My biggest gripe with 4e is the role system. I enjoyed playing spell casters before because I could choose if I wanted to deal damage, support my troops or turn enemies into my slaves. I enjoyed the option of being able to allow RP to shape my character, as I would often select spells for my Sorcerer based on how much my companions complained post-battle.
With 4e, the games I play with the same group feel more like a day of running about in a MMO instead of a tabletop RP game. I don't even pay attention to combat anymore because if it isn't an overly difficult battle, I blow my two encounters and magic missile ad nauseam until the battle is over. It gets repetitive and old, after a while, and I wonder where all the actual role playing went. Unless I have misread something somewhere, most of my utilities are worthless for most encounters. The only saving grace, right now, is that the system is new and there is new information in the pipeline to be released, but as it stands I am unimpressed with the current system because 1) it forces a role upon me instead of allowing me to select my role and 2) it sacrificed role playing for roll playing (what happened to all my useless skills?).
I enjoy the additional features/powers that have been added to the other classes but I don't like the unnecessary restrictions that have been put in place to create an artificial feeling of balance. I never had a problem with balance before or with running out of spells. I also had the good luck to find a group that was relatively free of power gamers. Now I am stuck with spells that I would most likely never choose in a role that sometimes becomes too repetitive.
So I share the sentiments that the wizard has become boring, but I would say that the overall feel of the game has changed. It is getting better with each release so I maintain hope that things will get better and I urge others to do so. Until then I will continue my quest to remove my DM from the MMO mindset that the new system seems to lend itself to.
I was thinking on this the other day. I think this should probably be raised in the homebrew section, but I think this idea will make playing my Wizard less repetitive in the future:
(Add this paragraph after the "Daily and Utility Spells" section under Spellbook in the Wizard class features.) Encounter Spells: Your spellbook also holds your encounter spells. You begin knowing two encounter spells, only one of which you can use on any given day. Each time you gain a new encounter spell, choose two encounter spells of that level to add to your book. In this way you can have twice as many encounter spells prepared as anyone of your level would normally have, but you may only use the normal amount granted by your level.
For example, a third level Wizard selected Burning Hands and Icy Terrain at first level. At this level, she chooses Color Spray and Icy Rays. This Wizard has prepared four Encounter spells, but may only cast two in any given encounter.
My biggest gripe with 4e is the role system. I enjoyed playing spell casters before because I could choose if I wanted to deal damage, support my troops or turn enemies into my slaves. I enjoyed the option of being able to allow RP to shape my character, as I would often select spells for my Sorcerer based on how much my companions complained post-battle.
With 4e, the games I play with the same group feel more like a day of running about in a MMO instead of a tabletop RP game. I don't even pay attention to combat anymore because if it isn't an overly difficult battle, I blow my two encounters and magic missile ad nauseam until the battle is over. It gets repetitive and old, after a while, and I wonder where all the actual role playing went. Unless I have misread something somewhere, most of my utilities are worthless for most encounters. The only saving grace, right now, is that the system is new and there is new information in the pipeline to be released, but as it stands I am unimpressed with the current system because 1) it forces a role upon me instead of allowing me to select my role and 2) it sacrificed role playing for roll playing (what happened to all my useless skills?).
I enjoy the additional features/powers that have been added to the other classes but I don't like the unnecessary restrictions that have been put in place to create an artificial feeling of balance. I never had a problem with balance before or with running out of spells. I also had the good luck to find a group that was relatively free of power gamers. Now I am stuck with spells that I would most likely never choose in a role that sometimes becomes too repetitive.
So I share the sentiments that the wizard has become boring, but I would say that the overall feel of the game has changed. It is getting better with each release so I maintain hope that things will get better and I urge others to do so. Until then I will continue my quest to remove my DM from the MMO mindset that the new system seems to lend itself to.
Well I think part of this is the new system is unfamiliar and lends itself to that type of play; but i would suggest that it doesn't have to play that way. And I agree that as more material is released then it will get better. Really there is no way to play a beguiler or illusionist type of PC because those classes haven't been released yet. So yes the role you play as a wizard is limited, for now. However as you suggested it has gotten better with just the release of a few articles and books.
