PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Has it fixed the problem with Wizards?



PhallicWarrior
2008-07-20, 01:02 PM
In 3e and 3.5 wizards, when properly played, were basically invincible. (See LogicNinja's guide to wizardry.) I want to know if 4e brought them in line with the rest of the classes.

The New Bruceski
2008-07-20, 01:18 PM
Yes, to the complaint of many folks (some of who preferred the flavor aspects that were removed, some of whom saw no problem with Batman wizards).

Wizards have AoE and controller spells (prismatic spray, various walls, Sleep) but a lot of their more easily abused spells (illusions, polymorph, basically anything ambiguous) have been removed for the time being. In addition most non-combat spells have been turned into rituals available to wizards clerics and anyone willing to spend 1-2 feats, which take some time and money to cast. Want to use Floating Disc to make a tripwire? You need to plan the ambush ten minutes in advance. Some people have more of an issue with this than others.

Jade_Tarem
2008-07-20, 01:19 PM
Well, yes. Viciously, rigidly in line with the other classes. To the point where it's hard to tell them (the classes) apart.

Tempest Fennac
2008-07-20, 01:20 PM
Wizards have Illusons thanks to an online suppliment, but they can't be used for utility purposes. (Someone posted a link to the information a while back, but I don't know where it is.)

The New Bruceski
2008-07-20, 01:28 PM
Well, yes. Viciously, rigidly in line with the other classes. To the point where it's hard to tell them (the classes) apart.

I would disagree, but this argument has been had so many times I doubt anyone's changing their minds now.

Viruzzo
2008-07-20, 01:55 PM
Well, yes. Viciously, rigidly in line with the other classes. To the point where it's hard to tell them (the classes) apart.
Yeah because 3.x non-casters at high levels where SO different. What distinguished wizards in 3.x was them being ungodly powerful, and 4e definitely fixed that. Now you can play a high level fighter and not be ashamed of what he can do.

Ivius
2008-07-20, 02:04 PM
It took out wizards and replaced them with archers.

Tengu_temp
2008-07-20, 02:14 PM
I would disagree, but this argument has been had so many times I doubt anyone's changing their minds now.

I think they could change their mind if they, well, played the game. I haven't seen it coming from anyone who did.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-07-20, 02:18 PM
Well, yes. Viciously, rigidly in line with the other classes. To the point where it's hard to tell them (the classes) apart.

I hear that a lot from people who haven't played the game. Believe me, in play, the two classes play very differently. Saying "well they both use powers so they're the same" betrays a lack of understanding of how the game plays.


It took out wizards and replaced them with archers.
Why would you even post this? It's puerile and disingenuous; nothing but flame-bait.

Frosty
2008-07-20, 02:25 PM
Why would you even post this? It's puerile and disingenuous; nothing but flame-bait.

It's also totally wrong because Rangers are strikers whereas Wizards are more battlefield control.

TheOOB
2008-07-20, 02:27 PM
Actually, the according the char op boards the wizard is actually one of the, if not the, weakest class in 4e. The wizards damage output is fairly low, and they only have one spell that is even close to being a "save or die" spell(sleep), but most of their spells hit multiple opponents, and they are fairly good at giving people some fairly nasty status effects (how many classes can daze everyone in a blast with a level 6 encounter and still do damage with it?). I'd say they are fairly balanced, they just require a good deal more tactics then most, and wizards who rely primarly on damage will be a little disappointed(though thats nothing new).

As far as utility, wizards(and clerics) took a huge hit. While it's true wizards have some of the best utility spells in the game (both because of what the utility spells do and the simple fact that wizards get twice as many as most people) they don't really let you feel like you can do anything you want whenever you want, which is appropriate because you can't. Most of the old utility spells you are used to from 3.x are rituals now(or will eventually be rituals) but rituals take a long time to cast and cost money, limiting how much you can overuse them(yes anyone can use rituals, but wizards are unquestionably the best at it.) Now a days, you have to work together and rely on your teammates, you won't have every ability you need for every situations, and you'll need to get more creative in solving problems then just finding the appropriate spell and casting it.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-07-20, 02:36 PM
Actually, the according the char op boards the wizard is actually one of the, if not the, weakest class in 4e. The wizards damage output is fairly low, and they only have one spell that is even close to being a "save or die" spell(sleep), but most of their spells hit multiple opponents, and they are fairly good at giving people some fairly nasty status effects (how many classes can daze everyone in a blast with a level 6 encounter and still do damage with it?). I'd say they are fairly balanced, they just require a good deal more tactics then most, and wizards who rely primarly on damage will be a little disappointed(though thats nothing new).
The CharOp boards are wrong, then (these new ones aren't nearly as good as the 3.5 ones were).

Wizards are enormously useful. The control they have attached to most of their powers. Once you get to the paragon tier, powers like Wall of Fire, Wall of Ice, etc make an enormous difference--especially, say, combined with Web. Even at low levels, the illusion powers, the amazing Thunderwave at-will, Icy Terrain, etc etc... wizards still add a control element that can totally change the course of the fight.

They just don't do it in two spells or less, guaranteed, anymore.

Viruzzo
2008-07-20, 02:47 PM
The CharOp boards are wrong, then (these new ones aren't nearly as good as the 3.5 ones were).
I think that they mean "weakest damage output from the RAW", which means nothing in real gameplay (in particular for an "utility" class as a controller is supposed to be) but is one of the favored arguments for theorycrafters.

Starsinger
2008-07-20, 03:49 PM
As I understand it, one of the fundamental problems with wizards is that many (if not the majority of) their AoE spells target each creature in the radius. That's fine, so did fireball back in the good old days. What's the problem? Clerics. The problem is Clerics who have many AoEs of their own (but of course not as many as the Wizard), do not hurt allies caught in the burst. Most (if not all) of a Cleric's area spells only hurt enemies in the radius. Not having to worry about toasting your fighter with that big area spell is a nice thing.

Artanis
2008-07-20, 04:03 PM
As I understand it, one of the fundamental problems with wizards is that many (if not the majority of) their AoE spells target each creature in the radius. That's fine, so did fireball back in the good old days. What's the problem? Clerics. The problem is Clerics who have many AoEs of their own (but of course not as many as the Wizard), do not hurt allies caught in the burst. Most (if not all) of a Cleric's area spells only hurt enemies in the radius. Not having to worry about toasting your fighter with that big area spell is a nice thing.
I actually ran into this problem playing a Wizard in a three-shot campaign. I had chosen Acid Arrow without realizing that there were five melee characters in the party. The only reason I got to use it at all was because everybody took pity on me and walked away from the BBEG in the third - and final - session so that I could actually use a Daily power for the first (and only) time.



*Addendum: My other Daily was Freezing Cloud. I prepped Acid Arrow in each of the first two sessions, but couldn't use it due to the whole hosing-down-my-own-buddies problem. The third session we were up against a White Dragon :smallfrown:

Oslecamo
2008-07-20, 04:24 PM
As I understand it, one of the fundamental problems with wizards is that many (if not the majority of) their AoE spells target each creature in the radius. That's fine, so did fireball back in the good old days. What's the problem? Clerics. The problem is Clerics who have many AoEs of their own (but of course not as many as the Wizard), do not hurt allies caught in the burst. Most (if not all) of a Cleric's area spells only hurt enemies in the radius. Not having to worry about toasting your fighter with that big area spell is a nice thing.

Muahahah, clericzilla still lives, haunting the wizard under his shadow!

From what I tried from 4e so far, wizards really seem to be a bit lacking compared to the other classes. Sure your spells help your friends deal damage and survive, but it's they who get the thrill of giving the final blow.

Just like in 3e, it didn't matter that you had save or dies and lots of powerfull utility, a lot of the wizard players still wanted to shoot fireballs and cones and stuff and try to deal as much damage as possible.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-07-20, 04:38 PM
Muahahah, clericzilla still lives, haunting the wizard under his shadow!
Not really. The wizard's spells have the control aspects attached.


From what I tried from 4e so far, wizards really seem to be a bit lacking compared to the other classes. Sure your spells help your friends deal damage and survive, but it's they who get the thrill of giving the final blow.
That's only a lack if you like dealing the killing blow rather than manipulating the situation. The wizard certainly doesn't contribute any less (unless he's played poorly, but that applies to everyone).
Your spells are very important and influence the course of the battle.
People who like playing a controller will play wizards. People who like dealing the killing blow will play one of the Strikers.

Crow
2008-07-20, 04:46 PM
I like how everyone defends the wizard by citing their amazing battlefield "control" powers. The only powers that really exert much "control" at all are all dailies. Any status effects that you inflict end rather quickly, and in the case of elites and solos even sooner. The wizard is so utterly dependant upon his allies to do the killing, that if something goes wrong (and in this edition it does, just like it does in 3.x), if the wizard is the last man standing, he's as good as a dead man.

The only real "control" wizard is the orbizard, a fairly specific build.

Artanis
2008-07-20, 04:47 PM
I dunno, Thunder Wave was pretty useful when I used it.

Crow
2008-07-20, 04:53 PM
Thunderwave is pretty good. Probably one of the best Wizard powers available since you will use it so much. It falls into the nice exceptions like sleep and the wall spells (ice moreso than fire, which won't stopped a determined enemy).

Rachel Lorelei
2008-07-20, 05:01 PM
I like how everyone defends the wizard by citing their amazing battlefield "control" powers. The only powers that really exert much "control" at all are all dailies.
This isn't true. Thunderwave is the best control at-will in the PHB. Cloud of Daggers denies access to a square.

Icy Terrain knocks people down and puts them in difficult terrain. Chill Strike dazes a target. Ray of Enfeeblement weakens them. Color Spray is great for control. So's Icy Rays, pinning one or two creatures in place. That's just encounter powers for 1-3. Mix in at-wills and dailies and the wizard fills his role just fine.


Any status effects that you inflict end rather quickly, and in the case of elites and solos even sooner. The wizard is so utterly dependant upon his allies to do the killing, that if something goes wrong (and in this edition it does, just like it does in 3.x), if the wizard is the last man standing, he's as good as a dead man.
No one survives well alone. A wizard who took Thunderwave can do surprisingly well for himself even if he's the last one standing--but, yes, the wizard is squishier. He's supposed to be.


The only real "control" wizard is the orbizard, a fairly specific build.
"Specific build"? It's just picking the controller-est aspect of the Controller-role class. Yes, it's better than the other two, because it can extend an effect/penalize saves once per encounter, but wizards can still control without an orb.

The difference is that now you wind up needing to do control round to round, rather than slapping down a couple of spells in the beginning that basically win the fight.


Your complaint seems to be that they don't control as well as in 3.5.

Good. They shouldn't. No one should.

Crow
2008-07-20, 05:22 PM
This isn't true. Thunderwave is the best control at-will in the PHB. Cloud of Daggers denies access to a square.

I am away from books. How does cloud of daggers deny access to a square? More likely the power will just inflict a little hp damage on someone passing through it. Luckily, enemies have no shortage of hp.


Icy Terrain knocks people down and puts them in difficult terrain. Chill Strike dazes a target. Ray of Enfeeblement weakens them. Color Spray is great for control. So's Icy Rays, pinning one or two creatures in place. That's just encounter powers for 1-3. Mix in at-wills and dailies and the wizard fills his role just fine.

Difficult terrain powers are great, I'll give you that. The powers you listed do their job at low levels, but once you get to higher levels, the powers don't get the job done nearly as well. Add to that other classes are getting powers that inflict status effects at this point, and the wizard loses significant "bite" as far as effectiveness is concerned.



No one survives well alone. A wizard who took Thunderwave can do surprisingly well for himself even if he's the last one standing--but, yes, the wizard is squishier. He's supposed to be.

I'm not talking about being "squishy", as they aren't very much squishier than say the Rogue. What i am talking about is actually being able to close the deal at the end. A rogue or fighter caught alone can fare decently, as can the cleric. The wizard pretty much just delays (for a very short time) the inevitable. Again, this gets worse at higher levels when the abilities enemies have will be slightly more serious than "can shift as a minor action".



"Specific build"? It's just picking the controller-est aspect of the Controller-role class. Yes, it's better than the other two, because it can extend an effect/penalize saves once per encounter, but wizards can still control without an orb.

Not for very long at all.


The difference is that now you wind up needing to do control round to round, rather than slapping down a couple of spells in the beginning that basically win the fight.


Your complaint seems to be that they don't control as well as in 3.5.

Good. They shouldn't. No one should.

Round to round is great, but in most cases you are exerting no more "control" than the fighter standing who is standing next to the badguy (which could be argued as more effective).

Please don't turn this into a 4 vs. 3.x argument. I don't think I ever mentioned 3.x. Now if you feel some need to "defend" "your" new edition, then that is fine, but please go look for my last session overview thread where I talk about how much I enjoyed 4e before you accuse me of complaining about "your" edition. Other than that, you are always such a positive girl, aren't you? :smallwink:

BCOVertigo
2008-07-20, 05:23 PM
My issue is that there is no grease. In 3.x spells had multiple uses and creativity was rewarded, in 4 they do their effect and are finished. And before someone says "you can still use them creatively" let me point out:

A. Silence ritual(it's useless now, you can just whisper and save yourself 10 minutes)
B. Ray of frost(it deals cold damage, but if you were to try and use it to freeze something, even water, it would be stepping on the toes of a more powerful effect such as Icy terrain which is an encounter and probably shouldn't be at will)

Grease was in my mind the perfect example of a creative power. It could be used to disable, defend or ....I don't know maybe cook? Can someone please give me a concrete example that shows I'm incorrect because this is depressing. I haven't looked over the supplements yet and illusions seem to be the one true hope for fixing this malady.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-07-20, 05:57 PM
I am away from books. How does cloud of daggers deny access to a square? More likely the power will just inflict a little hp damage on someone passing through it. Luckily, enemies have no shortage of hp.
Enemies aren't going to just walk through it. If they do, they pay for it. (Then they get knocked back through it with Thunderwave and pay for it again, etc.) They have a bunch of HP (minions aside--those just have to avoid the square), but that doesn't mean they can afford to keep taking extra HP damage, round after round. 4 HP damage can be the difference between life and death, and if the creature has a choice, it'll avoid the guaranteed damage most of the time.



