage and complete arcane would be next on the list.

Edit: 4th ed. is well balanced, almost too balanced for me. Personally I like the ability to play a high-powered wizard capable of breaking the world in one campaign if I want too and playing a beguiler or dread necro in a slightly lower power game if it's what I feel like. So I would have to say I enjoy 3.P wizard best.

Kurald Galain
2013-11-22, 07:56 AM
1e/2e: attack/hit (someone verify which please?) during his casting time: between when his action starts, and when the spell completes
It's damage, actually; one of the reasons why Stoneskin is such a great spell, and why Magic Missile is a good counterspell.


4th: IIRC keeps the potentially easy Conc. checks.
Nope. You only provoke opportunity attacks for ranged spells, not spells that target something next to you; and there are a number of items and feats available from very low level that stop you from provoking entirely. Also, getting hit by an opportunity attack doesn't disrupt your spell anyway.

wolfstone
2013-11-22, 08:18 AM
If your playing 3.5, I am not sure why you picked up the 3.0 handbook unless you got it from a friend? :smallconfused:

Regardless, just about every book that isn't related mundane classes have wizard spells in them. You would be better off compiling a list of books that don't. That being said you can have a great time as a wizard with just core, and if you have to have one other book make it the spell compendium. Aside from those two, complete mage and complete arcane would be next on the list.

Edit: 4th ed. is well balanced, almost too balanced for me. Personally I like the ability to play a high-powered wizard capable of breaking the world in one campaign if I want too and playing a beguiler or dread necro in a slightly lower power game if it's what I feel like. So I would have to say I enjoy 3.P wizard best.

I picked up the 3.0 books from a local used bookstore chain in my area. I had the base 2nd Ed. books and have a big collection of 4th Ed. books, which is the Ed. my group plays. All the talk about 5th Ed. got me wondering, plus I wanted to add to my collection, so I started collecting the 3.5 books (only the main ones). You should see my White Wolf World of Darkness collection. :D

Madwand99
2013-11-22, 11:37 AM
Oh, and if you are looking for spells in particular, this link has all of them. The Spell Book:

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=5044.msg72093#msg72093

Scow2
2013-11-22, 05:46 PM
3.5/PF of course. The at-will problem is easily solved with School Powers or Reserve Spells. As for the power issue, I'll just point to the Giant's "bumming around a bad neighborhood" speech from 3e Vaarsuvius vs. 4e Vaarsuvius.Which paints 3e Vaarsuvius as an arrogant, ignorant, and condescending blowhard more than any truth about the nature of magic.

"Bumming around a bad neighborhood", as she dismissed the non-arcane professions as, requires even more effort, cunning, life investment, labor, wits, and applied ability than "learning the secrets of the arcane". It's a "Not A Real Job" fallacy.

Ashdate
2013-11-22, 05:58 PM
In my mind if you want raw power, you have to go with 3.5 wizards.

There might be some mechanical comparison between pre-4e wizards and 4e wizards, but there's really no comparison in terms of power level. All the core caster classes (sorcerers, cleric, druids, bards, etc.) took a huge hit in power level between 3.5 and 4e. This isn't a complaint on my part, as 3.5 caster classes were ridiculously too good. A well-played Batman-style 3.5 wizard is no longer about a party overcoming adversary, it's suddenly a battle of wits between the DM and the Wizard Player.

(Of course, Wizards are probably the strongest overall class in 4e too, but that Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues are competitive says a lot about why I vastly prefer 4e over 3.5.)

jaybird
2013-11-22, 06:36 PM
Which paints 3e Vaarsuvius as an arrogant, ignorant, and condescending blowhard more than any truth about the nature of magic.

"Bumming around a bad neighborhood", as she dismissed the non-arcane professions as, requires even more effort, cunning, life investment, labor, wits, and applied ability than "learning the secrets of the arcane". It's a "Not A Real Job" fallacy.

Touchy, touchy...