I do find uses for utilities in combat though. In fact I think this was the point. Shield is obvious, expeditious retreat is great for getting away from enemies trying to close on you, stoneskin, blur and resist are all obvious combat spells. However there are some non-combat choices as well. Arcane gate, d.door, fly, jump, invisibility all have many uses outside of combat. This is one of the reasons I enjoy playing the wizard over other classes. It has the most out of combat potential than any other class.
Aqueus wrote:
I was thinking on this the other day. I think this should probably be raised in the homebrew section, but I think this idea will make playing my Wizard less repetitive in the future:
(Add this paragraph after the "Daily and Utility Spells" section under Spellbook in the Wizard class features.) Encounter Spells: Your spellbook also holds your encounter spells. You begin knowing two encounter spells, only one of which you can use on any given day. Each time you gain a new encounter spell, choose two encounter spells of that level to add to your book. In this way you can have twice as many encounter spells prepared as anyone of your level would normally have, but you may only use the normal amount granted by your level.
For example, a third level Wizard selected Burning Hands and Icy Terrain at first level. At this level, she chooses Color Spray and Icy Rays. This Wizard has prepared four Encounter spells, but may only cast two in any given encounter.
Any thoughts?
I was thinking something similar myself but I think this option gives the wizard too much flexibility and a much greater advantage than other players would enjoy. I would prefer to see something like letting the wizard keep all spells he's chosen over his career (even the 1st level ones) and then choose from that which ones to prepare (for daily and utility); maybe even modify the expanded spellbook feat to do this. Then allow another feat to let the wizard switch out a memorized spell for one in his spellbook.
Very eloquent, but I think that your take on the subject is wrong anyway.
Whereas the balance of characters in a game is somewhat defined by tacit social contracts between its players, DM and Player alike, the range of power interpretation and implementation within and between given classes does figure into the final equation.
I fully acknowledge that powers are huge factor, and should have been more explicit about it. The point I'm trying to make is that no matter what powers we've been given to interpret, it's still up to us to interpret them, and we should be able to do so as freely as we wish. Just because they factor into the equation doesn't make you any more at their mercy. There's no "somewhat" about it. We may differ on this, but I think that roleplaying games are entirely defined by tacit social contracts between its players, with the rules placed in between as a mediator. The rules are there to establish objective things that we can agree upon to make our game more smoothly. What we tend to forget is that objectivity doesn't exist, so any give rule has the potential to fall short of what we want to accomplish. If one player wants to do something that the rules allow, but the DM finds it overpowering, change the rule.
All I'm saying is that the rules need to help that back and forth go smoothly. You're right in saying that paragon paths and powers are good guidelines for writing paragon paths and powers. But I think they should actually publish rules for writing paragon paths and powers, and even rules for houseruling. I feel that it would be the most effective way to cut down guesswork between the player and DM when it comes to customizing their gameplaying experience, which is inevitable and necessary in some way for almost all players. You may be totally fine with 4th's iteration of magic, but my friends and I, along with wizbang, swyft, and plenty of others on this forum are not. I can't speak for you or these guys, but speaking from the perspective of someone who does feel like they need to make a lot of rules changes to execute his character ideas, I feel like I'm starting from scratch.
Every rules system in a role-playing game is going to be inherently flawed. That's why the best system isn't necessarily the one that's the most streamlined or balanced, but the most adaptable.
Roxlimn wrote:
I do not believe that the 4e Wizard is "dumbed down." I simply think that this was the trend WotC was establishing with the Specialist Wizard classes late in 3e design evolution. Instead of one Wizard class to define every Wizard archetype in existence, one class for a few such concepts. For example, we could have the Beguiler, not Wizard with Enchantment spells.
"Dumbed down" wasn't the best choice of words. I'm just frustrated that I can't make the kind of wizards that exist in my imagination.
I hear what you're saying with the separate classes. In working on our homebrew magic system, I brought that very idea to my DM, noticing that the Warlock had taken a lot of the necromantic and beguiling effects. As a large proponent of the multi-faceted wizard as an archetype in itself, he shot it down immediately, stating that the Wizard is versatile by definition. I actually think it has a lot of potential in that it provides a clean division between the different functions of magic. If you want somebody who can combine different schools, then multiclass it. I could be hip to this, but I'd have to fully flesh it out and playtest it to see why it would necessarily be better than a wizard with all of the options, but just as limited of a number of slots. More options doesn't and shouldn't mean more powers.
