Community

_plucky wrote:

Very true. Then let's open that up to be a problem with the system, as written, that wasn't there before, at least for many classes.

And that may be a valid complaint. All I was getting at is that this is a wizard thread, in a wizard forum. And the wizard is getting dumped on for system based complaint. I just felt the need to point out the misplaced discontent.

_plucky wrote:

Having ANY character can reduce the value of having certain allies, when you think about it that way.

Except the wizard is capable of doing it to more classes then just like minded ones (ranger may be able to devalue a rogues stealth, but not his theivery and social skills. Rogue may be able to devalue a rangers stealth, but not his survival and tracking skills. A wizard can obsolete all 5 skill sets with his spells), all at the same time.

_plucky wrote:

Also, try using 'charm person' instead of social skills with a Lawful Good Paladin in the party. Have fun with that.

Last I checked, charm wasn't an evil act, and as long as no evil acts were commited due to the use of charm, there is little reason for the paladin to disagree with it's use by others. He may personally not agree with the methods and thus, not wish to use them himself. He may even wish to monitor it's use, so as not to allow it to be abused. But charm does not make someone a slave, it makes them a temporary friend, and that certainly is not evil

_plucky wrote:

If you want to play the 'Super Wizard Scout', then that is a role you play in the party. It doesn't 'devalue' having a scout in the party any more than having a second scout would.

It does make someone who's only real thing is scouting appear significantly inferior by comparison. It now means one of those two scouts is no longer "needed" by the party (not the same as useless to the party)

_plucky wrote:

That is about party dynamics, and something players should know going into the game. A wizards can't play ALL the roles, and if he tries, what party would adventure with him anyway? Again, people forget the 'role playing' all too often.

A wizard can play all the roles. It will dilute him, make him less powerful then a wizard who focused on a single task or two, but he can do it, and do it well enough to replace the need for those roles by other characters. Now, to the bolded statement... This has nothing to do with roll-play vs role-play. do you tell 1 player he can't play his character the way he wants to because he's doing to much for the party and making everyone else feel unnecessary? That's denying the wizard from "role playing" the character he wants to play. But letting him play reduces the fun (but not the ability to roleplay or rollplay) of the other characters. And if the wizard doing everything is rollplaying, whats wrong with changing the rules/system to prevent that from happening? your DM didn't have a problem with that...

_plucky wrote:

RAW, what the DM says goes. If the door doesn't open to a knock spell, then it doesn't open.

_plucky wrote:

I didn't say it should. I'm pointing out that it's being looked at from different angles entirely. Maybe there could have been a "Utility Wizard" class - no blasting spells for you, just all utility items. Just an illustration, I'm not trying to 'give it more', I'm saying what it has is very restricting.

And how does a DM balance his encounters if he can no longer count on a character offering an equal amount of combat or out of combat potential? All the classes are currently balanced (more or less) with each other for both combat and out of combat. you disturb that balance, you now make more work for the DM, as the calculations no longer work. Does a DM leave his combat challenges the same, letting the other players pick up the uttility players slack? or does he make the challenge easier so the uttility player doesn't get overwhelmed, and result in his challenges becoming too easy. Same goes for skill challenges, now that one character goes head and shoulder above the rest, does the DM adjust the DC's to challenge that one character and in turn make everything too hard for the rest, or does he leave the challenges as is and have his skill challenges made trivial?


As to what it has being "very restrictive", in comparison to what? What it has in 4E is comparable to what everyone else has in 4E. In fact, the wizard has more then everyone else already due to spellbook and the free bonus rituals it gets.

_plucky wrote:

What I want is to have fun, which I'll certainly try to do with the options available to me, and I'll probably succeed at it too! As for the CHARACTER I would like to play, let's just simplify it and say "the party mystic", not the "party blaster". The issue I have making the character is this: you may be able to pull it off, but you have to NOT use half of what the class allows you to do, which in the end makes the character weaker. I don't want to control the battlefield, or blast enemies, but there is nothing to make up for not using those encounter/daily powers. I would be happy playing such that I never do a single point of damage in combat, but is there anything gained by doing this?

As it stands now, level 1 spells that would fit with a uttility type wizard could include thunderwave (push's. damage is a side effect of the push. and if your really opposed to doing damage, remove it.), ray of frost, ray of enfeeblement, sleep (Hex's and curses placed upon the enemy. they just happen to have harmful effects as well, with a chill wind or necromantic energies coursing through the body, due to the hex's).

Depending on how you define "mystic", other powers can easily fit as well, including chillstrike. Unless of course your talking about a charloten, playing wizard but with no real power.

_plucky wrote:

So, I'll just have to change the character a bit and play something that DOES get mixed up in combat, and doesn't do the utility stuff on the side as much, which is what all Wizards will be for the time being.

It's what all characters will be, not just wizards. Focus your feats on getting more skills and improving those skills rather then beefing up your offense. That appears to be what your after. Learn more rituals and actually make use of them when you can. Look for powers who's damage is a side effect of the actually effect of the spell. Just because Ray of enfeeblement didn't do HP damage in 3.5 doesn't mean it's necromantic energy coursing through your body having a harmful impact now is a bad thing. Why must you be useless in a fight in order to e able to roleplayer? How is dealing damage detrimental to a characters ability to roleplay a "mystic"? Why is calling upon a chill wind to freeze the very ground beneath your enemies a blaster effect because that cold that can flash freeze earth just happens to be damaging to the people who's feet are on the very ground being flash frozen?

_plucky wrote:

As for "changing the rules/system to prevent that from happening", changing the rules for everyone to prevent the behavior of a few is usually a method of last resort. Try to address the issue itself first.

If your already changing the rules though, keeping that factor in mind is not dipping into the last resort, it is merely factoring in a problem that, while you may claim is only a small few, was so prevalent on the boards as to appear as if it was how every game was played.

_plucky wrote:

All good questions, and the simple answer is "whatever the DM thinks fits the players game." There are so many solutions to this, that I would have to say that this part is a non-issue.

So, you think it is acceptable that in a system built for simplicity and balance, that added difficulties be added so that some people can play imbalanced characters? Kind of defeats the purposes of the designers intentions.

_plucky wrote:

Again, maybe this should be a 'system issue'. The classes are balanced as "striker, controller..." etc. etc. Basically, all classes are defined by their combat role. That in itself should show the restrictive nature of the classes. So, we can call it a 'system issue', and complain about the system, or call it a 'class issue', where the class has been pigeon holed into this category, instead of some other one.

See, I don't see this as a problem. The classes were defined by roles previously as well, being Tank, Divine Casters, Magic Users and Skill Monkeys. This wasn't an issue until it became officially acknowledged (combined with the wizards being brought down to reasonable levels). The only way this can be an issue is if your building your character based on class as part of your concept, rather then class as a means to matching your concept (I've seen someone say the role system sucks because he can't make a paladin that sneaks around and duel wields daggers and can't heal people and lets them die as per the raven queens ethos. What he really wanted was a rogue with religious aspects roleplayed in, which is entirely doable within the system if you don't define yourself by class. I'd also like to note that build was not really doable in 3.5 ether).

But I must admit, I may be misunderstanding what you mean by "restrictive nature".

_plucky wrote:

I do like this idea, and will give it some thought. Still, it is unfortunate that all choices are relegated to a few REALLY combat oriented spells. While finding some that have 'other uses' can make them utilitarian, overall they are still combat spells.

Well, the combat spells would all be combat related, they are defined as "attack powers" for a reason. Rituals and some utility spells (as well as cantrips) are what you use for non-combat magic, and there are skills, which are no longer overshadowed by magic and now actually have value.