Can't Spell Damage Without Mage

93 posts / 0 new
Last post
One of my biggest complaints with 4e, is the idea if everyone is special no one is.  Rogues use Dexterity to hit in melee, Wizard's use Intelligence for AC, and across the board all of the damage resulted in a pretty static format where people were basically the same.  Armor class and hit points are so close.  Everyone levels up at the same rate.  There isn't this concept of checks and balances any more in terms of classes, or when it crops up it is substantially smaller. 

The classic D&D wizard was 4hp/level, terrible armor class, limited damage, and a hefty amount of experience to gain levels.  He even out after a while when he started getting all of these awesome utility spells, but came into his own with the ability to do a ton of damage in one round.  The 4e move to make him a controller seemed really odd.  Now he does crappy damage to multiple opponents and places effects on monsters that keep them out of the fight.  The sorcerer and rogue became the Strikers.     

As much as I wanted to play a wizard if 4e, something just turned me away from it.  I want a magic-user who can cause enough damage to clear a room again.  In 3.5e, there were encounters that instantly became one-sided affairs because my halfling wizard pulled out the big guns when it mattered.  There needs to be someone who can just unleash massive amounts of damage once and a while. 

The 45-point critical the character just did in 4th Edition seems pathetic when the monster has 450 hit points.  I've watched the numbers creep up with every edition since the Crossbow Lobby started complaining about the 1d4 damage they were doing (seriously there is a secret organization working behind the scenes to increase the damage crossbows do.  Every edition they get slightly more powerful).  

If no one has the ability to do a big burst of damage, then we get dragged into these long tedious fights over and over.  They are tactical and complex in 4e, but why not speed things up a bit where that is concerned.  Give the wizard a massive attack that just absolutely obliterates an enemy.  Or a room full.  I just miss the days when a fireball meant something dreadful and inspired some degree of awe.   
Alalala, this old and kinda rightwing thing.. yes, you can be unique and special, but egal in respect and all. And varied.

It is good for rl and d&d too.


Also, we DO NOT want to return to a WEAK ASS mage. Gee... 
What if I want to play a not-magic-user who can cause enough damage to clear a room?

Should I just stay home?

Better question, why bother playing anything that's a not magic user?

Should we have to rely on antimagic zones again?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

Better question, why bother playing anything that's a not magic user?



Lol, to protect the wizard.

From what, exactly?  Didn't the wizard just wipe the room?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Making wizards the ONLY unique class will not help the game.
Traditionally I guess the idea is that everyone should have strengths and weaknesses.  And with the latest version of the game, all of the classes are kinda static.  They do the same damage in a slightly different way.  If I was to shuffle 1,000 power cards and just give you the game mechanics and effects, they are dramatically similar. 
If the wizard is the only important member of the party, and everyone else is there just to protect the wizard, doesn't that make the wizard a superstar and everyone else ends up as groupies?

That doesn't sound like much fun for anyone except the wizard. 
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
Traditionally I guess the idea is that everyone should have strengths and weaknesses.  And with the latest version of the game, all of the classes are kinda static.  They do the same damage in a slightly different way.  If I was to shuffle 1,000 power cards and just give you the game mechanics and effects, they are dramatically similar. 

The old ways didnt work. That we know now.

Like CODzilla. Or the Gygaxian Vancian mage. Bad ideas. 
Traditionally I guess the idea is that everyone should have strengths and weaknesses.  And with the latest version of the game, all of the classes are kinda static.  They do the same damage in a slightly different way.  If I was to shuffle 1,000 power cards and just give you the game mechanics and effects, they are dramatically similar. 


I have a 7-man party in my campaign that would strongly disagree with you.
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
If the wizard is the only important member of the party, and everyone else is there just to protect the wizard, doesn't that make the wizard a superstar and everyone else ends up as groupies?

That doesn't sound like much fun for anyone except the wizard. 



But can you heal without a healer? 
That's a noble design goal.  But when the mage's strengths outweigh the rest of the party combined then it becomes problematic.  But when the mage's strenghts outweigh all of its weaknesses then it becomes problematic.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
If the wizard is the only important member of the party, and everyone else is there just to protect the wizard, doesn't that make the wizard a superstar and everyone else ends up as groupies?