Roxlimn wrote:
As a point of design, it's clear how and why this paradigm works better. Since the range of power combination within each class is limited, it's easier to establish its performance benchmarks and estimate the most and least powerful combination you can create within that class.
I actually really like the fact that everybody follows the same system of advancement. It does make things a lot smoother, but still, don't you think the books should be written such a way that discourages min/maxing competitions between PCs? You'd think that was all the game was about by reading these forums.
That's why I'd be careful when using a word like "performance" or "power" in this context. By what standards are you defining power? If you're talking about performance in combat, then power is finite and measurable, because combat in D&D can almost completely be boiled down to math. In a larger role-playing context, power is defined on a more subjective basis.
Magic is a powerful tool of the imagination. It doesn't have limits outside of the ones you and your DM agree upon. I don't disagree with what you're saying from a balance perspective. But balance, at least in terms that I think you're defining it, requires the predictability of a standardized system with "performance benchmarks." Magic does have predictable elements in a game like this that I'm sure we can agree upon, but under no circumstances should it be predictable ALL the time.
Roxlimn wrote:
As far as I can tell, 4e Wizard spell allocation isn't more combat related than any previous iteration and is arguably less combat-related because you can't NOT choose to get noncombat spells such as cantrips, noncombat utilities and rituals, whereas you could do so with 2e and 3e.
This an inaccurate statement. Open up your 3rd Edition player's handbook to the spells section. Make a tally of how many combat spells there are versus how may non-combat spells there are. It's not even funny how few combat spells there are in comparison.
That's not what you're saying though, is it? You seem to be saying that the 4th Edition wizard is less combat-oriented because he has a mandatory allotment of non-combat spells prescribed to him. Even outside of the fact that most of his spells are combat spells, this doesn't help make the wizard less combat oriented. Being combat oriented is a mindset, not a function of mechanics. If a player wants to be a combat oriented wizard, he should be allowed to choose however many combat spells he wants (or in my opinion, he should be a fighter). If a player isn't interested in dealing a single point of damage with magic (a concept that seems to be foreign or unappealing to most of the people on this board), he should be able to do that to. Again, it all boils down to how the rules facilitate a player's imagination.
Roxlimn wrote:
Giving each Wizard a rifle with a choice of similarly powerful items formalizes his role in combat and makes it unlikely that a newbie might forget to take one along. That said, earlier editions not only allowed him to choose a rifle, but a tank or an aircraft carrier if he wished, and that tended to vary Wizard combat capability to a wide degree, making the game impossible to balance without a strong DM at the helm.
Balance in D&D Does. Not. Exist. Without a strong DM. 2nd Edition acknowledged this and wrote extensively on how to balance open ended situations. Needless to say, an entire chapter of alternate rules considerations were written for magic. The designers used to be completely up on this. 2nd Edition was a far less balanced mechanic, but it didn't forget that D&D is about those tacit social contracts between the player and the DM, which overrules any rule. They knew that variation and debate was a necessary and defining part of the game, and they compensated accordingly.
Here's an excerpt from the introduction to Chapter 7: Magic, in the 2nd Edition DMG:
Of all the areas of the AD&D game that you will be called upon to judge, magic is perhaps the most diverse and demanding. Magic allows characters to break all the natural laws of the universe, a situation that can lead to unforeseen, but highly exciting situations. Be sure you understand how magic works in the AD&D game and the different ways you can control its use.
It then goes into a nearly categorical listing of hypothetical player decisions that everybody on this forum complains about, and get this, HOW TO COUNTERACT THEM. I wish I could just copy the whole chapter, but I've already written WAY too much. Here's the table of contents/list of topics for the chapter so you can get the gist:
Initial Wizard Spells Player Choice DM Choice Player/DM Collaboration
Acquisition of Spells Beyond 1st Level Gaining Levels Copying from Spell Books Scroll Research Study with a Mentor
Sorry, but I couldn't avoid copying this part out.
