Community

Sep 30, 2012 -- 5:20PM, Sesdun wrote:

Sep 30, 2012 -- 4:18PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Sep 30, 2012 -- 4:17PM, Sesdun wrote:

No, that they did not feel as wizards.

I'm curious on this tbh.

What exactly makes 4e Wizards not feel like Wizards?

From my player that liked wizards the most:

* They all felt like some kind of war-wizard, like some evocation/combat tuned specialist and creating other types of wizard specialisations was impossible.

* The AEDU mechanic that was the same for all classes made everyone and noone feel like a caster. Everyone had named spells they were casting. This eroded the magical feel. Spellcasters and non-spellcasters should be mechanically different.

* Since everything had to be the same between all classes, everything that differentiated spells from say, basic ranged attacks with a bow was stripped away..  so no somatic, verbal components etc.

* The 'spellbook' feature of the wizard class felt like a pasted on sticker, an afterthought, not something that was actually needed for spells. Also it only affected some spells and there was no learning of spells, it was all from that class power list.

* The spammable magic and AEDU system greatly changed the tempo and characteristics of the wizard in combat.

* That you were forced to have more attacks than utility abilities, even if you didnt want any attacks at all.

* Every spell was exactly equal to every other class power, just with different fluff. It created the impression that characters were all clones but with different illusions covering their abilities.

* Everything felt blatantly hard balanced. Everything you could do ended after a few rounds (thus most spells had a duration of like 10s). Rituals were all balanced in ways that did not make in-game sense and destroyed immersion. A created zombie would be a non-combat minion and you could only make one.. how necromancers with zombie hordes even exist is a mystery. Etc. etc. etc.

Well..  the list could be made much much longer...

My fighter players complained about similar things (that they felt like spellcasters not fighters etc.)

I answered the question...  but lets not turn this into a 4e is good/bad war.

I basically agree with nearly everything he said.

Sep 30, 2012 -- 5:55PM, Emerikol wrote:

Sep 30, 2012 -- 5:37PM, chaosfang wrote:

Compare that to the pre-4E version of Knock when all other factors are taken into consideration, and I'd say that the 4E Knock effectively has the power of the pre-4E Knock, but without having to bring in Anti-Magic to keep it from being usable against doors that PCs aren't supposed to unlock, and without having to make (some) Rogues feel inadequate for not being able to have a 101% success rate on unlocking doors.

In short: I really don't get why the 4E Wizard doesn't feel like a D&D Wizard.

I considered the 4e wizard to be a lot less flavorful.  Utility magic is what made a wizard interesting.  Using it in unusual ways during combat is part of the fun of wizardry.  I'd much rather reduce damage dramatically for the wizard that take away the magic of the class.  

I disliked everything having to be a ritual.  I'd prefer it be one of the options for a spell.  So you can memorize it for fast use or use the ritual otherwise.

 

That is actually why I like 13th Age's approach: you can either use a memorized/prepared spell in its weaker form (as is), or you can turn that spell into a ritual that expands the spell to fantastic proportions, as agreed upon by you and the DM.  Thus, you'd have codified rules for quick cast, and unusual/open-ended rulings for ritual cast.

Take 13th Age's Knock: it's a cantrip that lets you use your INT (and "unlocking magic"-related background) instead of DEX (and thieving-related background) for unlocking, so no inherent advantage.  But when you expend it as a ritual, an argument to making it auto-unlock doors and passageways can be made, or if it's a really seriously magic-warded or strong lock, an INT check to unlock the door at a lower-than-normal DC could be made instead.  There wouldn't be any Wands/Scrolls of Knock, and expending it as a ritual prevents you from using it until the next heal-up (which could be as long as four or five encounters [combat or otherwise]), so the open-endedness of the ritual does not render the party's lock picker [who could be anyone with high DEX and a rogue-ish background, although Rogues are most identifiable for taking the rogue-ish background] irrelevant, save for that one time when the Rogue really couldn't do much anyway, giving the Wizard a chance to shine.

Sep 30, 2012 -- 5:55PM, Emerikol wrote:

I considered the 4e wizard to be a lot less flavorful.

Sounds like a you problem. I had no problem flavoring anything I did in 4e.

You know, after 12 pages of arguing over what the fighter should be, it occurs to me that this topic might actually be better split into two threads:  one for(borrowing from 4E terminology for a second) heroic level complexity, and one for epic.  Not much has been accomplished in this thread other than to clearly establish that there are multiple goalposts in play here.  

Sep 30, 2012 -- 7:56PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Sep 30, 2012 -- 7:39PM, Emerikol wrote:

Do you think posts like this are going to make people take you seriously?

No more than having angry PMs sent to you when you disagree with someone, then another PM telling me they're ignoring my question.

Apparently I'm doing something wrong. I have a severe lack of angry PMs in my inbox.