That doesn't sound like much fun for anyone except the wizard. 



But can you heal without a healer? 

Healing surges and all.
If the wizard is the only important member of the party, and everyone else is there just to protect the wizard, doesn't that make the wizard a superstar and everyone else ends up as groupies?

That doesn't sound like much fun for anyone except the wizard. 



But can you heal without a healer? 


I'm not sure what you're trying to ask. Everyone has their second wind, which they've had occassion to use, but now the party has a bard and a warlord (after going a while without a healer).
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
You're arguing about doing damage, but to me a wizard isn't about damage.

To me a wizard is about making the battlefield do what you want it to.

Sometimes that's making all the enemies dead.

Sometimes that's grouping all the enemies in a neat square and keeping them there so your buddies can poke them with their pointy sticks.

You're taking too narrow a view of what a character should be good at.

Yes, some damage is a good idea on most spells, but I don't think a wizard should be able to clear a room on his own without really working for it, and I don't think it should happen in one turn, either. I have a lot more fun with characters that do interesting things than I do with characters that say, "that thing explodes." (I still have fun with that kind of character, but for different reasons)
The OP isn't doing a great job expressing it (in part because of kneejerk 'lol wizards' reactions), but he has a good core point.

Classes should have strengths and weaknesses, and as a team, they should shore up each other's weaknesses.  Class A might be high-damage but fragile, while class B is low-damage but can protect allies.

Whether or not 4E does this (it certainly does it to some degree, but is not as lopsided as prior editions, which were mostly balanced very poorly to start with) is irrelevant to the point.  All he's saying is that classes should use specialization of labor to feel different from each other and to act differently in combat.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
Healing surges and all.




Ya, once per fight.  Plus a little utility power here and there.  But you can't keep the entire party alive and kicking over three encounters.  All I am asking is for a little burst damage.  I want to be a damage dealer again.  I don't want to be forced into a bloodline power or charisma based arcane caster to do damage.  I am just not fond of the whole controller mindset.  Don't harp too much on wanting to have a light armored caster that does decent damage and has some cool tricks up his sleeve in terms of transportation or control.  

If you want to go all 3.5 on the fireball, you are rolling 5d6 with a saving throw.  That was only 15pts or 7.5 on a save.  But the point was more or less that the wizard felt like he could make a difference instead of being a cookie cutter of everyone else in the party.  The rogue is slashing through folks, the fighter and cleric are popping crushing area attacks at least by level 3+.

I guess a better take on it is? How do you see the D&D Next Mage really shining? What are the things you like about the current form and do you think could improve?  
I like the control aspects of the classes currently under the 'controller' role in 4e.
I also like the situations where you don't have to follow the cookie cutter description of your role, such as wtih the wizard and druid, who can act as strikers, and the druid who can sometimes act as a defender. Simlarily, the Shaman, who can seem like a controller instead of a leader.

So, I like predefined roles, but there still needs to be some versatility to the class. I wouldn't even mind if a class with a primary role and a secondary role could swap between the two by taking certain options. A class that's leader/striker could switch to striker/leader and still be efficient. I'd like that rather well, actually. And in a lot of cases 4e already has that correct.

Regarding healing in battle: This depends on your system, but in 4th, an all-controller party, especially an all-wizard party, might never even bother with healing because they might not even get hit. Plus, there's always potions of healing and the like.

I guess what I want is direction + versatility, and that's not just about the wizard, but all classes and races.
Fighter-type classes- had heavy armor and lots of hit point, now basically they have awesome abilities in 4e.  They have variety and are much more fun.  I honestly rolled a human fighter day one with the last release and never regreted anything the class brings to the table.  Marking and holding enemies in place was great, and each new fighter build was something that interested me.

Theif-type classes- had light armor, light weapons, and awesome skills like finding traps, hiding, etc.  Now they are awesome burst damage and get to use Dex to hit, but a lot of their awesome got duplicated.  Still though I love the current version.  Lots of fun having all the exploits every round like the fighter, but there is a definate difference to how they play.