DM Control of Spell Aquisition However characters acquire new spells, always remember that you are in charge. You have complete control over what spells the player characters get. If a player character has a spell you don't like or one that severely disrupts or unbalances your game, it is not the player's fault. Who gave the character the spell? Who allowed it in the game? Controlling spell acquisition is an important responsibility Consider your choices carefully. By keeping the selection of spells limited, you automatically increase their importance and value to the wizards in your campaign.
We aren't subordinate to the rules. Moving on...
Spell Books All Sizes and Shapes Spell Book Preparation Spell Book Cost How Many Pages in a Spell Book?
Expanding the Schools of Magic Adding New Spells Expansion Through Campaign Detail
Spell Research Suggesting a New Spell Analyzing a Spell - Are there already spells or combinations of spells that can do the same thing? - Is the player trying to gain a special advantage over the normal rules?
Solving the Problem of a New Spell
Setting a Spell's Level
Determining Spell Components (Optional Rule)
Determining Research Time
The Cost of Spell Research
Adding a New Spell to the Spell Book
Researching Extra Wizard Spells
4th Edition's rules are arguably MUCH better than 2nd Edition's, but it doesn't have the most important set of rules of all: the rules for doing guesswork. And by taking away the rules for doing guesswork, WotC has taken the guesswork out of the rules, which is the only thing in the game that allows imagination to take prevalence over mechanics. What I'm saying is that the real rules in role-playing, the really really important ones, aren't a function of numbers. They're a function of creativity, something that 4th Edition does not require to play.
My biggest gripe with 4e is the role system. I enjoyed playing spell casters before because I could choose if I wanted to deal damage, support my troops or turn enemies into my slaves. I enjoyed the option of being able to allow RP to shape my character, as I would often select spells for my Sorcerer based on how much my companions complained post-battle.
3E wizards could do everything, that was not a good dynamic and some cuts needed to be made. As to your examples though "dealing damage and supporting your troops (and they shouldn't be "your troops", like in 3E, they are your teammates)" has been rolled into the same thing. Turning enemies into slaves is now a warlock thing.
Eriochrome wrote:
With 4e, the games I play with the same group feel more like a day of running about in a MMO instead of a tabletop RP game. I don't even pay attention to combat anymore because if it isn't an overly difficult battle, I blow my two encounters and magic missile ad nauseam until the battle is over. It gets repetitive and old, after a while, and I wonder where all the actual role playing went.
May want to talk to your DM about that one, If the combats aren't challanging and there is no role playing, those are issues with he who is running the game, not the system. Some aspects of "roleplaying" have been covered through skill challanges, others have had their limitations removed and have been left to abstract/imagination (now you can play a mistral without needing to invest limited resource skill points into a skill).
Eriochrome wrote:
The only saving grace, right now, is that the system is new and there is new information in the pipeline to be released, but as it stands I am unimpressed with the current system because 1) it forces a role upon me instead of allowing me to select my role and 2) it sacrificed role playing for roll playing (what happened to all my useless skills?).
1) It doesn't force a role on you. You are not required to play a defender when you pick up a book (your fellow players may try, but that's nether the system nor required). If your talking about mechanics not being available to play the concept you want to play (IE, no necromancy), thats also a different issue. Otherwise, I don't have a clue what your talking about. If I want to play a damage dealer, there are several options, including melee, ranged and arcane. If I want to play a healer, I have both divine and martial. If I want to play a martial character, there are tons of options. If I want to play an arcane battlefield controller, I have wizard (for AoE) or warlock for single target control. If I want to play a wizard that deals damage greater then any other player and still have a mastery of battlefield control, I'm now looking more into concepts then roles (and I'd play a wizard Blood Mage)
2) It removed the limitations of a mechanic onto roleplaying. All your useless skills have become freeform concepts you can grant your character without hampering him in other areas. This opens roleplay up, not removes it.
Eriochrome wrote:
I enjoy the additional features/powers that have been added to the other classes but I don't like the unnecessary restrictions that have been put in place to create an artificial feeling of balance. I never had a problem with balance before or with running out of spells. I also had the good luck to find a group that was relatively free of power gamers. Now I am stuck with spells that I would most likely never choose in a role that sometimes becomes too repetitive.