Difficult terrain powers are great, I'll give you that. The powers you listed do their job at low levels, but once you get to higher levels, the powers don't get the job done nearly as well. Add to that other classes are getting powers that inflict status effects at this point, and the wizard loses significant "bite" as far as effectiveness is concerned.
The other classes don't have as many or as wide an array.

At higher levels, the powers still do their job. Icy Terrain remains great; you can couple it with other powers, too. Dazing a group of enemies with Color Spray remains wonderful for a long time (especially since it's "end of your next turn"). You pick up Wall of Fog, Spectral Ram, Winter's Wrath... then you start getting Wall of Fire (amazing), Prismatic Burst/Mesmeric Hold, Wall of Ice (also amazing)... the old powers become less useful, but you get new powers, and you have more control powers. The Warlock might hit the biggest enemy, but you can maintain control from round to round. Paragon-tier wizards especially don't need the Orb to do well; in Epic it does start making things vastly better.


I'm not talking about being "squishy", as they aren't very much squishier than say the Rogue. What i am talking about is actually being able to close the deal at the end. A rogue or fighter caught alone can fare decently, as can the cleric. The wizard pretty much just delays (for a very short time) the inevitable. Again, this gets worse at higher levels when the abilities enemies have will be slightly more serious than "can shift as a minor action".
Why so? The wizard can keep blasting then and keep his distance, using powers (like Expeditious Retreat) to get away. His control abilities only help with this.
Of course, given that most people will be up the vast majority of the time, I don't see how the wizard's solo performance matters much.


Not for very long at all.
From what I've seen, yes, it's true. You seem to be ignoring the mid-level powers when judging the wizard at mid-levels.
Others get some control, like the wizard gets some damage. But the wizard gets more and better control than everyone else.


Round to round is great, but in most cases you are exerting no more "control" than the fighter standing who is standing next to the badguy (which could be argued as more effective).
This is consistently untrue in my game. The fighter pins down one or two and stays with them; the wizard hits whoever needs it.


Please don't turn this into a 4 vs. 3.x argument. I don't think I ever mentioned 3.x. Now if you feel some need to "defend" "your" new edition, then that is fine, but please go look for my last session overview thread where I talk about how much I enjoyed 4e before you accuse me of complaining about "your" edition. Other than that, you are always such a positive girl, aren't you? :smallwink:
I'm not turning it into a 4E vs 3E argument. I'm not saying you're lashing out at 4E. I'm just pointing out that if your basis for reference as to the wizard's control abilities is the 3E wizard, you will inevitably be disappointed.

The New Bruceski
2008-07-20, 07:06 PM
*Addendum: My other Daily was Freezing Cloud. I prepped Acid Arrow in each of the first two sessions, but couldn't use it due to the whole hosing-down-my-own-buddies problem. The third session we were up against a White Dragon :smallfrown:

Our wizard had Flaming Sphere and Acid Arrow. Guess which one he had prepped when we faced kobold red dragonshields (multiple times), and which he had prepped when we faced a black dragon?

Cuddly
2008-07-20, 07:11 PM
My issue is that there is no grease. In 3.x spells had multiple uses and creativity was rewarded, in 4 they do their effect and are finished. And before someone says "you can still use them creatively" let me point out:

A. Silence ritual(it's useless now, you can just whisper and save yourself 10 minutes)
B. Ray of frost(it deals cold damage, but if you were to try and use it to freeze something, even water, it would be stepping on the toes of a more powerful effect such as Icy terrain which is an encounter and probably shouldn't be at will)

Grease was in my mind the perfect example of a creative power. It could be used to disable, defend or ....I don't know maybe cook? Can someone please give me a concrete example that shows I'm incorrect because this is depressing. I haven't looked over the supplements yet and illusions seem to be the one true hope for fixing this malady.

Grease is a perfect example of why magic was so unbalanced in 3x.

Artanis
2008-07-20, 07:12 PM
Incidentally, that's why I never even tried a 3e Wizard. I knew I would've ended up with nothing but useless stuff prepped :smallfrown:

The New Bruceski
2008-07-20, 07:13 PM
Also note that AoE counts as control. When facing a Wizard the enemy is >not< going to want to group up, which minimizes the effect of their buffs and such that affect adjacent allies. If they do group up an AoE zots any minions and whittles down the life (compared to strikers) of anyone else there. Wizards barely have anything that's single-target.

Control doesn't just mean "save ends" debuffs.

(PS: if you have a wizard who likes the AoE aspects, you may want to choose Tiefling for your melee classes. Ours has been making notes for the number of allies set on fire.)

Prophaniti
2008-07-20, 08:00 PM
I'd just like to point out again that I have never had a problem with wizards in 3.5. Not in any campaign ever. Even when we played an Epic campaign, everyone got WBL and were careful enough in their item selection, they could do almost everything the wizard could anyway. In my personal experience, running this 'invincible wizard' takes far more effort than any gamer I've ever played with is willing to put into ruleslawyering or character builds. I am truly sorry for those of you who had a player who was obsessive enough and an ass enough to try that, and more sorry still that the group let them get away with it.

As for 4e, yes, I would say it removed this theoretical possibilty of wizard dominance that, apparently, plagued every gaming group in the world except mine.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-07-20, 08:02 PM
As for 4e, yes, I would say it removed this theoretical possibilty of wizard dominance that, apparently, plagued every gaming group in the world except mine.

You've never had the spellcasters solve every out-of-combat problem the Rogue isn't specialized for?

You've never fought a group of humanoid warriors and had the wizard cast Confusion?

You've never had a wizard stay totally safe from 50% or more of all encounters because he cast Overland Flight that morning?

You've never had a wizard cripple a big armored enemy with empowered Ray of Enfeeblement?

Merlin the Tuna
2008-07-20, 08:06 PM
Grease is a perfect example of why magic was so unbalanced in 3x.Also of how it was kind of wordy and confusing. You need to remember that, since enemies are balancing in the grease, they're flat-footed if they don't have 5 ranks in balance. And then there's the question of, well, are they balancing if they just stand still? What about if they end up falling prone -- still balancing?

Crow
2008-07-20, 09:35 PM
The 4e Wizard has "soft" control powers for the most part. In most cases, they won't stop an enemy from doing what they want...They will have to pay a price, but they can still do it.

Wizards have a huge problem dealing with ranged attackers as well. Aside from stun effects, there is not much the wizard can do except throw up a wall...and depending on terrain, that may not even work.

Helgraf
2008-07-20, 09:45 PM
The 4e Wizard has "soft" control powers for the most part. In most cases, they won't stop an enemy from doing what they want...They will have to pay a price, but they can still do it.

Wizards have a huge problem dealing with ranged attackers as well. Aside from stun effects, there is not much the wizard can do except throw up a wall...and depending on terrain, that may not even work.

Whence came the idea that wizards should be ideally situated for dealing with every enemy type?

Vortling
2008-07-20, 10:26 PM
Whence came the idea that wizards should be ideally situated for dealing with every enemy type?
Where are you getting that out of what he said? All I'm seeing him saying is that wizards aren't as good at controlling ranged enemies as they are enemies that fight in melee. One would hope that the dedicated controller would at least be able to do his job equally well whether the enemies choose range or melee.

Edea
2008-07-20, 10:39 PM
I've played a straight Wizard in 4e at multiple (different) levels, and I was...not happy with those experiences. I also believe that I was playing the class as intended, but obviously I can't prove that :/.

It felt like a Black Mage, ironically called 'Wizard' (with the Elemental secondary), from Final Fantasy Tactics, except that at least in FFT you can use most of your spells more than once per fight thanks to the MP system, instead of only Elemental/Thunderwave (which in the latter case was spammed mercilessly, especially in the lower levels of 4e I played at). Since FFT is a video game, the turns move more quickly in it, and you control an entire party, I didn't notice the repetition as much as I did at the table/in the chatroom with 4e, where I was forced to focus on my own character. It just didn't translate very well to me at all.

Basically, if WotC had instead called this class the Warmage, and instituted a point based system (for ALL of the classes, in keeping with 4e's design paradigms) instead of the encounter/daily/ritual system (which I loathe utterly), I wouldn't have suffered nearly as much sticker shock.

But this is their -Wizard-. It won't deviate from this structure (as an example, look at the Illusion supplement, except block out the word "Illusion"; I couldn't tell for the most part that those powers were Illusions, without knowing that in advance). So right now, I'm pretty turned off by 4e Wizards, at least as a player.

The 4e Wizard is a LOT better than the 3e Wizard for one purpose, though, at least IMO: Tournament play.

OT, I'm kinda wondering how many combat encounters the designers are expecting a 5 person party to go through before an extended rest (is that information in the DMG?).

TheOOB
2008-07-20, 11:12 PM
Just because you are doing damage doesn't mean you aren't controlling. The level 1 wizard in the game I'm playing right now uses the following power layout: illusory ambush, scorching burst, grasping shadows, and flaming sphere(also knows sleep).

Since I usually win initiative (high dex and improved init) i usually open up with a wand of accuracy grasping shadows, which damages and slows their front line, and holds up their back row, thus giving my team the ability to choose where exactally on the battle field before the fighting happens. Illusory ambush combined with the paladins ability to reduce attack rolls ensures that the most powerful foe rarely hits us, while scorching burst punishes foes who group together.

Flaming sphere is just great damage and good at herding enemies exact ally where you want.

And this is just at level 1, the more powers I get, the more ways I can screw over my foes and help my allies.

Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to be an orbizard, wand wizards hit more often in the first place, (you foes don't need to make saving throws if you don't hit), and staff wizards can use more of the close blast powers, which are some of the best ones. My build will eventually have 18 dex and 20 wis, (using both orbs and wands), not as high a wis as the traditional orbizar, but enough to hit the target, and make the effect stick a couple of turns.

Dervag
2008-07-20, 11:44 PM
Where are you getting that out of what he said? All I'm seeing him saying is that wizards aren't as good at controlling ranged enemies as they are enemies that fight in melee. One would hope that the dedicated controller would at least be able to do his job equally well whether the enemies choose range or melee.Hard to say. I mean, you could easily imagine a rock-paper-scissors scenario: all else being equal, melee warriors beat archers but are vulnerable to magic, while archers have an advantage against magicians.

Helgraf
2008-07-21, 01:39 AM
Hard to say. I mean, you could easily imagine a rock-paper-scissors scenario: all else being equal, melee warriors beat archers but are vulnerable to magic, while archers have an advantage against magicians.

Precisely. Why should wizards be equally viable against all threat types just because their role is 'controller'?

Just because you practice AoE damage and crowd control doesn't mean you shouldn't be vulnerable to enemy ranged troops.

Artillery should remove enemy artillery first. It makes sense that other ranged combatants would be the best choice for removing a pesky opposing controller.

tyfon
2008-07-21, 06:04 AM
Hi!


When I'm reading about 'control' aspect and about how wizard is going to catch lots of enemies in the blas, I start to wonder what kind of game am I playing.

My DM does not allow monsters to gather in one place, they are splitting up, trying to encircle players, flank, and get between them. My experience from 3ed and 4 ed is the same - you are lucky if you catch 3 enemies in one blast.

namo
2008-07-21, 07:08 AM
Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to be an orbizard, wand wizards hit more often in the first place, (you foes don't need to make saving throws if you don't hit)
The wand is for 1 attack roll per encounter. Don't get me wrong, it's very nice, but saying "hitting more often" is generalizing too much.

The wizard seems a decent controller to me. What I miss the most is the lack of out-of-combat utility - rituals don't cut it for me right now. And no, I don't mean the wizard should replace other classes. :smallwink:

Prophaniti
2008-07-21, 07:23 AM
You've never had the spellcasters solve every out-of-combat problem the Rogue isn't specialized for?

You've never fought a group of humanoid warriors and had the wizard cast Confusion?

You've never had a wizard stay totally safe from 50% or more of all encounters because he cast Overland Flight that morning?

You've never had a wizard cripple a big armored enemy with empowered Ray of Enfeeblement?
That would be 'no' to all of the above. We certainly had wizards (and sorcerers) TRY some of them, but quite often, and this is why discussions on the brokeness of wizards really confounds me, the target simply MADE HIS SAVE, and all that work was wasted. In the case of a wizard in the party not taking damage very often, yes we've had that, but not because of Overland Flight. They just had a ridiculously high AC as well as things like Displacement active most of the time. Honestly, I don't see a problem with that at all. If the wizard gets seriously injured in an encounter that wasn't tailored to take out the wizard, somethings gone wrong, not in a 'broken game' sense, but in a 'oh ****, we're gonna die' sense.

As for out-of-combat problems, most of them were solved by mundane muscle, occasionally with magical assistance, simply because there was no need for the wizard to help. Why waste his limited resources when we're all perfectly capable of scaling the wall normally? Especially my Knight who, going for that Lancelot feel, had lots of ranks in Climb, Jump, and Swim. She could climb a castle wall in full plate, with a heavy load, and still fight things on the way up. Why on earth would the wizard waste spells or wands or potions to levitate or fly her up, unless we were in an incredible hurry?

Perhaps that's the problem, our wizards did what they're supposed to do and only solved things with magic when it was necessary. I hope any group with a player that was enough of an ass to take over every situation was caught with his spells and resources exhausted and was humiliated by defeat or flight. Wouldn't be that difficult to do as a DM.

PhallicWarrior
2008-07-21, 07:42 AM
And here I thought most of the forum arguements had died down...

Boy, was I wrong.