Cleric-type classes- had good armor and durability, but were absolutely essential to the party for providing heals.  Now they are great.  They can do damage and heal with a minor action.  It isn't like they are relegated to healing every round to keep the entire party up.  They have attacks that heal, and the other members of the party are doing things that make their job easier (second wind, powers other players that let them heal themselves).  Biggest improvement in the game system every.  Loved my eldarin cleric with a spear. 

Wizard-type classes- had light armor, few hit points, but also access to the largest array of cool stuff ever.  When I was six or seven I literally learned to read playing D&D.  It inspired a lot of creativity.  Tenser's Floating Disk, Fireballs, Mirror Image, Invisibility, heck,.. Dig, Grease, Phantasmal Force, Death Spell.  But all that aside as I grew up, I still enjoyed the class.  With 4e, there wasn't anything shiny.  Nothing new to make me go- oh wow, now that is the coolest thing ever in this edition. 

It is a game where magic and fantasy are inspiring.  I guess I could have gone about this a different way, but I wanted to just say.  The 4e Mage was disappointing.  Now his big claim to fame has been given to everyone.  I don't look at it like the fighter should go back to a single basic attack, just give me something cooler than an extra Daily choice I have to choose between and a feat anyone with a 13 Int can take.
Perspective, I guess.  I like the 4e wizard much better because it doesn't have scads of horribly overpowered, confusing, and difficult-to-adjucate spells wrecking the whole game.  One of the things that sold me on 4e was 'no more broken spellcasters'.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
 Please let me add my vote that I do not want a return to the rock star wizard with save or die and save or suck spells.  I truly want them to feel special and needed but not at the experience of the rest of the party ending up being groupies to Elvis.
I'm second from the left in the picture.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Simple fix: d20+(some derivative value) roll for spellcasting, with a sort of Save AC against it.  Make the save "active" (aka a regular saving throw) and it's an even better fix.
 
The success of a Mage has traditionally been determined by the victims.  Let's change that.
 Please let me add my vote that I do not want a return to the rock star wizard with save or die and save or suck spells.  I truly want them to feel special and needed but not at the experience of the rest of the party ending up being groupies to Elvis.



I can live without being Elvis, but wizards aren't even Ringo right now.  They are back there like George Harrison.  I really wonder how Elminster feels about all of this.
They are back there like George Harrison.

You are aware George had all of the talent in that band, right?

 Please let me add my vote that I do not want a return to the rock star wizard with save or die and save or suck spells.  I truly want them to feel special and needed but not at the experience of the rest of the party ending up being groupies to Elvis.



I can live without being Elvis, but wizards aren't even Ringo right now.  They are back there like George Harrison.



 The wizards in 4e you have been watching didnt know how to do their job very well at all. I have been in groups with competent wizards and DM'd at tables where competent wizards sat and team monster did have a chance, now the wizard did not kill everything with a single Fireballz or lightin'boltz the kept the monsters from taking effective actions while the rest of the party took them out.
I'm second from the left in the picture.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

They are back there like George Harrison.

You are aware George had all of the talent in that band, right?




Hmmm George was a great song writer along with Paul and John, Ringo was sitting in the back banging on the drums in a semi-adaquate way.
I'm second from the left in the picture.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

  I do however think the OP is going to get his wish of a return to the weak wizard for 6 levels, strong wizard for the next few levels and God after that from what the L&L is hinting toward.
I'm second from the left in the picture.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Really, I've not had this experience with wizards in 4e.

There are people that play wizards and choose to delay just to make sure the rest of the party had something to do on the first round.
Hmmm George was a great song writer along with Paul and John, Ringo was sitting in the back banging on the drums in a semi-adaquate way.



George was still unpopular.  As you pointed out, wizards can shine as a support role to the other members of the party.  Yeah, so someone might want to do that- but what were they previously? And what are they now? Every other class got cooler with 4e.  The wizard got the ability to use Orbs.  I mean come on.  The Ringo's of 4e were the classes we will never forget.  They stick in our head from now on out while in many cases not being as good or at least as developed as the more popular classes. 