So, because your never had the issue, it didn't exist? is that what your saying? If 3.5 worked for you because your group wasn't loaded with powergamers, and you don't like the 4E system (which is not a wizard issue and thus a thoughts on wizards thread is the wrong area to be discussing it) perhaps it is a better option for you and you should go back to it. No-one is forcing you to give up all the books you bought for 3.5 and play 4E.
I know I come off as Hostile and abrasive. It is not my intention to do so, I am just a very emotionally driven individual. I apologize if I come off as such to you and ask that you please don't take it personally, as I can assure you, it is not intended as such. --------------------------------------------------------- duel colourShow
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
So, because your never had the issue, it didn't exist? is that what your saying? If 3.5 worked for you because your group wasn't loaded with powergamers, and you don't like the 4E system (which is not a wizard issue and thus a thoughts on wizards thread is the wrong area to be discussing it) perhaps it is a better option for you and you should go back to it. No-one is forcing you to give up all the books you bought for 3.5 and play 4E.
Wait…so, because you don't have an issue with the 4E wizard it doesn't exist?
Be fair. Whether a RPG rules system works for you or not depends on whether it has the flexibility to do what your imagination tells it. All Eriochrome is saying is that he can't get the 4E wizard (just the wizard, not any other class so the argument does belong here), to do what his imagination tells it. Just because your imagination of what the wizard does fits comfortably inside the definition of the 4E wizard doesn't mean everybody else's does. Be fair.
Wait…so, because you don't have an issue with the 4E wizard it doesn't exist?
I also didn't have an issue with powergamers and balance in my Games, but that does not mean there wasn't a need to address the issue, particularly given the designers stated desire for balanced classes. they did this by starting over. If there was not an issue of balance for Eriochrome, then there was not a need for him to change systems. I can understand he made the choice to change anyways, due to the fact it is new and shiny or whatever his reasons, but to then claim there are issues brought about by the changes made to balance the system, and that balancing wasn't needed because he didn't have that problem, well, thats rather selfish. You'll also notice I didn't say the problems he has don't exist. I believe his issues are brought about by issues other then the system, but thats something else entirely from saying it doesn't exist.
Eriochrome has repeatedly suggested that his issue is with his DM's inability to make use of the now unrestricted roleplay features ("It gets repetitive and old, after a while, and I wonder where all the actual role playing went."), his DM's inability to challenge them even in the defined combat portion of the game ("I don't even pay attention to combat anymore because if it isn't an overly difficult battle, I blow my two encounters and magic missile ad nauseam until the battle is over."), and his own imaginations limitations ("it sacrificed role playing for roll playing (what happened to all my useless skills?)." can one not roleplay a musician without a perform skill?), which he then blames on the system simplifying the rules into mechanics (for combat and opposed skills) and free form (for most everything else).
you'll notice two things here:
1) I never said his issues didn't exist, I merely pointed out how they were likely misdirected at the wrong target.
2) not a single one of the issues he's brought up are wizard based. His DM, not providing roleplay options or challenging combats is not a wizard issue. Nor is his inability to see beyond what has set rules for the purpose of roleplaying. If you want to quote the same post I posted and show me a wizard issue (with the single potential exception that wizards can no longer do everything anymore, which i think is more an issue of needing time to have more content provided (the 3.5 wizards ability to do everything got a significant portion of it's ability from splat books) and/or a powergamers need to have it all. but he phrased that in a general statement of "spellcasters" not the wizard specifically.), your more then welcome too prove me wrong.
jetzine wrote:
Be fair. Whether a RPG rules system works for you or not depends on whether it has the flexibility to do what your imagination tells it. All Eriochrome is saying is that he can't get the 4E wizard (just the wizard, not any other class so the argument does belong here), to do what his imagination tells it. Just because your imagination of what the wizard does fits comfortably inside the definition of the 4E wizard doesn't mean everybody else's does. Be fair.
And if one person can't get the rules system to do something that another person can, is the failing on the part of the system or the one who can't accomplish their task? Is that a reason to blame the system and claim the reasons for the changes that have made that task too difficult were unnecessary, despite the fact that, while unnecessary for him, they were very necessary for a significant portion of the populace?