Thanks for the feedback, everybody. Feel free to keep talking.

its_all_ogre
2008-07-21, 08:14 AM
at prophaniti: ray of enfeeblement has no save.
my group was screwed by a cast of this the other day by a level 4 casterwho managed to roll a 6, total of 8 strength lost by the paladin...cue use of one of the two restoration scrolls they had as there was no way the party would have pulled through that fight with the paladin having a strength of only 10

Artanis
2008-07-21, 11:29 AM
Hi!


When I'm reading about 'control' aspect and about how wizard is going to catch lots of enemies in the blas, I start to wonder what kind of game am I playing.

My DM does not allow monsters to gather in one place, they are splitting up, trying to encircle players, flank, and get between them. My experience from 3ed and 4 ed is the same - you are lucky if you catch 3 enemies in one blast.
If there's five or six - or even eight - enemies, then catching 3 in one blast is a pretty big percentage.

And yeah, the DM can make the enemies split up...if the room is big enough, at any rate. However, splitting up makes it that much harder for them to support each other as your party goes through and picks them off one at a time with impunity.

tyfon
2008-07-21, 11:54 AM
I'd not say so...

It's not percentage - it's not random at all, and you could easily assume that any intelligent monster group will split on first signal that mage is in party, because magic is common enough and it's effects are quite well known. Wizard cannot shape blast, so if enemies are not willing to to just form nice line, they will try to split or get cover, or better - move between players. And players aren't going to be in one area because of ... area attacks that monsters posess :).

In big room monsters have opportunity to move around or take cover, in tight space area effect is suicide (cannot throw fireball behind wall...) simmilar to granade in bunker - so really best is having medium space - not so common.

There is also question about solo/duo monsters (np one glabrezu, two giants) - there is no easy way to target both, and even if, effectively wizard deals, let say (spell) * 2 damages. And thats not a lot.

What about minions? I played 4ed briefly so cannot say for sure, but they really do not sem to matter that much. They deal small damage, don't do very interesting stuff on their own. Most of classes have some powers to remove several of them from battelfield, usually as 'per encounter'.



One thing about 3/4 e wizards - i don't mind powering others up, or wizards down - but I have really BIG problem with lack of options and versatility. Of cours - versatility always creates space wor abuses, but you think that ilusion is bad? Ever played mage: TA ? :) In d&d is 1/10 of that.

Roderick_BR
2008-07-21, 11:59 AM
Actually, the according the char op boards the wizard is actually one of the, if not the, weakest class in 4e. The wizards damage output is fairly low, and they only have one spell that is even close to being a "save or die" spell(sleep), but most of their spells hit multiple opponents, and they are fairly good at giving people some fairly nasty status effects (how many classes can daze everyone in a blast with a level 6 encounter and still do damage with it?). I'd say they are fairly balanced, they just require a good deal more tactics then most, and wizards who rely primarly on damage will be a little disappointed(though thats nothing new).

As far as utility, wizards(and clerics) took a huge hit. While it's true wizards have some of the best utility spells in the game (both because of what the utility spells do and the simple fact that wizards get twice as many as most people) they don't really let you feel like you can do anything you want whenever you want, which is appropriate because you can't. Most of the old utility spells you are used to from 3.x are rituals now(or will eventually be rituals) but rituals take a long time to cast and cost money, limiting how much you can overuse them(yes anyone can use rituals, but wizards are unquestionably the best at it.) Now a days, you have to work together and rely on your teammates, you won't have every ability you need for every situations, and you'll need to get more creative in solving problems then just finding the appropriate spell and casting it.
As someone in the WotC forum said: "Now you need inteligence to play a wizard".
The only real complaint I heard is that wizards need some better "battlefield control" powers. And lots of them, as was pointed, is that the wizard doesn't do much damage. What is odd, since he was not supposed to be a heavy damage dealer.

tyfon
2008-07-21, 12:03 PM
As someone in the WotC forum said: "Now you need inteligence to play a wizard".

As with any character.


The only real complaint I heard is that wizards need some better "battlefield control" powers.

Wow....now, that's suprise... People playing 'controller' need control powers. Good that somebody realised that ...


And lots of them, as was pointed, is that the wizard doesn't do much damage. What is odd, since he was not supposed to be a heavy damage dealer.
Fighter also, but his damage capability is better. Same for leaders, i think...

Question is - isn't another damage dealer in party more valuable than controller (wizard)?

Artanis
2008-07-21, 12:25 PM
I'd not say so...

It's not percentage - it's not random at all, and you could easily assume that any intelligent monster group will split on first signal that mage is in party, because magic is common enough and it's effects are quite well known. Wizard cannot shape blast, so if enemies are not willing to to just form nice line, they will try to split or get cover, or better - move between players. And players aren't going to be in one area because of ... area attacks that monsters posess :).
I didn't mean to imply that it was random, I was just saying that hitting half the enemies you're up against ain't exactly bad.

And so what if the monsters split? If the enemy is split up, the Rogue can go ahead and flank an enemy without worrying about another enemy flanking him in turn. If the enemy is split up, the Brutes have a harder time protecting the squishier Artillery. If the enemy is split up, it makes it easier to turn a 6v4 fight into a series of one-sided 4v1 beatdowns, which in turn lets the players win MUCH more easily with MUCH less damage taken. That's why AoE IS control.

And yes, players have to spread out due to enemy AoE. They spread out to where the enemy can swarm them one at a time. They spread out into trap-infested areas. They spread out to where the Fighter can't protect them. They spread out to where the Rogue can't flank and use his Sneak Attack. That's why AoE IS control.



In big room monsters have opportunity to move around or take cover, in tight space area effect is suicide (cannot throw fireball behind wall...) simmilar to granade in bunker - so really best is having medium space - not so common.

There is also question about solo/duo monsters (np one glabrezu, two giants) - there is no easy way to target both, and even if, effectively wizard deals, let say (spell) * 2 damages. And thats not a lot.
You do realize that Wizards have Control abilities that don't involve AoE damage, right? If there's one or two targets, that makes it that much easier for the Wizard to keep status effects on everything, which in turn makes everybody else's job easier. So you can't hit five guys when you're up against one Glabrezu...so what? That just means that all your Rays of Enfeeblement and whatnot are being poured onto one target.


What about minions? I played 4ed briefly so cannot say for sure, but they really do not sem to matter that much. They deal small damage, don't do very interesting stuff on their own. Most of classes have some powers to remove several of them from battelfield, usually as 'per encounter'.
In terms of increasing an encounter's level, minions are cheap. And being cheap makes them dangerous. You can have enough "real" enemies to be a major threat to the party AND throw some minions in to make it that much harder to deal with the "real" baddies. And don't forget that minions still hurt. They go down fast, but if you have a dozen of them beating on you, you go down fast as well.

And yes, most classes have some way to deal with them...but not much. You think a Wizard sucks at dealing damage? Another class trying to be a Controller is even worse.


One thing about 3/4 e wizards - i don't mind powering others up, or wizards down - but I have really BIG problem with lack of options and versatility. Of cours - versatility always creates space wor abuses, but you think that ilusion is bad? Ever played mage: TA ? :) In d&d is 1/10 of that.
You have no idea how idiotic I think this arguement is. You think your precious wizards lack versatility now? Ever tried to play a 3e melee character?

If you want your Wizard to solve everything while melee guys sit on their thumbs doing nothing more than taking your gold, go ahead and play something else. Me, I want to use a sword AND be useful, so I'll play 4e.


edit: addendum

Question is - isn't another damage dealer in party more valuable than controller (wizard)?
And when you run into an encounter that involves 25 minions, or a BBEG that you really, really want to lay some status effects on, you'll be wishing you had given up those 3 or 4 points of damage a turn in order to have that capability.

tyfon
2008-07-21, 12:43 PM
Split is usually not best option for party as they are less numerous. Rouge needs friend to flank, and rushing among enemies mean they flank too, and lots of monsters can do nasty things when they gain CA. " turning 6v4 fight into a series of one-sided 4v1 beatdowns" may mean: "4 players hit 1 monster while 5 monsters hit 1 wizard" - don't think its really worthwhile perspective... AoE is a killer during first round of combat, usually after both sides enter meele it's usability is at best limited... Thats my experience from 3x and I see in 4e it's pretty much same - not suprisingly because space still has only three dimensions...

Example with "wizards have powers that aren't AoE leads us to question "isn't another dd better?" - they have 2 targets/not AoE attakcks setting status too...

Discussion about "is ranger going to clear ground better than wizard" is poitless - it depends on encounter - sometimes i'd say he's even better. On average wizard is vest you can take, but whole party can make up for that easily, and difference between wizard and ground-clearing ranger is that second one is useful after washing away wave of minions.

And again - they aren't that dangerous. My popular saying from 3e about weak spell was "good against cannon fodder, but against cannon fodder anything is good" fits here perfectly.

Argument that there is more optionality and versatility in 4 e comparing to 3 e I have to consider as insulting my intelligence and reading ability. Without that wizard is not really wizard at all, maybe we call him wand bearer, give him wand and say what wand can do ? Because now this class becomes another type of fighter. I don't say it's bad - I say it's not climatic, as far as fantasy canon is important.


So, equal chances for everyone ?

a) get rid of classes. Many systems did it and are prosperous - everything for everyone, full freedom
b) luckily, I'm playing with mature group and we do not need to compensate and build our self-respect by saying how much damage our characters do ...

If you just want to stab things go and try kendo



EDIT -> If You are fighting enemies on the opposite side of 25 square chasm You'd really like to give up all party for more ranged damage rangers.

Seriously - how many fights with 25 minions have You seen? How many that couldn't be solved other way ? (narrow passage not allowing to fully use minions and so on)

mcv
2008-07-21, 01:53 PM
If there's five or six - or even eight - enemies, then catching 3 in one blast is a pretty big percentage.

We recently had an Earthdawn adventure where we were attacked by a bunch of angry lizardmen in a boat. One fireball from the group's elementalist, and the fight was over.

I don't think cutting back on the size of the AoE is necessarily bad, although I suppose it'd be nice if the wizard could reduce the size to a single target in case his allies are in the area.

The New Bruceski
2008-07-21, 02:12 PM
I don't think cutting back on the size of the AoE is necessarily bad, although I suppose it'd be nice if the wizard could reduce the size to a single target in case his allies are in the area.

My party's wizard TOLD me to make my fighter a Tiefling. I have only myself to blame for the burns. :smallsmile:
----------------
As for the other arguments in here, it seems we agree on the details but disagree on whether they're good or bad.

--Does anyone disagree that pure casters have fewer options, while melee classes have more?

--Does anyone disagree that there are some things a wizard does well and some things he doesn't? (situations of combat, not "swing a sword")

--Does anyone disagree that most out-of-combat spells or spells whose in-combat use relies mostly on player ingenuity are either still in development, removed (hard to tell apart from "still in development"), or have been moved to rituals, where they take preparation time and material components?

--Are there any wizard changes I'm missing?

Don't argue for the moment whether these changes are good or bad; I'm wondering if anyone disagrees that these are the changes that were made?

Rachel Lorelei
2008-07-21, 02:46 PM
One fireball from the group's elementalist, and the fight was over.
Sounds like an exciting, challenging combat to me!

(That was sarcasm, folks.)

4E spells very intentionally don't work that way. "I cast a spell, we win" may be fun for the wizard, and it might be amusing for the group the first couple of times, but it gets old and makes fun, challenging encounters vastly harder to make.



Because now this class becomes another type of fighter.

Why do people even bother saying this? The wizard is nothing like the fighter, in play. They have different roles and play in almost opposite, complementary ways.

Crow
2008-07-21, 02:54 PM
Why do people even bother saying this? The wizard is nothing like the fighter, in play. They have different roles and play in almost opposite, complementary ways.

This is true. Even though the classes look similar due to the power format, most roles do actually play differently in an actual game.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-07-21, 02:57 PM
This is true. Even though the classes look similar due to the power format, most roles do actually play differently in an actual game.

It really does seem to boil down to "well, gosh, they both have these here newfangled 'power' things."

wodan46
2008-07-21, 04:03 PM
Wizards are quite effective in 4e without being broken. They are able to do 2 things:
1. Disable enemies and occasionally Push them around.
2. Do massive damage... but only if they can get the enemies bunched up.

For example, take Scorching Burst. The more enemies you can nail with it at once, the greater your effective damage output is, while Fighters tend to be limited to X amount of damage for most attacks.

Also, note that the Level 1 Spells, with the exception of the Wave/Burst At-Wills and the Sleep/Sphere dailies, are weak compared to later Wizard stuff.

For example, at Level 3, wizards can pick from the following encounter powers
1. Color Spray, dazing targets in 5x5 area in front of the Wizard
2. Fire Shroud, burninating everything within 3 of the Wizard.
3. Icy Rays, inflict light damage and immobilize 2 enemies within 10 of Wizard
4, Shock Sphere, blow up 5x5 area within 10 of Wizard, simple damage.

Since Wizard at-wills have low AOE and minor status effects, Wizards are dependent on their Encounter Powers and Daily Powers for their true glory. As time passes, Wizards will eventually have 4 encounters and 4 dailies. In a typical combat, they can begin by dropping a daily which they sustain, while casting additional encounter powers. By the time they run through their encounter powers, they will have softened up the enemies in the encounter like no other class can.

Yakk
2008-07-21, 04:28 PM
--Does anyone disagree that pure casters have fewer options, while melee classes have more?
Yes? Just in terms of attacks vs defense options, pure casters have more options. A wizard can have powers that target reflex, fortitude and will really cheaply -- while most melee powers are vs AC.

Oh, you mean compared to previous editions? Sure -- the PHB is no longer 25% devoted to Wizard/Sorcerer options.