I want people clamoring on the 5e forums about how OP'd the new Magic User is again.  Not that he is a well-rounded person who can assist others.  I actually titled this post after a shirt my brother bought me during our 3.5 campaign.  I want to be excited about playing wizards again.       


I want people clamoring on the 5e forums about how OP'd the new Magic User is again.  



No.
In fact, HELL NO.
Gross imbalance between classes was one of the crappiest things about previous editions.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.


I want people clamoring on the 5e forums about how OP'd the new Magic User is again.  



No.
In fact, HELL NO.
Gross imbalance between classes was one of the crappiest things about previous editions.



I agree and hope I am wrong in my presumption Wizards is going to bring it back.
I'm second from the left in the picture.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

I want people clamoring on the 5e forums about how OP'd the new Magic User is again.  Not that he is a well-rounded person who can assist others.  I actually titled this post after a shirt my brother bought me during our 3.5 campaign.  I want to be excited about playing wizards again.       




HELL NO! If they make the new magic user over powered again, I won't spend a single penny on the new edition. I want balanced classes. I want magic users who are no better or worse than anyone else. I don't mind specialized builds designed to fill in for the weaknesses of the rest of the group. I don't mind balance via the more rounded 4e approach. But if I see another overpowered magic user I won't be buying the next edition. That is a sales breaker for me. 

Add me to that list. I want classes to be as reasonably balanced as possible. If there is a way to overspecialize, it better come with a mighty kick in the junk weakness that isn't based on RP.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.

HELL NO! If they make the new magic user over powered again, I won't spend a single penny on the new edition. I want balanced classes. I want magic users who are no better or worse than anyone else. I don't mind specialized builds designed to fill in for the weaknesses of the rest of the group. I don't mind balance via the more rounded 4e approach. But if I see another overpowered magic user I won't be buying the next edition. That is a sales breaker for me. 




Well if all the classes are supposed to be equal what does the wizard in 4e truly gain for his lack of hit points, survivability, and armor.  If he does less damage than the rogue, and can 'control' the battlefield.  Don't expect me to be happy because I don't run out of spells any more.  Give me a reason to be avoiding damage and trying to stay out of combat besides making other classes look good and taking out minions.  I want something in exchange for sacrificing armor and hit points- maybe not the ability to kill with a word, but something that makes the class unique.
So, you don't like teamwork.  Got it.

I've never once heard anybody complain about the 4e wizard being underpowered or weak, and I strongly suspect most people familiar with 4e would laugh at anybody who makes such a claim.  Just because they can't wreck the whole game with a flick of a wrist doesn't make them gimped in any way.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
  Damar I have no problem with you having unique spells and powers that let you play your role in a party but I think it should just be an equal role not the dominant role.  

I think locking things down for the damage dealers is equal to dealing the damage, the healers heal and the Defender types help you by keeping the bad guys off of you, I'm a team player kind of guy, but I understand you don't and thats cool we can disagree. 

Hopefully the devs with feedback from playtesters will find a way to make us both happy, however I think you are going to end up more pleased than I will with the wizard in the new edition.
I'm second from the left in the picture.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium


Well if all the classes are supposed to be equal what does the wizard in 4e truly gain for his lack of hit points, survivability, and armor.  If he does less damage than the rogue, and can 'control' the battlefield.  Don't expect me to be happy because I don't run out of spells any more.  Give me a reason to be avoiding damage and trying to stay out of combat besides making other classes look good and taking out minions.  I want something in exchange for sacrificing armor and hit points- maybe not the ability to kill with a word, but something that makes the class unique.



I'm confused.  You can get wizards like this that can make it to the DPR candidates list, so they can deal out great wads of damage now.

Also, their primary stat is intelligence, and combine that with great powers such as Shield (lvl 2 utility) and Fly/Levitate, and them being a ranged character means they won't take the beating as much as other classes, so survivability isn't as much of an issue.

And that isn't even covering their Daily attack powers, which is their major drawcard. These things can end fights.  Visions of Avarice means that melee monsters will be lucky to get one attack roll in before they die.  Stinking Cloud means that ranged monsters struggle to do anything of meaning.