I do not deny the wizard is far more limited in what it can do in comparison to 3.5, but I have already said, I agree with the reason for them doing this IE Balance. The wizards could do everything before, that was not balanced. They changed things to bring about balance. Eriochrome claims that he never had a problem with balance and therefor that change was "Unnecessary". Do you believe that because Eriochrome didn't have a balance issue that there was no need to make any changes? If you both feel there was no need to make any changes, why did you make the change from 3.5 to 4E?
Let me clarify, I do not believe that the 4E wizard has a problem because it's not broken to the point of obsoleting every other class. And I do not believe the wizard has a problem because Eriochrome doesn't like how the system as a whole (not wizards specifically) changed how it does out of combat roleplay. And that is not the same as saying I do not believe the wizard has problems.
I know I come off as Hostile and abrasive. It is not my intention to do so, I am just a very emotionally driven individual. I apologize if I come off as such to you and ask that you please don't take it personally, as I can assure you, it is not intended as such. --------------------------------------------------------- duel colourShow
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
All I'm saying is that the rules need to help that back and forth go smoothly. You're right in saying that paragon paths and powers are good guidelines for writing paragon paths and powers. But I think they should actually publish rules for writing paragon paths and powers, and even rules for houseruling. I feel that it would be the most effective way to cut down guesswork between the player and DM when it comes to customizing their gameplaying experience, which is inevitable and necessary in some way for almost all players. You may be totally fine with 4th's iteration of magic, but my friends and I, along with wizbang, swyft, and plenty of others on this forum are not. I can't speak for you or these guys, but speaking from the perspective of someone who does feel like they need to make a lot of rules changes to execute his character ideas, I feel like I'm starting from scratch.
Please hear the voice of experience on this. Every single attempt to publish established but concise rules for creating powers without a large collection of benchmarks has been a failure. Just about the only rules I think that work along those lines are GURPS and Heroes system and those are very complicated and still work off of benchmarks anwyay.
I always feel a need to tweak the rules. That was the case even with the white pamphlets. It's still the case with 4e. 4e's the easiest rules system to do that with so far, as far as I can tell, with the possible exception of 2e Marvel Superheroes, and that's only because Marvel doesn't even pretend to concern itself with balance.
Having a desire to change particulars about the 4e system is not a valid reason to dislike it. It's eminently customizable, moreso than 2e because of standardization across classes, and easier than 3e because of uniform power formatting.
I know what I'm talking about here because I've been around the 3e Prestige Class heyday and participated in PrC discussion all around the net, as well as class discussions about the creation of various classes, feats, and abilities of various denominations.
4e's EASIER for customization, not harder.
I hear what you're saying with the separate classes. In working on our homebrew magic system, I brought that very idea to my DM, noticing that the Warlock had taken a lot of the necromantic and beguiling effects. As a large proponent of the multi-faceted wizard as an archetype in itself, he shot it down immediately, stating that the Wizard is versatile by definition. I actually think it has a lot of potential in that it provides a clean division between the different functions of magic. If you want somebody who can combine different schools, then multiclass it. I could be hip to this, but I'd have to fully flesh it out and playtest it to see why it would necessarily be better than a wizard with all of the options, but just as limited of a number of slots. More options doesn't and shouldn't mean more powers.
The test for this is actually quite easy. Allow a player to freely select all powers from all classes freely. That's essentially the logical conclusion of what constitutes a "versatile do-everything Wizard" - horribly difficult to balance and make powers for.
I actually really like the fact that everybody follows the same system of advancement. It does make things a lot smoother, but still, don't you think the books should be written such a way that discourages min/maxing competitions between PCs? You'd think that was all the game was about by reading these forums.
That's why I'd be careful when using a word like "performance" or "power" in this context. By what standards are you defining power? If you're talking about performance in combat, then power is finite and measurable, because combat in D&D can almost completely be boiled down to math. In a larger role-playing context, power is defined on a more subjective basis.