--Does anyone disagree that there are some things a wizard does well and some things he doesn't? (situations of combat, not "swing a sword")
Wizards deal well with many minions. Wizards deal well with single solo NPCs, using save-or-suck and (especially) until-next-round powers. Wizard spells have more status effect debuffs attached to them than other players, which make them very good against Solos (and Elites).

Wizards deal poorly with multiple, spread-out, ambushing, artillery NPCs.


--Are there any wizard changes I'm missing?

Wizards can use magic every round, and not fall back on a crossbow. Wizards can recover a good chunk of their power in 5 minutes, instead of 24 hours.

wodan46
2008-07-21, 04:54 PM
Also, Wizards break the most from the 2[W]+Mod and a debuff mold that most powers tend to resemble, with the Clerics and Warlocks following after. They also have the most unusual utilities.

For example, the 3 level 22 utilities Wizards have are Mass Fly, Time Stop, and Mordenkainen's Mansion, which are not gamebreaking, but are quite impressive nonetheless.

Then you have things like Elemental Maw, which cause massive damage in a large area, then stun enemies and teleport them anywhere you want on the battlefield. Or Legion's Hold, which drops automatically debuffs every last enemy within 20 squares, and if it actually hits they're disabled altogether for a turn or 2.

Artanis
2008-07-21, 04:56 PM
Argument that there is more optionality and versatility in 4 e comparing to 3 e I have to consider as insulting my intelligence and reading ability. Without that wizard is not really wizard at all, maybe we call him wand bearer, give him wand and say what wand can do ? Because now this class becomes another type of fighter. I don't say it's bad - I say it's not climatic, as far as fantasy canon is important.

Who said anything about the Wizard having more versatility? No kidding the Wizard has less versatility than in 3e. However, the melee classes have a hell of a lot more.

Some of us want to play a melee class. If that offends you, go play Mage.


If you just want to stab things go and try kendo
If you just want to destroy everything without anybody else doing anything, go play single-player Halo.

wodan46
2008-07-21, 05:08 PM
I'm getting really tired of people who keep insisting that Wizards are no more than Arcane archers, even though they do nothing of the such, while in fact Warlocks explicitly ARE supposed to be the equivalent of Arcane Archers, albeit ones with magical stealth/lifesteal/debuffs on top.

Wizards are not Archers. They are Glass Cannons, capable of massive AOE attacks that shred and/or neutralize entire groups of enemies at once. Even when they run out of encounter powers, by which the encounter should be essentially destroyed by them and their allies, they can still shove enemies around, slow them down, set up a traps, and hit small clusters of enemies at once.

Grey Paladin
2008-07-21, 06:35 PM
A question: How many of you have played beyond level 6? 10? 15?

With your average combat lasting 10-20 rounds, how the hell is stunning 1-5 of the 10 enemies you are facing with one of your, at most, 8( 4 of which are daily) powers (at level 30) for a round going to help?

At low levels everyone do similar damage so most have likely missed this, but look at the scaling of the HP values, Now look at the scaling of the damage of the Wizard powers, compare and comprehend - the damage is there only as a token gesture.

So yes, OP, 4E fixed the problems with the Wizard class by dumbing it down and nerfing it to Monk levels, not only do Wizard powers cause no damage, and that both Warlocks and Clerics are better Controllers, but the number of spells has been reduced from over 600 over 20 levels to under 50 over 30.

I'd take a 3-1E wizard with a crossbow and no offensive spells over the 4E blaster, at least I'd be capable of doing *something* beside killing 1 HP mooks and stunning people for 1/10 of combat while throwing what seems to be paperclips at the same time the Cleric does the actual control.

With the exception of 3E and its horrific DC scaling system, Wizards were always powerful but also had to relay on teamwork to win- they acted like actual artillery, softening the opposition before letting the Armor and Infantry go in. Much like in real life charging into battle without the support of the other divisions was suicidal. Wizards were crucial but so were Fighters, Clerics, and Rogues.

Crow
2008-07-21, 06:45 PM
I've run some combats at epic levels.

The wizard abilities that threaten damage as a means of control (which are "OK" at lower levels) are next to useless. They do little to discourage a determined badguy with lots of hp. You need to rely on stunning, dazing, knocking unconcious, or at least knocking prone. Anything less is a speedbump.

On the other hand, a "sticky" fighter really begins to shine.

Merlin the Tuna
2008-07-21, 06:45 PM
It felt like a Black Mage, ironically called 'Wizard' (with the Elemental secondary), from Final Fantasy TacticsPoint 1: There is nothing ironic about this in the least.

Point 2: Elemental was the primary skill of Geomancers in FFT; Wizards had the primary of Black Magic. Secondaries could be selected from any class that the character had unlocked, but Wizards were typically pretty shoddy at Elemental since it's based on both MA (which they're the best in the game at) and PA (which they're horrendous at).

Yakk
2008-07-21, 07:28 PM
A question: How many of you have played beyond level 6? 10? 15?

With your average combat lasting 10-20 rounds, how the hell is stunning 1-5 of the 10 enemies you are facing with one of your, at most, 8( 4 of which are daily) powers (at level 30) for a round going to help?

10 enemies? That means something like 4 normals and 6 minions, right?

First, you have great aoe spells. This kills minions very efficiently. Your at-will powers are AOE, letting you clean up clumps really easily.

Second, 10 to 20 rounds? Your characters suck ass, or are hording their daily powers and doing a "end game grind down of the last few creatures" style, aren't they?


At low levels everyone do similar damage so most have likely missed this, but look at the scaling of the HP values, Now look at the scaling of the damage of the Wizard powers, compare and comprehend - the damage is there only as a token gesture.

A level X normal creature has about 8.5*X + 20 HP (plus or minus a few).

Your damage bonus ends up being about 4+level/6 or level/7 from stats, +level/5 from implements, +level/6 -- coming out to about 4+level/2 bonus damage.

Your at-will attacks do about 5 + level/4 damage from dice, bringing your total damage from at-will attacks up to about 9+3/4*level per attack (plus or minus).

Defenses of enemies is about 14+Level. Your attack is about 6+0.9*Level. (non-AC defenses are about 2 lower, and attack is about 2 lower).

So people who use only at-wills end up taking about 4.5 to 17.5 attacks at level 1 through 30 to kill a single opponent.

But you aren't supposed to be mainly using at-will attacks to kill creatures at level 30.

By level 30, you have 4 per-encounter attack powers, doing about twice at-will damage. You also have 4 daily attack powers, doing about 4x at-will damage. And you have 3 daily uses of a magic item, doing about 2x at-will damage. And an action point every 2 encounters.

Burning 4 per-encounter, 1 daily, and 1 magic item use or an action point, we get:

8+4+2 = about the equivalent of 14 at-will attacks over the first 5 to 6 rounds of combat. Leaving 3.5 at-will attacks, or a total of ~8.5 to 9.5 rounds to beat an encounter. (as you have 5 players, and 5 monsters of about the same level). Of course, with the ability to concentrate damage and alpha-strike, your early rounds will average almost a monster a round dead.

You can often do better than this with a bit of synergy (warlord uses a power that grants a bonus to attack, which you then leverage into a nearly-certainly-successful daily power, etc).

On top of that, with moderate alpha striking, well over 75% of your damage is done in the first 50% of rounds.

The controller can either very effectively take out the minions (which have the worst damage:HP ratio among any mob, in general, a great use of damage-leverage), or stun/weaken the highest damage creature (which provides another sort of leverage), during those first 50% rounds.


I'd take a 3-1E wizard with a crossbow and no offensive spells over the 4E blaster, at least I'd be capable of doing *something* beside killing 1 HP mooks and stunning people for 1/10 of combat while throwing what seems to be paperclips at the same time the Cleric does the actual control.

1 HP mooks that do 1/3 the damage of a monster that takes 5 to 10 actions to kill ... is a really good thing to kill with a single action.

It is true that the higher levels of D&D don't have the number of minions that they should have -- but that is because it is presumed that you are leveling up from level 1. So they produced more content for the heroic tier than paragon and epic tier.

Grey Paladin
2008-07-21, 07:55 PM
Our DM is very . . . efficient with the EXP budget(read: a fan of Tucker), using different, weaker, monsters, traps, and hazards, for highly specialized roles and synergy.

The long duration of combat is due to our fights not taking place in a 8X8 flat void and common terrain abuse to block LoE on both sides. When things look bad pretty much all intelligent monsters flee and regroup with Defenders protecting the rear.

As to the damage, I do not know what game have you been playing but I have yet to have a combat that lasted less than 8 rounds.

Wizards can Nova like any other class, but wouldn't you prefer another Warlock or Cleric doing the same? The only time Wizards are preferable is when facing hordes of minions.

EvilElitest
2008-07-21, 07:59 PM
Well, yes. Viciously, rigidly in line with the other classes. To the point where it's hard to tell them (the classes) apart.
you will be assimilating



Yeah because 3.x non-casters at high levels where SO different. What distinguished wizards in 3.x was them being ungodly powerful, and 4e definitely fixed that. Now you can play a high level fighter and not be ashamed of what he can do.

actually there was a lot of variety, just not much balance.

Also where does this fallacy of not thinking that the classes are too alike if you've played the game come from? I've played hte game, and i have three legally purcused books, what are you talking about?


Oh Edea, nicely done
from
EE

Yakk
2008-07-21, 08:08 PM
Our DM is very . . . efficient with the EXP budget(read: a fan of Tucker), using different, weaker, monsters, traps, and hazards, for highly specialized roles and synergy.
So you aren't actually fighting against your XP budget. /shrug, yes, the game probably breaks down if the DM tries to break it.

And, you almost certainly didn't level from level 1 up to epic levels -- so it is quite possible you suck.


The long duration of combat is due to our fights not taking place in a 8X8 flat void and common terrain abuse to block LoE on both sides. When things look bad pretty much all intelligent monsters flee and regroup with Defenders protecting the rear.

And, with control powers, you can break up a fleeing mob (or disable soldiers), and tear the retreating bunch a hole.

If there are 10 normal monsters, that means they are 4 levels lower than you. This means their defenses and attacks should suck serious ass -- they should be wiffing a bunch, and you should be connecting with nearly every attack. It is also at the edge of the "level spread for an encounter" is, hence the "huh?" comment.

If your DM is giving you 10 bad guys, and then "fudging it" to boost their defenses (or cheesing it) at 4 levels under you, then yes I'd expect D&D to break down and end up taking to ****ing long to kill creatures.


As to the damage, I do not know what game have you been playing but I have yet to have a combat that lasted less than 8 rounds.
You haven't found a single combat, at any level, that took less than 8 rounds?

Then -- I think you aren't following the rules? Is your party about 5 ish PCs? Are they built right? Do you typically concentrate damage, or spread it out?


Wizards can Nova like any other class, but wouldn't you prefer another Warlock or Cleric doing the same? The only time Wizards are preferable is when facing hordes of minions.
The nova was just an estimate of how long it takes to kill creatures. I didn't understand your 17+ turn combat.

So I was crunching numbers to estimate how much damage output players could put out.

Note that you are expected to do things like "grant an ally a bonus to hit", and then that ally uses a daily power to lay some smack down. You are expected to concentrate fire on a single opponent. You are expected to use area spells to blast away any minions. And the DM isn't expected to make cheesy encounters with 50% more HP than expected, while eliminating the advantage of the level difference by cheesing up creature defense. :-)

Rachel Lorelei
2008-07-21, 08:19 PM
A question: How many of you have played beyond level 6? 10? 15?

With your average combat lasting 10-20 rounds, how the hell is stunning 1-5 of the 10 enemies you are facing with one of your, at most, 8( 4 of which are daily) powers (at level 30) for a round going to help?
First of all, your powers last longer than a round. Some are until the end of your next turn, but many are (save ends), which is 2 rounds on average. Then you have items like the Orb of Inevitable Continuance. You can have a couple of lower-level ones. They refresh every milestone. Oh, and you got your Archmage powers.

And then you have your own Orb, if you're an orb wizard.

10-20 rounds? 10, sure, but 20, only if it's set up to last a long time. The 20-round combats are usually decided before they're over (epic solo enemies). 4E doesn't play as well at epic levels. On the other hand, at least it can play at epic levels, which 3.5 practically couldn't.


At low levels everyone do similar damage so most have likely missed this, but look at the scaling of the HP values, Now look at the scaling of the damage of the Wizard powers, compare and comprehend - the damage is there only as a token gesture.
Epic, you say? Encounter powers:
Acid Storm does 4d6+INT, then 10 (~3d6) more. It's also a burst 4, making it very sizeable. Combine with ally powers or your own, to knock down, create difficult terrain, immobilize, etc. An immobilize (save ends) power together with this hurts.
Compare to the Warlock's... but the Warlock's a striker. Compare to the Warlord's powers, which do 3[w] or 4[w] to a single target. The paladin has a 4d10 single-target and some 3[w] and 4[w] ones. The Fighter has a 2[W] close burst 1 power , and at 27 a 2[w] close burst 1, shift two squares, another 2[w] close burst 1.

Black Fire? 6d6+INT. The fighter's doing 4[w], which could mean 4d10 or 8d6--but he's doing it to a single target.

In conclusion, what on earth are you talking about? The fact that Confusion or Forcecage only do 3d10? That's because they've got powerful control effects attached! The wizard's damage powers do damage on par with everyone else's powers--slightly less (d6es vs. d8 or even d10 for a Warlock), but they hit many people as opposed to just one, which really adds up. I'm playing a fighter that uses the close burst powers, and they really wear normal monsters down.

Against single targets, the control effects become that much more powerful.


So yes, OP, 4E fixed the problems with the Wizard class by dumbing it down and nerfing it to Monk levels, not only do Wizard powers cause no damage, and that both Warlocks and Clerics are better Controllers, but the number of spells has been reduced from over 600 over 20 levels to under 50 over 30.
This is completely ridiculous. It's blatantly obvious that you haven't played a wizard, and either no one in your group has, or your wizard player is terrible.