Telok
2013-11-22, 08:15 PM
I'd categorize things as such:

AD&D: Wizards were magically weak at low levels and could acheive god-like power at high levels. This was offset by limited availability of new spells, 15 minute per spell level preparation times, monsters that became more spell resistant at higher levels, automatic failure if you casting was interrupted, and the ability to accidentally kill yourself with your own spells.
Preparing for your missions, recovering afterward, and traveling were still important. Leveling up tended to take between one and six months (in game) in most of the games I played.

3.5 D&D: Wizards are modestly competent at low levels and will acheive god-like power at high levels. Spells are often available for low prices, there is a single 15 minutes to prepare any number of spells at once, wizards have multiple ways around any defenses the monsters have, interrupting spellcasting gets harder to do at higher levels, and almost no spells have any sort of drawback or danger inherent in casting them.
Scry and die tactics replace preparation and travel, recovery is handled by binding the appropriate outsider for free healing. Leveling up takes two weeks.

4e D&D: Wizards are of average competence at all levels. All spells are always available, no preparation is needed because you can't change your spells much, wizards have no real way around monster defences but that's OK because "defenses" is mostly just more hit points and some save bonuses, there is no way to counter magic or spellcasting by anyone.
There is no preparation because the allowed methods of information gathering only work by DM fiat, travel works the same way and you are completely healed of all ailments by six hours of rest. Leveling takes five to ten days, not including travel times.

I haven't played 5th yet, out group is pretty comfortable with 3.5 where we have a gentleman's agreement to not use the overpowered (for our table) bits of magic.

Psyren
2013-11-22, 08:16 PM
Which paints 3e Vaarsuvius as an arrogant, ignorant, and condescending blowhard more than any truth about the nature of magic.

Arrogant and condescending I'll give you, but certainly not ignorant, since he was right.



"Bumming around a bad neighborhood", as she dismissed the non-arcane professions as, requires even more effort, cunning, life investment, labor, wits, and applied ability than "learning the secrets of the arcane". It's a "Not A Real Job" fallacy.

By that logic, we should have way more physicists and engineers in the world than pickpockets and muggers. Oh wait!

Scow2
2013-11-22, 08:46 PM
Arrogant and condescending I'll give you, but certainly not ignorant, since he was right.Only in 3.5.

By that logic, we should have way more physicists and engineers in the world than pickpockets and muggers. Oh wait!We have far more Phd-Toting, Award-winning physicists and engineers than rogue-types of similar dedication and experience.

Waar
2013-11-23, 06:21 AM
By that logic, we should have way more physicists and engineers in the world than pickpockets and muggers. Oh wait!

I don't know about the whole world, but localy, we sure do :smallcool: (unless muggers/pickpockets take up about 10% of the population, which is quite sillly for a decently functionall city/country)

edit: note: the amount of physicists and engineers that stay in/near the city they were educated in may be overestimated :smalltongue:

wolfstone
2013-11-23, 12:18 PM
*Looks over Spell Compendium...* O_o There's a werewolf spell?!? Sign me up! :D

Well, we just had another 4th Ed. session for my group last night and I kicked ass. We went into a clearing in the woods and fought a bear and a trio of human-looking guys, one of whom turned into a bear, another conjured a wall of thorns that 3 of us got caught inside of. I cast fireball on the conjurer, another humanoid and the bear, killing the 3rd humanoid (he died without ever getting to do anything at all), then pelted the shapeshifter with a magic missile in the same turn (thanks to Wizard's fury... love that power as it grants an extra, guaranteed hit each turn even if the damage is low), who died instantly. We got caught in the already mentioned thornwall, so I created a Watery Double next to the bear and hit him with Fire Burst, then used my action point for another attack and hit him again with Darkening Flame, then smacked him with my last minor action with a Magic Missile (again via WF) for 54 HP damage in a single turn. I got a last turn where I decided to have fun with the conjurer by hitting him with Hypnotism. "Umm, Umm," my character said after hitting him with H, "He did it!" I finish, pointing at the conjurer, who shrugs and whacks himself over the head. I could've clobbered him with a MM as well, but the DM ruled that the self-inflicted blow finished him off to end the fight faster.