Magic is a powerful tool of the imagination. It doesn't have limits outside of the ones you and your DM agree upon. I don't disagree with what you're saying from a balance perspective. But balance, at least in terms that I think you're defining it, requires the predictability of a standardized system with "performance benchmarks." Magic does have predictable elements in a game like this that I'm sure we can agree upon, but under no circumstances should it be predictable ALL the time.
If a Wizard can be creative about the use of his power source, a Fighter should, too.
Period.
You're saying that Magic is wondrous and unpredictable. I disagree. I think that everything is wondrous and unpredictable sometimes.
This an inaccurate statement. Open up your 3rd Edition player's handbook to the spells section. Make a tally of how many combat spells there are versus how may non-combat spells there are. It's not even funny how few combat spells there are in comparison.
That's not what you're saying though, is it? You seem to be saying that the 4th Edition wizard is less combat-oriented because he has a mandatory allotment of non-combat spells prescribed to him. Even outside of the fact that most of his spells are combat spells, this doesn't help make the wizard less combat oriented. Being combat oriented is a mindset, not a function of mechanics. If a player wants to be a combat oriented wizard, he should be allowed to choose however many combat spells he wants (or in my opinion, he should be a fighter). If a player isn't interested in dealing a single point of damage with magic (a concept that seems to be foreign or unappealing to most of the people on this board), he should be able to do that to. Again, it all boils down to how the rules facilitate a player's imagination.
It's a totally accurate statement. Nearly a third of all 3e spells have direct tactical application and ONLY direct tactical application. We're talking stuff like Magic Missile and Finger of Death here. Another third are presumably noncombat, but have distinct and detailed tactical applications anyway. Even spells that are supposedly noncombat have tactical applications in both 3e and 2e. Talking about Rope Trick and Leomund's Tiny Hut here.
I can find an immediate tactical application for close on to 90% of all spells in the 3.5e Spells Compendium, probably more.
4e spell selection is similar. Rituals and spells with utility applications constitute about 2/3s or more of every Wizard's allocation.
If you want a more combat oriented Wizard, then make a class that's like that - the Wizard is not for you.
If you want a class with NO combat applications whatsoever, make a class for it - the Wizard is not for you. I would warn against this, however, as it's relatively easy to make a mistake doing this.
The rules DO facilitate a player's imagination, if you have the initiative to go ahead and use them as you wish.
Balance in D&D Does. Not. Exist. Without a strong DM. 2nd Edition acknowledged this and wrote extensively on how to balance open ended situations. Needless to say, an entire chapter of alternate rules considerations were written for magic. The designers used to be completely up on this. 2nd Edition was a far less balanced mechanic, but it didn't forget that D&D is about those tacit social contracts between the player and the DM, which overrules any rule. They knew that variation and debate was a necessary and defining part of the game, and they compensated accordingly.
That's not actually true anymore. 4e has gone back to its roots as a tactical wargame in a very big way. If you want to play only tactical encounters, you could do so without a DM at all and it would play reasonably well.
Balance in D&D is a nebulous concept, but it's easier to achieve it in 4e than in 2e, and yes, this is from the perspective of someone who played 2e throughout its run, as a player and as a DM.
4th Edition's rules are arguably MUCH better than 2nd Edition's, but it doesn't have the most important set of rules of all: the rules for doing guesswork. And by taking away the rules for doing guesswork, WotC has taken the guesswork out of the rules, which is the only thing in the game that allows imagination to take prevalence over mechanics. What I'm saying is that the real rules in role-playing, the really really important ones, aren't a function of numbers. They're a function of creativity, something that 4th Edition does not require to play.
Totally wrong.
4e doesn't give you all this advice on how to counter player choices because it's understood that you ARE THE DM and anything you say goes. It offers you benchmarks for powers to the tune of more powers than any other core book in D&D history. You can tweak these powers as you see fit.
You can easily get the monster stat estimation table and match prescribed powers to the monster stats across levels and tiers. There's page 42 as well, and skill challenges, too.
The rules in 4e seem rigid to you because you're allowing these rules to limit you for some reason I cannot fathom. If you instead viewed them as a starting point for experimentation, you'll find them much easier to manipulate than previous iterations, as I have.
I always view rules in an RPG as starting points for experimentation.