I'd take a 3-1E wizard with a crossbow and no offensive spells over the 4E blaster, at least I'd be capable of doing *something* beside killing 1 HP mooks and stunning people for 1/10 of combat while throwing what seems to be paperclips at the same time the Cleric does the actual control.
The cleric? Look at his encounter powers. Punishing Strike, Sacrificial Healing, Scourge of the Unworthy, Astral Blades of Death, Haunting Strike... I must be missing all this control the cleric does.

At this point, I don't believe you've actually played the game more than a little, much less at epic levels.



I've run some combats at epic levels.

The wizard abilities that threaten damage as a means of control (which are "OK" at lower levels) are next to useless. They do little to discourage a determined badguy with lots of hp. You need to rely on stunning, dazing, knocking unconcious, or at least knocking prone. Anything less is a speedbump.

On the other hand, a "sticky" fighter really begins to shine.
I can't really see any high-level powers that "threaten" damage. What I do see is our group's wizard throwing around Web + Wall of Fire with Thunderwave followups, Wall of Ice, Ice Tomb and Thunderclap (compare to the Warlock's powers, which debuff rather than controlling)...
Our wizard is the MVP on a regular basis.

Grey Paladin
2008-07-21, 08:24 PM
Epic, no, Paragon? yes.

4 levels lower than the party mean about -30% to Hit (with the base value usually being around 50%, 70% for speicalists) and defences (which would make the bastards easy to hit if they don't abuse the terrain)

By the time the opponents retreat I'm usually out of encounter powers, and spending dailies against a standard encounter is usually a bad idea.

Our DM never cheats for or against us, dieing is part of the fun.

Our party is composed of 4 PCs, we focus fire when we can but due to being forced to spread out to avoid AoE and terrain blocking line of effect sometimes we cannot.

About the only thing our DM does that is 'forbidden' by the rules is not blatantly breaking reality when we follow a fleeing force right into another and have to face both the stand-alone encounter and the survivors of the previous one.

EDIT:
Rachel, why do you bother arguing at all if you are so sure I have never played a wizard and am an untrustworthy troll?

A level 1 Minotaur Fighter does nearly as much damage to a single target with his daily (reliable) power as a level 29 Wizard does with Meteor shower.

Do your enemies focus fire? do they use cover? terrain? block LoE? stealth? rarely do our enemies just stand there in the open with the casters in the back and the BSFs rushing at us.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-07-21, 08:48 PM
By the time the opponents retreat I'm usually out of encounter powers, and spending dailies against a standard encounter is usually a bad idea.

[quote]Our party is composed of 4 PCs, we focus fire when we can but due to being forced to spread out to avoid AoE and terrain blocking line of effect sometimes we cannot.
Maybe you should use the terrain to your advantage.
If your DM intentionally sets every encounter in terrain that's as favorable to the enemies as he can make it, and doesn't factor that in, no wonder your encounters take longer and are harder.


About the only thing our DM does that is 'forbidden' by the rules is not blatantly breaking reality when we follow a fleeing force right into another and have to face both the stand-alone encounter and the survivors of the previous one.
If reinforcements are involved, he should be counting *all* the monsters as one encounter. He knows they're gonna run back for help, he needs to either take that into account or not pretend he's following the XP budget.


Wizards can Nova like any other class, but wouldn't you prefer another Warlock or Cleric doing the same? The only time Wizards are preferable is when facing hordes of minions.
No, I REALLY wouldn't. I don't know where you got the idea that clerics have control abilities. Warlocks have single-target debuffs.

Yakk
2008-07-21, 08:48 PM
Burning a daily to decimate a retreating force, rather than having it manage to flee to reinforce and warn a second force, seems like a good idea?

Here is the result of my "estimated at-will attacks to defeat an even-level creature":


4.531902206
5.505952381
6.36920385
7.142857143
7.843137255
8.482676225
9.071459136
9.617486339
10.12724649
10.60606061
11.05833638
11.48775895
11.8974359
12.29000884
12.6677402
13.03258145
13.38622724
13.73015873
14.06567858
14.39393939
14.71596701
15.03267974
15.34490432
15.65338924
15.95881596
16.26180837
16.56294083
16.8627451
17.16171617
17.46031746


It is really close to a strait line, after I factor everything I could think of in.

Your plethora of daily powers, if saved only for "big bads", ends up making standard non-big-bad encounters longer and longer, it is true. :-)

Rachel Lorelei
2008-07-21, 08:57 PM
Rachel, why do you bother arguing at all if you are so sure I have never played a wizard and am an untrustworthy troll?
I don't think you're a troll, but the things you say so wildly diverge from what's printed in the book (you somehow managed to miss that clerics have zero to one or two high-level control powers, while the wizard power list is full of them? You missed that wizard damage-power (rather than control-power) damage is comparable to non-striker damage, just slightly less but affecting multiple targets?


A level 1 Minotaur Fighter does nearly as much damage to a single target with his daily (reliable) power as a level 29 Wizard does with Meteor shower.
Meteor Shower is notoriously bad in 4E. That doesn't show anything.
Also, if that fighter happens to be using a longsword rather than a maul, he's doing 3d8, not 6d6. Not everyone plays maul fighters (and I prefer heavy-blade-and-shield or glaive ones, myself).


Do your enemies focus fire? do they use cover? terrain? block LoE? stealth? rarely do our enemies just stand there in the open with the casters in the back and the BSFs rushing at us.
Our enemies usually do some or all of these things. But just like not every fight takes place in a flat open space, not every fight takes place against optimized enemies who have reinforcements waiting and are in terrain favorable to them. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say that your DM's style, while you may enjoy it, is pretty far from the norm.

Still, I'd think Thunderwave alone makes wizards worth it in your kind of game. Being able to hurt enemies far back over and over is very useful.

Edit: how many powers do you have a day? Multiple people burn a daily in most of our encounters--by the time you have three daily powers, the party together has 12.

turkishproverb
2008-07-21, 09:01 PM
A question: How many of you have played beyond level 6? 10? 15?

With your average combat lasting 10-20 rounds, how the hell is stunning 1-5 of the 10 enemies you are facing with one of your, at most, 8( 4 of which are daily) powers (at level 30) for a round going to help?

At low levels everyone do similar damage so most have likely missed this, but look at the scaling of the HP values, Now look at the scaling of the damage of the Wizard powers, compare and comprehend - the damage is there only as a token gesture.

So yes, OP, 4E fixed the problems with the Wizard class by dumbing it down and nerfing it to Monk levels, not only do Wizard powers cause no damage, and that both Warlocks and Clerics are better Controllers, but the number of spells has been reduced from over 600 over 20 levels to under 50 over 30.

I'd take a 3-1E wizard with a crossbow and no offensive spells over the 4E blaster, at least I'd be capable of doing *something* beside killing 1 HP mooks and stunning people for 1/10 of combat while throwing what seems to be paperclips at the same time the Cleric does the actual control.

With the exception of 3E and its horrific DC scaling system, Wizards were always powerful but also had to relay on teamwork to win- they acted like actual artillery, softening the opposition before letting the Armor and Infantry go in. Much like in real life charging into battle without the support of the other divisions was suicidal. Wizards were crucial but so were Fighters, Clerics, and Rogues.

...

I... I love you.

Chronos
2008-07-21, 09:17 PM
Maybe you should use the terrain to your advantage.
If your DM intentionally sets every encounter in terrain that's as favorable to the enemies as he can make it, and doesn't factor that in, no wonder your encounters take longer and are harder.That should be the default. If a DM is going to put enemies into terrain that isn't favorable to them, that should be what he has to factor in. Most adventures consist of the players going to the enemies, rather than the other way around, and that means that if there's any home-field advantage, it's the enemies that are going to have it. And any creature with an Int of greater than --, even animals, are going to seek out the sort of environment that gives them the most advantage (and at that, even the things with Int -- are usually controlled by something smart, which puts them in a favorable environment.

TheDarkOne
2008-07-21, 10:10 PM
Someone earlier mentioned how not all your powers are "end of your next turn" some are "save ends": I thought it was interesting that almost all of the save ends powers are daily powers. The only regular power that is save ends and is not a daily is the 3rd level wizard encounter power, fire shroud.(which also, incidentally, targets every enemy in a burst, so contrary to what someone else was saying, not all wizard powers hurt everyone in the area) Other than that there are also a few paragon path class features that give you a save ends effect when you spend an action point, and one of the wizards paragon paths has a save ends effect when you use a second wind.

Wyvern_55
2008-07-21, 11:21 PM
Has fourth edition fixed wizards?

short answer: Yes with an if.

Long answer: No, with a but.

wodan46
2008-07-21, 11:36 PM
Wizard Damage
Wizard powers do less damage because they hit more enemies or inflict nastier stuns. In particular, if a Wizard is always able to to attack 2 enemies at once with Scorching Burst, the Wizard will be doing damage on par with a two handed weapon Fighter. Its also important to remember that their implement is essentially an encounter power itself given its ability to upgrade attacks, or provide utility in the case of the staff.

Encounter Length
Most encounters are going to last 3-6 rounds regardless of level, with Solos intentionally being exceptions of the rule. I calculated that an average Level 26 Wizard is capable of dumping out 300 or so average damage with their encounter powers, if they focus on damage dealing. Level 26 monsters have around 240 HP, meaning that the Wizard is doing more than their fair share, and the Wizard isn't even required to do their share with damage.

Common things people forget when thinking about combat length:
1. Item bonuses to damage, which along with ability modifiers add up at higher levels.
2. Certain things like attack, ac bonuses, and buff/debuffs become simply better at higher levels.
3. Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies can't be ignored when keeping track of your options.
4. By the end, you have 4 encounter powers, 4 dailies, 8 utilities, and a multitude of class features.
5. Action points, which in a normal 5 player party 5 encounter day will involve up to 15 being used, often for devastating 1-2 combos.

If damage is the be all end all for you...
Then Blood Mages are insanely nasty. They can add 2d10 damage to their attacks, their second wind insta kills any minions within 10 squares and cause ongoing damage. Action points add ongoing damage to any attacks done with them. Bloodpulse causes massive damage whenever an enemy leaves squares, including when you push them. Their daily is one of the most powerful powers in the game, causing massive damage and mandatory stunning in a large area, and it does so ONLY TO ENEMIES.

Viruzzo
2008-07-22, 02:44 AM
As Wyvern_55 pointed out we are giving too long answers for a question that maybe should have been more specific.
So, are wizards (and spellcasters in general) not much more powerful than the other classes anymore? Yes. Whether or not you appreciate how it was accomplished, this can't be argued.


Also where does this fallacy of not thinking that the classes are too alike if you've played the game come from? I've played hte game, and i have three legally purcused books, what are you talking about?
I'm not sure if I understood what you meant, but if you mean that in 4e classes are alike mechanically, then it's true. If you mean "they all play the same" then it's not.
If you are implying that I don't have extensive experience with 4e you are right, does this mean I can't talk or that your opinions are more correct? It's quite childish to say "I know better so I'm right" in what is really a matter of taste (and therefore there is no "right" or "wrong" opinion, whether or not your claim is correct).

Kurald Galain
2008-07-22, 02:49 AM
4E doesn't play as well at epic levels.

I'm curious why you think so.

And no, I haven't played epic levels myself yet, that's why I'm curious.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-07-22, 03:56 AM
I'm curious why you think so.

And no, I haven't played epic levels myself yet, that's why I'm curious.

I haven't played much epic, just a series of sessions, so some of this is just from the book, but:

-Content. There's not that much epic content--which is fine, most games will be Heroic and Paragon tier--but the lack of feats is pretty noticeable, most people don't qualify for more than one epic destiny, etc. I'm sure this'll change eventually, as either every new book will include some epic stuff or there'll be an epic-related book at some point, but right now you don't have the plentiful options you've got at the paragon tier.

-Balance problems. Epic is when the problematic stuff really shows up.
Seal of Binding, for example. Demigod's level 30 ability (which, disappointingly, needs to be totally scrapped).
Orb-using wizards become significantly stronger. Tactical warlords, with Battle Captain, give overwhelming bonuses. Parties are able to stun enemies and keep them stunned--with an Orb wizard, even solo monsters.

-Monster types don't work as well. Two problems: minions and solos.
Minions stop being relevant. This is true to *some* extent in the paragon tier, depending on the abilities people choose, but in epic, a party is bound to have a number of auto-damage abilities (from the Stormwarden path for the ragner to some of the Wizard's spells, like that electrical cage one), and can use them whenever they run into minions, meaning minions don't soak up actions like they used to and don't really have the chance to survive more than a round after contact. Epic minions are basically pointless. Which fits epic, I guess, but minions work pretty well before then, so you basically lose the option of using them and having them be a threat.
Solos have a LOT of HP. Too much HP. Shaving a few hundred off any of'em won't make the game worse in any way. They're also vulnerable to Stunning, since they lose their actions completely; with Orbs of Inevitable Continuance, a Warlock's powers, a Wizard's spells, etc, a party. This is less true if you don't have multiple characters who can stun, a competent Orb wizard, etc, and it's less true if you don't have a Leader who gives big bonuses, but it still applies. The battle gets decided, and then it's mostly a matter of whittling away at the monsters' HP. We've even though about giving PCs half their level to damage (along with everything else), once per round. That'd probably cause some problems, though. Solos just don't work as well in epic; the ancient red dragon has its fire aura which makes it hard to hit, so it varies between nearly unhittable from outside the damage aura and stunned and therefore a sitting duck.

-Not really all that epic. It's far closer to 3.5 at level 15 than at level 30. This is for the best in many ways, though.

It's light-years away from 3.5 Epic, which means it's perfectly *playable*. But it's still where most of the problematic stuff shows its head. And any issues you had before then are probably still around. I just found epic to be less good than the other two tiers. Paragon's my favorite.