The DM wants to make stronger monsters now and our Ranged Ranger figures we should all be Wizards, so 4th Ed. Wizards can be really powerful. (I used my damaging fire spells this time, rather than my controller-based spells like Watery Sphere and Web, which are a lot of fun to use.)

Plus my partner, who plays a Longtooth Shifter 2-blade Ranger finally got to make use of his Pack Outcast theme to become a werewolf at the end of the session (he really loves werewolves).

Still, as I'm learning more about 3.5, and got to take a peek at Pathfinder via the DM's pdf of the core rulebook, which has all of the D&D 3.5 spell list) that might be a fun game to play too. The DM says that the set-up for DMs in Pathfinder is much longer and more complicated, tho...

I looked through Unearthed Arcana and am kind of disappointed and a little confused. I'll wait for Complete Mage and Complete Arcana to arrive so I can go through them. I also snagged a copy of PHB2, which I'm waiting for, and still trying to get that copy of Spell Compendium. (my birthday is Dec. 5th, so I'm splurging some here. :P)

Eldariel
2013-11-23, 07:46 PM
Lessee:
AD&D 2e: Spells take a long time to cast. Various spells have negative side-effects, such as Haste causing possible aging in subjects, Polymorph possibly causing System Shock and so on. If you're damaged while casting, you lose your spell. You get a fixed allotment of spells daily. Saving Throws are rolled (though some spells bestow a penalty on the saving throw) vs. a fixed "DC" in newer terms.

Basically, you have a certain bonus to saving throw (each archetype, warrior, priest, mage, thief, has their own save progression with warrior being the best across the board, pretty much). Then you roll, with whatever penalties the effect you're saving against might bestow vs. what applies first from the following:
1) Paralyzation, Poison, or Death Magic
2) Rod, Staff, or Wand
3) Petrification or Polymorph
4) Breath Weapon
5) Spell

So basically, if someone uses a Wand of Polymorph on you, you save vs. Wand since Wand is higher on the hierarchy. If someone uses a Polymorph Spell on you, you save vs. Polymorph since it's higher than Spell on the hierarchy. Against e.g. Charm Person, you save vs. Spell since it doesn't go under any other effect.


Earlier editions were even more severe but the same basic ideas are still there; spells are dangerous, you need to find spells to learn them (you don't learn anything automatically), you need high Int to cast spells of certain level, mages level the slowest out of all classes, you don't get any bonus spell slots and level 1 you have grand total of 1 spell per day, etc. Mind, that spell probably ends the encounter straight-up (Sleep vs. enemies with bad saves = GG).

Spells Are King But Hard And Takes Long To Get Awesome.

D&D 3.5e: Same basic system, but basically all risks from spells are removed, saving throw difficulty class scales with your Intelligence, you get bonus spells from intelligence, being damaged while casting has you roll vs. Concentration instead of immediately losing the spell, saving throw system is simplified into the 3 saving throws that you know as Defenses from 4e (Fortitude, Reflex, Will), everybody levels the same, most spells can be cast in 1 standard action saving time for movement, metamagic allows doing even more.

PF: Almost the same, except few spells are nerfed a bit, while the caster classes are heavily buffed making dying harder, giving them easier access to 20 casting stat, improving Summons (that were already really useful), some really nice class features, etc.

Spells Are King, No Difficulties. In any system from this group, spells kinda do anything since people were constantly writing new spells as they figured something that needed doing (tho obviously, the older you go the less exist, but you can always create new spells). Hell, many of the spells are named after old PCs that created them. In older editions, spells are just harder and you have less of them, and you get them later.

D&D 4e: Well, you know this one already. Casting is changed quite significantly, effects are limited, you no longer have to really worry about finding your scrolls or having infinite options on what to prepare each day and maintaining backup spellbooks or such, etc.

Spells no longer King in the same way but obviously Wizards are still pretty solid.