After reading the first page of this thread, then skipping around a little, all I could think was "wow, it's the min-max board". Sure, min-maxing is fun, but it's not about most real games (at least I HOPE not)... it's for those one shots that you do to break from the real campaign now and then for a beat-fest.
I thought I was going to have to speak up about that, but you did so quite well!
Sure, I like a wizard to have a few big-boom spells, and the low level issue of 'I'm out' during a combat was always a bummer, but it was part of being a wizard. Having 'at will' combat powers sure makes up for that, but it's the NON-COMBAT magic that really made a Wizard a Magic User.
At-Will Cantrips? That's awesome! Too bad there are 4 of them. PHB 3.5? 19. Sure, 7 of those were pretty much 'combat', but that's 12 others! And I even used those 'combat' ones outside of combat on a regular basis (Nothing like casting Acid Splash a few times as portable vial of acid!). 1st level - 39, 23 of which are either non-combat, or quite useful outside of combat.
The lack of options, and not being able to use them twice (I can make myself invisible, but not both of us) seems ridiculous (I'd be happy to hear I'm wrong on that second one), and really kills the 'utility mage'. Wizards were usually the 'problem solvers', the thinkers of the group, finding interesting ways to puzzle through dilemmas the group was having, and for show, sometimes using magic to do it. People play fighters to fight, people play Magic Users to Use Magic. It just appears that Using Magic is being made to = Combat in 4e, and from skimming the thread, that seems far too true.
SO, while 4e Wizards may be balanced with other classes, it seems they are balanced 'in combat'. Rogues, Wizards, Bards, etc. seemed to be the 'most fun outside of combat' before, let's see where this takes them now.
I'm sure 4e can be/will be/is still lots of fun, and I'll be playing it for a while, the question is will we be play 4e in a year, or using the old Rules Compendium? Only time will tell.
Just to bring this all the way back to the original post: "What did they do to my interesting wizard with his plethora of spells and options?"
From a quick browse through the forum, many people don't understand what you miss, they're just looking at bringing the Boom Stick!
After reading the first page of this thread, then skipping around a little, all I could think was "wow, it's the min-max board". Sure, min-maxing is fun, but it's not about most real games (at least I HOPE not)... it's for those one shots that you do to break from the real campaign now and then for a beat-fest.
I thought I was going to have to speak up about that, but you did so quite well!
Sure, I like a wizard to have a few big-boom spells, and the low level issue of 'I'm out' during a combat was always a bummer, but it was part of being a wizard. Having 'at will' combat powers sure makes up for that, but it's the NON-COMBAT magic that really made a Wizard a Magic User.
At-Will Cantrips? That's awesome! Too bad there are 4 of them. PHB 3.5? 19. Sure, 7 of those were pretty much 'combat', but that's 12 others! And I even used those 'combat' ones outside of combat on a regular basis (Nothing like casting Acid Splash a few times as portable vial of acid!). 1st level - 39, 23 of which are either non-combat, or quite useful outside of combat.
The lack of options, and not being able to use them twice (I can make myself invisible, but not both of us) seems ridiculous (I'd be happy to hear I'm wrong on that second one), and really kills the 'utility mage'. Wizards were usually the 'problem solvers', the thinkers of the group, finding interesting ways to puzzle through dilemmas the group was having, and for show, sometimes using magic to do it. People play fighters to fight, people play Magic Users to Use Magic. It just appears that Using Magic is being made to = Combat in 4e, and from skimming the thread, that seems far too true.
SO, while 4e Wizards may be balanced with other classes, it seems they are balanced 'in combat'. Rogues, Wizards, Bards, etc. seemed to be the 'most fun outside of combat' before, let's see where this takes them now.
I'm sure 4e can be/will be/is still lots of fun, and I'll be playing it for a while, the question is will we be play 4e in a year, or using the old Rules Compendium? Only time will tell.
Just to bring this all the way back to the original post: "What did they do to my interesting wizard with his plethora of spells and options?"
From a quick browse through the forum, many people don't understand what you miss, they're just looking at bringing the Boom Stick!
one word: "rituals"
as for your invisibility thing: you can do it if you optimize for it. but, imo, it's not worth it.