Kaiyanwang
2008-07-22, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by BCOvertigo

Grease was in my mind the perfect example of a creative power. It could be used to disable, defend or ....I don't know maybe cook? Can someone please give me a concrete example that shows I'm incorrect because this is depressing. I haven't looked over the supplements yet and illusions seem to be the one true hope for fixing this malady.

In 4th, The only wow mage wizard spell I’ve seen vaguely usable in a creative way is disintegrate, because can still target an object (so a pillar, the terrain under the feet of the golem, and so on). The other is some ultra nerfed utility and 71548314 spell wich can be summarized in “fzzz-boom, add condiction”


Originally posted by Prophaniti
I'd just like to point out again that I have never had a problem with wizards in 3.5. Not in any campaign ever. Even when we played an Epic campaign, everyone got WBL and were careful enough in their item selection, they could do almost everything the wizard could anyway. In my personal experience, running this 'invincible wizard' takes far more effort than any gamer I've ever played with is willing to put into ruleslawyering or character builds. I am truly sorry for those of you who had a player who was obsessive enough and an ass enough to try that, and more sorry still that the group let them get away with it.


True. Is amazing see designers tailor game design around avoiding gamebreaking. Is like to say to a musician “ play hitting a stick on a dead tree trunk because a Les Paul guitar is easier to break”.




Originally posted by Rachel Lorelei
You've never had the spellcasters solve every out-of-combat problem the Rogue isn't specialized for?

You've never fought a group of humanoid warriors and had the wizard cast Confusion?

You've never had a wizard stay totally safe from 50% or more of all encounters because he cast Overland Flight that morning

You've never had a wizard cripple a big armored enemy with empowered Ray of Enfeeblement?

So none pass saving throws, no SR, none dispel or counter a spell, no ranged weapon, the party group has a cleric to cure ability damage and the enemies hasn’t, and, first of all, the wizard can do all this freely because none think to beat the thin, tender spellcaster when he casts. Maybe the problem here is not the wizard.


4E spells very intentionally don't work that way. "I cast a spell, we win" may be fun for the wizard, and it might be amusing for the group the first couple of times, but it gets old and makes fun, challenging encounters vastly harder .

“I cast a spell, we win” may happen in 3.5, but a lot of condition may occur in the same moment. And the party, melee characters first, have to sweat to have the caters keep the right spell for the topical moment.
However, in my limited experience about the 4th, I think you are right about the mage, is good for his role in the poor 4th edition context.



Originally posted by Edea
Basically, if WotC had instead called this class the Warmage, and instituted a point based system (for ALL of the classes, in keeping with 4e's design paradigms) instead of the encounter/daily/ritual system (which I loathe utterly), I wouldn't have suffered nearly as much sticker shock.

For the 3.5 warmage, Is enough the PHII option about advanced learning to outclass that 4th edition wow mage wizard.


Originally posted by Roderik BR
As someone in the WotC forum said: "Now you need inteligence to play a wizard".
The only real complaint I heard is that wizards need some better "battlefield control" powers. And lots of them, as was pointed, is that the wizard doesn't do much damage. What is odd, since he was not supposed to be a heavy damage dealer.


I wonder how can a class need more intelligence to be played if does less things than before. More tactics (maybe) less ingenuity (see the grease issue).




Originally posted by tyfon
Argument that there is more optionality and versatility in 4 e comparing to 3 e I have to consider as insulting my intelligence and reading ability.

my eternal esteem


Originally posted by Grey Paladin
With the exception of 3E and its horrific DC scaling system, Wizards were always powerful but also had to relay on teamwork to win- they acted like actual artillery, softening the opposition before letting the Armor and Infantry go in. Much like in real life charging into battle without the support of the other divisions was suicidal. Wizards were crucial but so were Fighters, Clerics, and Rogues.

No you are wrong in 3.x the fighter is useless the rogue is for out-of-combat challenges the wizard with his high HP and fortitude save can fly all around free to wreak havoc to those who escape to the combat-oriented-I-look-for-a-TPK-cleric. The teamwork has been invented in 4th , in 3rd none buffed or looked for a flanking bonus track the bonuses is too difficult my head hurts.
/sarcasm
Yes, you are right.




Originally posted by Turkishproverb
I... I love you.

Sir, you have a rival in love.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-07-22, 05:53 AM
In 4th, The only wow mage wizard spell I’ve seen vaguely usable in a creative way is disintegrate, because can still target an object (so a pillar, the terrain under the feet of the golem, and so on). The other is some ultra nerfed utility and 71548314 spell wich can be summarized in “fzzz-boom, add condiction”
Ha, ha! You implied that 4th Edition is like World of Warcraft! You, sir, are the soul of wit; a duelist, a duelist! a gentleman of the very first house, of the first and second cause.

Any power which makes sense to target objects with can target objects.
Wizard utility spells are still potent, they just don't do everything and solve all problems. There are also Rituals, which Wizards are the best at, the majority of which remain useful--they're just not your first answer to anything. This means people have to actually try to solve their problems as a party, rather than having the spellcasters cast.

When you say "creative" uses, I think of things like "I'm gonna use Shrink Item to do tons of damage, whee!"
That's not creative, it's just dumb and broken.


True. Is amazing see designers tailor game design around avoiding gamebreaking. Is like to say to a musician “ play hitting a stick on a dead tree trunk because a Les Paul guitar is easier to break”.
Every well-designed game takes balance seriously into account.


So none pass saving throws, no SR, none dispel or counter a spell, no ranged weapon, the party group has a cleric to cure ability damage and the enemies hasn’t, and, first of all, the wizard can do all this freely because none think to beat the thin, tender spellcaster when he casts. Maybe the problem here is not the wizard.
Most of them fail their saving throws because they're humanoid warriors and therefore have terrible Will saves. They don't have SR; if they do, the wizard can easily can punch past it. No, they don't have dispel or counterspelling, they're warriors (are you arguing that NPC spellcasters make it okay for PC spellcasters to be super-powerful?).
They can't beat the spellcaster when he casts, unless they stand around readying actions, in which case he's denying them actions by just standing there (and can take cover to spellcast).


"Group of warrior types" is a perfectly sensible encounter that fits tons of situations (bandits, guards, hobgoblins/gnolls/other beefy monsters, and so on and so forth) you just can't throw at a party with a competent wizard, unless you want them to devastate it in a round or two. It's not the only one, either. Listen to the things you just listed: in order to challenge the wizard, an encounter needs to have enemy spellcasters (which could do far worse to the other PCs than they could to the wizard, the Cleric excepted) counterspelling/dispelling, everybody targeting the wizard, spell resistance, and ranged weapons?

A lot of the monsters printed don't have ranged attacks--or at least, effective ranged attacks--or flight. Therefore, if you want to a wizard with Overland Flight to worry about his safety in any non-tightly-enclosed environment, you HAVE to include flyers and/or archers (which are then foiled by a scroll of Greater Invisibility). (In tightly enclosed environment, the wizard's battlefield control spells will be vastly more effective, so you're trading the fire for the frying pan.)



“I cast a spell, we win” may happen in 3.5, but a lot of condition may occur in the same moment. And the party, melee characters first, have to sweat to have the caters keep the right spell for the topical moment.
Except that the caster, after level 7 or 8 has enough spells for the day. By the time he's out, the non-caster can't go much longer, due to HP limitations (and how's he going to take on anything that would challenge the party without the casters doing their thing?).


For the 3.5 warmage, Is enough the PHII option about advanced learning to outclass that 4th edition wow mage wizard.
Ha, ha! You repeated the same trite, overplayed joke! How clever!
If you can't look through the utility powers and the rituals, that's your fault, not 4E's.


I wonder how can a class need more intelligence to be played if does less things than before. More tactics (maybe) less ingenuity (see the grease issue).
Grease doesn't require or reward ingenuity, it's just unfairly strong. You just CAST it. That's all you have to do.


No you are wrong in 3.x the fighter is useless the rogue is for out-of-combat challenges the wizard with his high HP and fortitude save can fly all around free to wreak havoc to those who escape to the combat-oriented-I-look-for-a-TPK-cleric.
You don't know 3.x very well, do you.
A combat-oriented cleric is *good* for the party. The wizard doesn't need high HP and a high Fort save, he has defensive spells prepared and on scrolls.
And, yes, the Fighter is kind of useless after a certain point. He's more of a janitor and less of a warrior.


The teamwork has been invented in 4th , in 3rd none buffed or looked for a flanking bonus track the bonuses is too difficult my head hurts.
4E has a lot more teamwork possibilities than 3E's "I buff and look for a flanking bonus". Wow, flanking? Really?

Viruzzo
2008-07-22, 05:56 AM
wow mage
So you don't like 4e. What's the point in telling us?


Argument that there is more optionality and versatility in 4 e comparing to 3 e I have to consider as insulting my intelligence and reading ability.
Yeah, talk about open-mindedness.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-07-22, 05:59 AM
Oh, yes...

lol 4e wiz = wow mage lololololol!!111

I do so hate how my group had to run through the Keep on the Shadowfell dungeon ten times just so all of us could have the items we wanted. And waiting for the kobolds to respawn was simply tiresome. We almost died, too--our priest doesn't like doing nothing but healing, so he wasn't doing his job right and we paid for him trying to do something other than heal.

Charity
2008-07-22, 06:06 AM
Rachel I fear you may be wasting your breath.
I have seen this thread before, eventually the noise drowns out the signal.

Kurald Galain
2008-07-22, 06:38 AM
I do so hate how my group had to run through the Keep on the Shadowfell dungeon ten times just so all of us could have the items we wanted. And waiting for the kobolds to respawn was simply tiresome. We almost died, too--our priest doesn't like doing nothing but healing, so he wasn't doing his job right and we paid for him trying to do something other than heal.

To reiterate, D&D incorporates many fantasy elements popularized by World of Warcraft, such as wizards, swords, and unicorns (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80166)...

Grey Paladin
2008-07-22, 07:02 AM
Rachel: After considering your words and doing some research, I concede the fact that if my DM for this edition was not a sadistic bastard munchkin Wizards would indeed be perfectly viable (if boring), however I would like to mention that such a DM should be the default:smalltongue:.

The problem with 3E was the Wizard's lack of reliance on the party beyond a certain point, however that was the bug, all archtypes in a party are supposed to be*necessary* for combat, and sending a group composed of a single archetype against a proper party with Artillery, Armor, Infantry, and Support is not supposed to be a good idea.

Aside from the lack of reliance in 3E, what you see as a bug previous editions see as a feature.

Dausuul
2008-07-22, 07:54 AM
Rachel: After considering your words and doing some research, I concede the fact that if my DM for this edition was not a sadistic bastard munchkin Wizards would indeed be perfectly viable (if boring), however I would like to mention that such a DM should be the default:smalltongue:.

Can't agree with that. The default should be a reasonably well-meaning but not particularly talented DM. You can't design a game that's fun to play when it's run by a sadistic bastard munchkin, because the sadistic bastard munchkin's goal is to punish his players for the crime of daring to exercise free will. Conversely, designing a game that requires an experienced and talented DM means that the vast majority of gaming groups will not be able to play the game properly.

Grey Paladin
2008-07-22, 08:06 AM
Dausuul: Our DM doesn't punishes or rewards us for behavior nor railroads us, he just runs a world as realisticly as possible, if we end up killing the BBEG, good for us, if we end up joining him, good for us, if we end up selling goats in the north, good for us.

I don't get where did the stereotypical connection of running monsters as their INT score would suggest they act (AKA like the PCs for humanoids) to other improper behavior came from.


To your second point, as always its a battle of ease of use versus functionality- the computer industry has yet to come up with a definite answer but I believe that each tool, regardless of its location on the slider, has its use.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-22, 03:00 PM
I don't get where did the stereotypical connection of running monsters as their INT score would suggest they act (AKA like the PCs for humanoids) to other improper behavior came from.


Frankly, I think it comes from several things:

1. The actual behavioural implications of Int and Wis scores being vague and unclear.


Intelligence (Int)
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.


Wisdom (Wis)
Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. While Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information, Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings.

Which of these leads to 'We can use those rocks up on the side for cover and send Mickey out to lure passersby below'?

2. It requires extensive use of terrain, which in many systems is:
a) annoying- it means lots of little modifiers being added and subtracted from round to round.
b) time consuming- the DM needs to figure out the exact details of the terrain, rather than have a rough idea. This can also lead to it being map heavy and, if the DM draws like I do, potentially expensive.

3. WotC doesn't seem to have built in the assumption that monsters use particularly effective tactics into it's encounter difficulties. Thus, an encounter in either edition is going to be signifigantly harder than anticipated if the terrain is on their side. The numbers just aren't set up for really tactical ambush style play, they are set up for hack and slash.

The New Bruceski
2008-07-22, 03:05 PM
3. WotC doesn't seem to have built in the assumption that monsters use particularly effective tactics into it's encounter difficulties. Thus, an encounter in either edition is going to be signifigantly harder than anticipated if the terrain is on their side. The numbers just aren't set up for really tactical ambush style play, they are set up for hack and slash.

How do you do otherwise? How do you put an appropriate CR (xp value) on Tucker's Kobolds? Is there a way to do it other than after-the-fact, adding or subtracting xp based on how hard it was?

EDIT: Mike Mearls had an interesting blog post on terrain (namely for use in Solo encounters). I'm gonna quote his thoughts on xp from http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16346143&postcount=34 but the entire thread is quite an interesting read.


I think Arkenthras hits on most of it. To add some mechanical thoughts:

1. If either side can benefit from the terrain, it's a wash. Don't change the encounter level. This should apply even if you have to be a little clever to use the terrain, or if you need to use a specific power to use it.

A pit in the middle of a room is something both sides can use.