Granted, these powers don't shut down the encounter in the first round of the fight, but then show me a power from any class that can do that (excluding Char OP corner cases).

I think you really are underrating the wizard class. Have you ever DM'ed against a decent wizard class in 4ed. They can single handedly bring a DM to tears (I saw as much in a VT game - Visions of Avarice plus stinking cloud meant that his awesome ranged BBEG was completely useless).
So, you don't like teamwork.  Got it.

I've never once heard anybody complain about the 4e wizard being underpowered or weak, and I strongly suspect most people familiar with 4e would laugh at anybody who makes such a claim. Just because they can't wreck the whole game with a flick of a wrist doesn't make them gimped in any way.



Interesting fact:  This is still plenty possible.  You can just only do it to three encounters a day.

The classes are pretty balanced because wrecking encounters is no longer restricted to the wizard (or other spellcasters).  But spellcasters are still plenty capable of wrecking encounters.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.

Well if all the classes are supposed to be equal what does the wizard in 4e truly gain for his lack of hit points, survivability, and armor.  If he does less damage than the rogue, and can 'control' the battlefield.  Don't expect me to be happy because I don't run out of spells any more.  Give me a reason to be avoiding damage and trying to stay out of combat besides making other classes look good and taking out minions.  I want something in exchange for sacrificing armor and hit points- maybe not the ability to kill with a word, but something that makes the class unique.




There is a big difference between what you just wrote and asking for an overpowered class.

The thing is, the 4e wizard did get something for his lower hit points and armor class. If you are calling the 4e wizard underpowered, nobody is buying it. It might not have been the style of wizard you prefer, it might not have had quite as weak of a weakness or as strong of a strength as you enjoy, but it was definitely balanced. 

I don't care how they balance the next wizard so long as it is balanced at all levels of play. I want a wizard who is as capable as a level 1 fighter at level 1, and not any more capable than a level 20 fighter at level 20. That doesn't mean that they have to deal the same amounts of damage. But they both need to be able to contribute, overall, equally. I am not looking to play wizards and sidekicks, I am looking to play dungeons and dragons. If the next iteration of this game is wizards and sidekicks I am out. I would rather just play 4e and WFRPG 3e.


That being said, someone in another post came up with the idea of power build-ups. In other words, powers which you can’t use at the start of the fight, but which you have to build up to use. These powers would be high damage powers. I like the idea. I also like the idea of classes getting different types of mechanics. I think it would be a great idea to give wizards some of the best once per day per power, no more than once per encounter at all, powers which cannot be used to open combat, which would require build up, but which can be used to finish combat with a big bang. Meanwhile, classes like rogues would be given the high damage “combat openers.”


All I am saying is that the end result must be balanced. 


 

So, you don't like teamwork.  Got it.

I've never once heard anybody complain about the 4e wizard being underpowered or weak, and I strongly suspect most people familiar with 4e would laugh at anybody who makes such a claim. Just because they can't wreck the whole game with a flick of a wrist doesn't make them gimped in any way.



Interesting fact:  This is still plenty possible.  You can just only do it to three encounters a day.

The classes are pretty balanced because wrecking encounters is no longer restricted to the wizard (or other spellcasters).  But spellcasters are still plenty capable of wrecking encounters.



Who said 'encounters'?  I said 'the whole game', combat AND noncombat scenarios.  The problem with previous-e spells was that you could do anything, which meant the DM had to jump through hoops to stop even a halfway competent player from running roughshod over everything (and BTW, if your response to everything is 'I cast a spell at it', that's not 'creativity').
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.

Who said 'encounters'?  I said 'the whole game', combat AND noncombat scenarios.  The problem with previous-e spells was that you could do anything, which meant the DM had to jump through hoops to stop even a halfway competent player from running roughshod over everything (and BTW, if your response to everything is 'I cast a spell at it', that's not 'creativity').



I said encounters.  I'm a person too, you don't have to be so mean   (joking, btw)


Because breaking non-encounter-scenarios is so incredibly easy for any class in the game that I didn't even think it was worth mentioning (all you have to do is max out either Intimidate, Bluff, or Diplomacy, and when I say 'max out', I mean '+80, roll twice at 30th level').
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.