2. If the terrain helps one side more than the other, look at its mechanical scope. A terrain piece that allows for one extra attack is probably power neutral, especially if a a creature has to use an extra to utilize it. Just keep in mind that the "attack" should be balanced for the encounter's level (use the damage and accuracy of a skirmisher monster of the same level), and you should not need to adjust the encounter's level.

The tricky thing comes with persistent effects, like a feature that gives a constant attack, damage, or AC bonus. If the monsters get that, treat the encounter as if it provided bonus XP equal to a monster of the encounter's level. As a baseline, a +1 or +2 bonus to AC, attacks, or damage is worth about that much. Try to avoid giving out consistent bonuses bigger than that, because it distorts the encounter to a degree that makes it hard to compensate.

The opposite is true for the PCs, but I'd dock them about half a monster's XP value.

That's a rough rule of thumb, but it should work.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-22, 03:09 PM
How do you do otherwise? How do you put an appropriate CR (xp value) on Tucker's Kobolds? Is there a way to do it other than after-the-fact, adding or subtracting xp based on how hard it was?

Well, first off, Tucker's Kobolds took place in 2ed, I think. It doesn't really work in 3.x without homebrew/houserules to make things more advantageous for the kobolds. I'm not sure about 4e in this regard.

That said in 3.x and 4e a DM is supposed to be able to know, before the fight, around how hard it will be and exactly how much exp will be rewarded based upon the monsters selected and the level of the party. Terrain doesn't come into it other than on an ad-hoc basis.

Yakk
2008-07-22, 05:24 PM
If he's playing the bad guys smart, your squad-level war party should all die.

Because violence at squad-level against anything near a challenging opponent is stupid. Violence, applied intelligently, is against far far far weaker targets. An incident of violence against anything anywhere near your own level of power is a catastrophy -- a sign you screwed up.

...

If, on the other hand, your DM is building encounters using the XP-based system, and then munchkining them up so that they barely the creatures they started with, then I'm not surprised D&D broke down on you.

The encounters have been tweaked to be harder -- so they are harder encounters. They don't contain minions in any number -- so the anti-minion character will have problems. Etc etc.

(Btw, if your DM hates minions because they are too easy to wipe out -- try a "total damage buffer" minion implementation. For each type of minion, track damage done. When the damage to a minion hits (minion level), the hit minion dies, and (minion level) damage is removed from the damage-track. Hits that do more damage than (minion level) are capped at (minion level). You could also use (3+minion level/2) for the damage track number (I don't know how this will work at epic levels, hence the option. The goal is to prevent mass-insta-death from AOE powers, which encourages minions to take risks... Oh, and miss damage starts applying to minions.)

Kompera
2008-07-23, 12:36 AM
In 4th, The only wow mage wizard spell I’ve seen vaguely usable in a creative way is disintegrate, because can still target an object (so a pillar, the terrain under the feet of the golem, and so on). The other is some ultra nerfed utility and 71548314 spell wich can be summarized in “fzzz-boom, add condiction”
Ah, the unsupportable yet oft used "4e is World of Warcraft" argument. Using this trope doesn't win any arguments, it just makes you look foolish. WoW is a computer moderated MMORPG, D&D (any version) is a pnp RPG. 4e and WoW share some elements in common, because they are both fantasy based and so both have spell casters, healers, warriors, etc. These elements are also shared between all prior versions of D&D, but that has never kept those who dislike 4e from using it in blind disregard of this inconvenient truth.
Additionally, there is already a pnp WoW RPG. And even that game doesn't play like World of Warcraft. It shares the same setting, back story, and a lot of other elements, but the play is still radically different from WoW. If the people you play pnp games with aren't made out of cardboard there is little chance of a pnp RPG ever playing even remotely like a MMORPG. The trite 4e = WoW argument is just that, a trite and baseless attack used by those with no better means to detract from 4e.

Other differences between WoW and 4e: The spell you cite, Disintegrate? That does not exist in WoW. There is nothing even vaguely approximating it at all. The mechanics changes between 3.x and 4e with regards to replacing Vancian casting with at will, encounter, and daily powers is not the same mechanic WoW uses for spell casting. WoW Mages do not have at will powers. They have spells with various mana costs. In WoW if you run out of mana, you're done casting spells until it regenerates. In 4e you can always cast an at will spell. Mana pool spell casting is a completely different mechanic than the spell casting in any version of D&D, including 4e. What mana pool spell casting is closest to in any version of D&D is the 3.x psionics rules. Both use a 'mana pool' mechanic, even if they call it by different names. Both systems allow for the same spell to be cast at varying levels of potency by spending more mana on the spell. They are pretty much mechanically identical systems. And since the 3.x psionics system is so close very to mana pool spell casting, and following the 'logic' of looking at a couple elements in common between two radically different game systems and stating overall equivalence, I now will maintain that D&D 3.x = WoW, and I'm sure that you and everyone else who has ever said that 4e = WoW will surely agree with me. Because to do otherwise would be hypocritical, would it not?

So now we've established that spells in 4e are cast in an entirely different way from spells in WoW, that the 4e spell you use in your example both does not exist nor is even approximated in any way in WoW, and I've described in detail how 3.x is closer mechanically to WoW than 4e can be said to be.

So drop the "wow mage wizard" bs, please.


True. Is amazing see designers tailor game design around avoiding gamebreaking. Is like to say to a musician “ play hitting a stick on a dead tree trunk because a Les Paul guitar is easier to break”.
No, it's more like having all the musicians run at the same level of amplification, so as not to allow the guitarist to overpower the rest of the instruments, so that all can be enjoyed equally.


“I cast a spell, we win” may happen in 3.5, but a lot of condition may occur in the same moment. And the party, melee characters first, have to sweat to have the caters keep the right spell for the topical moment.
However, in my limited experience about the 4th, I think you are right about the mage, is good for his role in the poor 4th edition context.
Correction: “I cast a spell, we win” may happen in 3.5. This I agree with. And it can't happen in 4e. The rest of your quoted text can be dropped so that this point can shine forth in clarity.

So to answer the OPs topical question: Yes, 4e has fixed the problem with Wizards.

Grey Paladin
2008-07-23, 06:47 AM
Yakk: And such would be the situation, if we didn't use an equal amount of dirty tricks.

And while it is true that in reality you should only ever assault foes weaker than yourself, more often than not you lack a choice- you can wait outside of the lair of the cultists and let them summon the unthinkable or you can storm their heavily fortified fortress, another solution would be preferable(such as drowning their dungeon/fortress with a Decanter) but sometimes it does not exists.

The encounters are harder due to the tactics used, not some random bonus assigned by the DM.

D&D has not 'broke down' on me, the game is highly fan, but when every single class beside the Wizard can handle such changes it seems to imply something.

Meschaelene
2008-07-23, 09:25 AM
Ah, the unsupportable yet oft used "4e is World of Warcraft" argument. Using this trope doesn't win any arguments, it just makes you look foolish. WoW is a computer moderated MMORPG, D&D (any version) is a pnp RPG. 4e and WoW share some elements in common, because they are both fantasy based and so both have spell casters, healers, warriors, etc.

<snip>

...So drop the "wow mage wizard" bs, please...

I don't even play WoW, and I understand that you missed the point of the WoW mage comments. I's all about the lack of creative options. If your system cannot handle creative spell use (or other creative actions), then you might as well play a computer game. The strength of D+D has been and always will be the DM, who interprets and rules on special situations created by those creative actions. Everything I read on 4th Ed is an attempt to remove those creative actions and replace the need for the DM's judgement with rigid rules that limit creativity -- rules that can be followed as easily by a CPU as by a person.

That's what the WoW mage/wizard comparison is all about, and all that I read from the supporters of 4E is, "Well, that's how it should be in order to reign in you 3.x powergamer wizard types!" While reasonable people can debate the validity of this argument, it does not at all deny the WoW comparison.

wodan46
2008-07-23, 09:27 AM
Many people insist that because only the combat aspects of most spells is explained, that they must in turn have no use outside of combat.

However, explain to me how Ray of Frost can't be used to put out a fire, or how Scorching Burst can't be used to start one. Or how Thunderwave can't be used to blow open a door or shove a boulder around. Or how Magic Missile can't be used as a warning flare. Or how Cloud of Daggers can't be used as an intimidation tool, or to shred open a box, or trigger traps.

And that's just the At-Wills. Most other classes are limited to break things or use Skill Check when not in combat, but the wizard can use their powers in all sorts of creative manners. Clerics and Warlocks also can do such things.

This isn't WoW, players are allowed and encouraged to wing it most of the time, the exception being that they must adhere to the combat rules for balance reasons.

Dausuul
2008-07-23, 09:47 AM
I don't even play WoW, and I understand that you missed the point of the WoW mage comments. I's all about the lack of creative options. If your system cannot handle creative spell use (or other creative actions), then you might as well play a computer game. The strength of D+D has been and always will be the DM, who interprets and rules on special situations created by those creative actions. Everything I read on 4th Ed is an attempt to remove those creative actions and replace the need for the DM's judgement with rigid rules that limit creativity -- rules that can be followed as easily by a CPU as by a person.

That's what the WoW mage/wizard comparison is all about, and all that I read from the supporters of 4E is, "Well, that's how it should be in order to reign in you 3.x powergamer wizard types!" While reasonable people can debate the validity of this argument, it does not at all deny the WoW comparison.

This is a silly argument. 3.X has a spell to do every conceivable thing under the sun. That does not encourage creativity; the challenge for a 3.X wizard is not to come up with creative uses for spells, but to have on hand the spell which is explicitly designed to deal with the current situation.

In 4E, spells are much more limited in what they can do, and correspondingly require more creativity, not less. Sealing a trap door with a hold portal spell is not creative, it's what hold portal was designed to do. Finding a way to block the same trap door with a Tenser's floating disk... that's creative.

Also, wizard powergamers reigned in 3.X; in 4E, they were reined in.

Kaiyanwang
2008-07-24, 05:24 AM
Aaaaah. The classic shower of facepalm after the forbidden sentence “4ed =WOW”. Nothing to say to Charity, Kurald Galain or Lorelei, other than that this is a reaction I can expect from a 4ED avenger in WOTC forums. However I’ve to admit that is almost all my fault. Next time I must explain better.

@Kompera: I want to say, first, that I played (and still play) 3rd edition for 7 years, splatbook dragon magazine and so on. And I Played WOW from an year after the relase to near the end of the Burning Crusade. This not only to demonstrate that I’m a geek without chance of redemption I seem a character of big bang theory I like fantasy, but to say that I don’t repeat things heard but I start my assumptions from my direct experience.

What you say about mechanics (psion-mana pool similarity and so on) is undeniabily true. And undeniable is your point about the baseless 4ED=WOW attacks. (By the way I knew the 3.x setting of Warcraft). And trust me, I’m away from concepts like “Eladrin are like Blood Elves” and “who’s this warlock why wants to curse people”. If the designers wanted the WOW warlock, they assigned him a demon minion. WOW took from D&D more than vice versa (and continue to do it, look the “titan grip” in the new fury warrior’s talents, tell me if remembers you something). Some of the things I see in the 4th and late 3rd make me smile as ex-wow player, but WOW influenced a lot the latest fantasy genre, and things inspired by MMORPGs are not bad from the beginning.

I said 4th wizard =wow mage for a matter of character concept. It seems to me the mage here spread various energy forms around, crowd controls, and then, ended the dungeon-istance, true portal. (ok not exactly so but similar). Further, rituals can be performed by everybody, even if wizards do it better (t-shirt sentence I know). Summoning, necromancy, and other things can lead to abuse, but are part of a whole group of concepts of magic which has roots in books, legends, myths, and so on. When I play with a MMORPG, balance is mandatory in Pvp. When I play with a RPG, I look for an immersion in a world able to let me dream. It does not mean balance is meaning less, I’m only asking how much must be sacrified in name of balance. Ask the guitarist to hear other people (Indeed, I’m a guitarist in real I know is not so simple we are bad, bad persons to play music with :smallwink:) Don’t break it if don’t want it broken.



Originally posted by Meschalene
I don't even play WoW, and I understand that you missed the point of the WoW mage comments. I's all about the lack of creative options. If your system cannot handle creative spell use (or other creative actions), then you might as well play a computer game. The strength of D+D has been and always will be the DM, who interprets and rules on special situations created by those creative actions. Everything I read on 4th Ed is an attempt to remove those creative actions and replace the need for the DM's judgement with rigid rules that limit creativity -- rules that can be followed as easily by a CPU as by a person.

That's what the WoW mage/wizard comparison is all about, and all that I read from the supporters of 4E is, "Well, that's how it should be in order to reign in you 3.x powergamer wizard types!" While reasonable people can debate the validity of this argument, it does not at all deny the WoW comparison

This. At this regard, in another thread I said 4TH is more “Videogameble” than videogame-like, forgive me the neologism




Originally posted by wodan46
However, explain to me how Ray of Frost can't be used to put out a fire, or how Scorching Burst can't be used to start one. Or how Thunderwave can't be used to blow open a door or shove a boulder around. Or how Magic Missile can't be used as a warning flare. Or how Cloud of Daggers can't be used as an intimidation tool, or to shred open a box, or trigger traps


Some real good points, I admit. (magic missle I.e).I’m not sure Thunderwave works that way but anyway if I were your DM, I‘d houserule to allow you this use . I mean: in 3.5 most invocation and conjuration call your target simply “target”, Blackguard or Demogorgon doll. In 4th says generally energy spell targets creature (RAW speaking, as DM I wouldn’t find problems as I said). There are area spell but are less sharp… dunno.



Originally posted by Dasuul
In 4E, spells are much more limited in what they can do, and correspondingly require more creativity, not less. Sealing a trap door with a hold portal spell is not creative, it's what hold portal was designed to do. Finding a way to block the same trap door with a Tenser's floating disk... that's creative


This is a good point, too. Only three things: I’m really concerned about the casting time of spells like the disk. What you say is good out of combat, but try to block, slow or deflect a falling rock is difficult in 10 minutes. Same, situation you presented but in combat. 10 minutes you lose drama. In 3.5 the sorcerer casts silence and the party runs behind the pillar to escape the Grendel. 4th… in 10 minutes the scene doesn’t happen. We have to fight the grendel.
Another thing about "do everything with spell". I wonder if a lot of time the disappointment about the all resolving spell is linked to the railroading-DM-style of some DM.
Last, my greatest concerns are about how the limited spell list of limited spell of the 4th ed Wizard Works. Example: My players, to murder a duke, disguised (by the character skill) the rogue and the fighter armed with thinaum weapons (the soul stealing metal). Mind blank, nystul on bad hidden weapons, wizard and cleric flying out of the duke hold, druid crow, barbarian polymorphed, point of randez-vous…
I mean: the whole party will make the attack, the party elaborated strategy etc. The wizard gave tools to make strategy more efficient or to start from. The wizard will give tools and support, the party will work. You can say: the wizard can enter in the castle kill and go. But he’s one and will happen unsuspected things is better face in party.

@Lorelei: for the WOW issue, se above. Then:


Originally posted by Rachel Lorelei
Listen to the things you just listed: in order to challenge the wizard, an encounter needs to have enemy spellcasters (which could do far worse to the other PCs than they could to the wizard, the Cleric excepted) counterspelling/dispelling, everybody targeting the wizard, spell resistance, and ranged weapons?

I don’t mean all these thing happen always and happen together but you presented that encounter as a shining example of wizard brokenness


A lot of the monsters printed don't have ranged attacks--or at least, effective ranged attacks--or flight. Therefore, if you want to a wizard with Overland Flight to worry about his safety in any non-tightly-enclosed environment, you HAVE to include flyers and/or archers (which are then foiled by a scroll of Greater Invisibility). (In tightly enclosed environment, the wizard's battlefield control spells will be vastly more effective, so you're trading the fire for the frying pan.)

I can understand, add a bow to a Gnoll is not so simple. My head hurts only thinking about it. Three things: Do you remember that G.I. has a round duration? Do you remember to think about warriors like persons capable to use skills and equipment, hide, use rope and other objects, flour against invisible people etc, expecially if an enemy of the PC envoyed them?
A question: you ambushed the PCs, or the warriors ran together from the same direction in a 15 feet radius wearing a “fireball me” T-shirt?


Except that the caster, after level 7 or 8 has enough spells for the day. By the time he's out, the non-caster can't go much longer, due to HP limitations (and how's he going to take on anything that would challenge the party without the casters doing their thing?).

HP limitation = cleric spells. Not only the wizard have to manage casting party resources are in common. Further, level 7-8 enough spell? Are you sure you challenge the players enough if the casters have always enough spell and the right spell?


How clever!

At least I’m able to built an encounter.


You don't know 3.x very well, do you.

:smallamused:


A combat-oriented cleric is *good* for the party. The wizard doesn't need high HP and a high Fort save, he has defensive spells prepared and on scrolls.

Cleric is good for combat.. if isn’t the only healer. The last sentence suggest me an infinite XP wizard.


And, yes, the Fighter is kind of useless after a certain point

Played like the warriors above, sure.

Kurald Galain
2008-07-24, 05:36 AM
Aaaaah. The classic shower of facepalm after the forbidden sentence “4ed =WOW”. Nothing to say to Charity, Kurald Galain or Lorelei, other than that this is a reaction I can expect from a 4ED avenger in WOTC forums.

I'm a 4ED avenger in the WOTC forums? That is new to me...

Rachel Lorelei
2008-07-24, 07:11 AM
Aaaaah. The classic shower of facepalm after the forbidden sentence “4ed =WOW”. Nothing to say to Charity, Kurald Galain or Lorelei, other than that this is a reaction I can expect from a 4ED avenger in WOTC forums. However I’ve to admit that is almost all my fault. Next time I must explain better.
It gets the reaction because it's not just wrong, it's a fundamentally useless statement. The two games obviously don't play the same by virtue of their format alone, if nothing else (tabletop + DM vs. MMO run by a computer). If you want to say that 4E does X and that's bad, you should actually say it; what people do instead is liken it to WoW, CRPGs, tabletop wargaming--often all at the same time (despite the fact that these things are all different--4E sure is "like" a lot of things.


I said 4th wizard =wow mage for a matter of character concept. It seems to me the mage here spread various energy forms around, crowd controls, and then, ended the dungeon-istance, true portal. (ok not exactly so but similar). Further, rituals can be performed by everybody, even if wizards do it better (t-shirt sentence I know).
The 3E and 2E wizards do this, too. Crowd control, battlefield control, teleport. 4E wizards have rituals, and utility spells. Light, Ghost Sound, Mage Hand, and Prestidigitation (so awesome it needs bolding) alone let them do stuff, but they get actual spells like Dimension Door, Disguise Self, Invisibility, Levitate, Fly, and of course rituals, which they can perform as much as they can afford in terms of time/money, and which they're by far the best at. On top of that, as Wodan says, you can use the existing powers creatively. Wizards aren't exactly chumps who exist, and in my game the wizard has been very useful out of combat.


Summoning, necromancy, and other things can lead to abuse, but are part of a whole group of concepts of magic which has roots in books, legends, myths, and so on. When I play with a MMORPG, balance is mandatory in Pvp. When I play with a RPG, I look for an immersion in a world able to let me dream. It does not mean balance is meaning less, I’m only asking how much must be sacrified in name of balance. Ask the guitarist to hear other people (Indeed, I’m a guitarist in real I know is not so simple we are bad, bad persons to play music with :smallwink:) Don’t break it if don’t want it broken.
Summoning already exists in the PHB--clerics get a bunch of conjurations. There will be classes focused around conjurations, necromancy, etc.

Wizards don't have these things in the core book because every other class has a limited scope--wizards being able to do ANYTHING, like in 3E, isn't fair at all, and isn't particularly good for game.

The Wizard class would become a superclass with tons more powers than any other class gets. This way, the conjurers and necromancers will have their own roles and class features.


This. At this regard, in another thread I said 4TH is more “Videogameble” than videogame-like, forgive me the neologism
D&D has always been "videogameable". Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights?


Some real good points, I admit. (magic missle I.e).I’m not sure Thunderwave works that way but anyway if I were your DM, I‘d houserule to allow you this use . I mean: in 3.5 most invocation and conjuration call your target simply “target”, Blackguard or Demogorgon doll. In 4th says generally energy spell targets creature (RAW speaking, as DM I wouldn’t find problems as I said). There are area spell but are less sharp… dunno.
Because apparently people needed it spelled out for them, the errata says that powers can be used on objects at the DM's discretion. So, yes, you can Thunderwave that door open, unless you have a really bad DM.


This is a good point, too. Only three things: I’m really concerned about the casting time of spells like the disk. What you say is good out of combat, but try to block, slow or deflect a falling rock is difficult in 10 minutes.
Try to block, slow, or deflect a falling rock with a standard-action spell!
The point of spells like the disk is that rituals are not your first solution for anything. They're what you turn to if you can't do things any other way.


Same, situation you presented but in combat. 10 minutes you lose drama. In 3.5 the sorcerer casts silence and the party runs behind the pillar to escape the Grendel. 4th… in 10 minutes the scene doesn’t happen. We have to fight the grendel.
Or you launch into an "escape the Grendel!" skill challenge, where everyone is doing stuff, rather than the sorcerer saving everyone's asses.

Another thing about "do everything with spell". I wonder if a lot of time the disappointment about the all resolving spell is linked to the railroading-DM-style of some DM.
Last, my greatest concerns are about how the limited spell list of limited spell of the 4th ed Wizard Works. Example: My players, to murder a duke, disguised (by the character skill) the rogue and the fighter armed with thinaum weapons (the soul stealing metal). Mind blank, nystul on bad hidden weapons, wizard and cleric flying out of the duke hold, druid crow, barbarian polymorphed, point of randez-vous…
I mean: the whole party will make the attack, the party elaborated strategy etc. The wizard gave tools to make strategy more efficient or to start from. The wizard will give tools and support, the party will work. You can say: the wizard can enter in the castle kill and go. But he’s one and will happen unsuspected things is better face in party.


I don’t mean all these thing happen always and happen together but you presented that encounter as a shining example of wizard brokenness

I can understand, add a bow to a Gnoll is not so simple. My head hurts only thinking about it.
Plenty of enemies aren't humanoids and therefore can't wield ranged weapons. More than that, though, adding a bow to a Gnoll does not make him a threat to the wizard. He will have a lower AB and a low damage; the wizard can pretty safely ignore him. He can even easily make the concentration check for getting hit. And that's even if the gnoll draws the bow--enemies can't just disengage from melee to shoot at the wizard at any point. What's more, against enemies that do have bows, the wizard can go invisible.

You have to go to ENORMOUS lengths for a group of humanoid enemies--even giants or whatever--to be an actual thread to a party with a competent wizard.

The things you listed need to happen together--not all of them, maybe, but most--for a large number of encounters to be a challenge for the wizard.


Three things: Do you remember that G.I. has a round duration? Do you remember to think about warriors like persons capable to use skills and equipment, hide, use rope and other objects, flour against invisible people etc, expecially if an enemy of the PC envoyed them?
A question: you ambushed the PCs, or the warriors ran together from the same direction in a 15 feet radius wearing a “fireball me” T-shirt?

Use Rope? Flour? Really? That's your solution? What's the party doing while these guys pull out their ropes and flour (and how do they get the flour up to where they think the wizard is)?
You're telling me that skills (like hide? Do you REALLY expect a group of warriors to immediately try and get out of sight the instant they see a wizard? Do you really think he won't manage to target them with a spell?) and flour and use rope are viable warrior tools against a flying invisible wizard. Yeeeeeah.
Yes, GI has a rounds/level duration. 7 rounds is plenty long enough for the vast majority of combats.

Sometimes the PCs have the advantage, sometimes the NPCs do. More often, no one gets a surprise round/free buff time.


HP limitation = cleric spells. Not only the wizard have to manage casting party resources are in common. Further, level 7-8 enough spell? Are you sure you challenge the players enough if the casters have always enough spell and the right spell?
So if the Fighter types are relying on the cleric for HP, and the cleric also spellcasts for other purposes... won't the fighters run out of HP BEFORE the cleric runs out of spells?

The spell a caster gets at level 7-8 go a long way. By level 10, he has a lot of spell slots. Can you make them run out through multiple encounters? Yes. But this means that you need to have 4, 5, 6, or more encounters every day just to keep the wizard in check, as though he were an overpowered Magic card warping the entire metagame around him. Look at the things you have to do! Put 5+ encounters in every day, have only encounters with archers or fast flying enemies, etc etc. You don't have to compensate for the fighter this way, do you? Doesn't that tell you something? The mere presence of a wizard in the party dramatically warps what is and isn't a challenging encounter.

Oh, and the melee guys won't have any HP left by then, either. The entire party will want to stop. Fortunately, between Teleport and Rope Trick, the party can rest pretty much whenever it likes.


At least I’m able to built an encounter.

:smallamused:
By giving gnolls Use Rope, flour, and bows. As the counters to a wizard.

Riiiiiight.


Cleric is good for combat.. if isn’t the only healer. The last sentence suggest me an infinite XP wizard.
Healing in-combat is, most of the time, rather inefficient. If the cleric is smashing enemies, the party will take less damage overall and can heal after. There are exceptions to this--low levels, where someone can easily die; high levels, where the Heal spell can be worth your standard action--but overall, it's true.
And if immediate healing is really needed, the cleric can still provide it.

As for XP--scrolls do NOT take up much XP. The wizard will run out of gold before he runs out of XP (and he doesn't need a magic weapon and magic armor, so he has some free gold).
A wizard who is hundreds of XP behind might as well not be behind at all. A wizard who is thousands of XP behind will be one level behind... for all of one session, after which they'll catch up (since, as lower-level characters, they'll get more XP for that session).


Played like the warriors above, sure.
No, even if they're well-played.

Charity
2008-07-24, 07:27 AM
Hey Rachel I'm infamous for just talking to you... That's why I'm doing it again
Perhaps if I add an oblique reference....
Hey how come Kurald get both names, but you only get your formal name? I'd protest if I were you, it's downright discrimatory.

The 4e=WoW thing is the most rapidly hackeneyed phrase ever to shuffle out of trite soundbite land. Of course you will illicite a response when you make inflammitory statements, that is after all why you did it isn't it?

Kompera
2008-07-29, 01:21 AM
I don't even play WoW, and I understand that you missed the point of the WoW mage comments. I's all about the lack of creative options. If your system cannot handle creative spell use (or other creative actions), then you might as well play a computer game. The strength of D+D has been and always will be the DM, who interprets and rules on special situations created by those creative actions. Everything I read on 4th Ed is an attempt to remove those creative actions and replace the need for the DM's judgement with rigid rules that limit creativity -- rules that can be followed as easily by a CPU as by a person.

That's what the WoW mage/wizard comparison is all about, and all that I read from the supporters of 4E is, "Well, that's how it should be in order to reign in you 3.x powergamer wizard types!" While reasonable people can debate the validity of this argument, it does not at all deny the WoW comparison.

Sorry, not buying it. First, I have not read or perhaps I have interpreted differently those things you have read which suggest to you that creative actions are discouraged in favor of rigid rules which limit creativity. Second, there are a good many articles on the WotC site which show how players can use creativity to overcome game challenges. Take the recent article on enhancing the play of solo encounters as an excellent example of giving the GM free reign to add special effects and offer creative options to the players. And also please note that all of the players have those options, not just those playing Wizards.

That's the whole "fixed the problem with Wizards" thing in a nutshell: There is no longer a thousand and more spells with which a Wizard can always find a solution to any game challenge. Instead, all of the players have the same opportunities to use their creativity to overcome the game challenges.